01-10-2007, 05:20 PM
Personally I like the sort of classification system proposed by JMC Toynbee a few years ago. I would not be comfortable with exactly the catagories he proposed (we know so much more about helmets these days) but I think that that type of system has much more flexibility to it.
Anyone not familiar with Toynbee's attempt to create a system of classification for Roman helmets should take a look at the Journal of Roman Studies No. 29 (1939). If I recall correctly (it's some years since I read it) the article was entitled something like 'A decorated Roman helmet and other items from Worthing'. The article also contains a much fuller description of the cavalry type 'H' helmet from Worthing (also these days classified as a 'Guisborough' type) than Robinson gives.
Crispvs
Anyone not familiar with Toynbee's attempt to create a system of classification for Roman helmets should take a look at the Journal of Roman Studies No. 29 (1939). If I recall correctly (it's some years since I read it) the article was entitled something like 'A decorated Roman helmet and other items from Worthing'. The article also contains a much fuller description of the cavalry type 'H' helmet from Worthing (also these days classified as a 'Guisborough' type) than Robinson gives.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
