12-28-2008, 06:07 PM
Of course the helmet classification of HRR is outdated - it was constructed over 30 years ago when there were far fewer helmets known than there are now! It does, however, have one major advantage still over attaching find sites to helmet types - each of the types that Robinson proposed were defined by specific characteristics. Now, I grant that you have to hunt through the book to extract them, but they are there - spelled out for you.
For me, the problem with calling something a 'Weisenau' (or whatever), is precisely what is such an animal? And what happens with the sub-types? What happens is that we get ever longer groups of names, with less and less clarity about what we are talking about. So, in what way is a "Montefortino-Canosa" different to a "Montefortino-somewhere else"? Even if you had a photograph of the item in front of you, it might be taken from an angle that will prevent you coming to the proper conclusion as to what your unknown sample is. A list of defined characteristics, however, eliminates that difficulty. We can't all work in museums where there are hoards of the things lying around in cases.
There is also a problem with the "one-offs". At Caerleon we have an "Imperial Gallic, Type J" - which seems to be unique in that it has a large angled brow guard as well as an angled neck guard (which is how Robinson separated and distinguished it from the preceding types). Is this unique? Was it a 'Friday-afternoon' job on the part of the armourer? Or are there many more out there somewhere that we just haven't found yet? And what about a 'type' where the provenance is unknown? That same IG helmet is supposed to have come from Hungary (Bregetio) - but I can trace it only as far back as 1913 and a collection in Vienna. Are we to call this the 'Bregetio Imperial Gallic' when we are not even sure if it came from there?
I would be the first to agree that we should revise and revisit the HRR classification, especially as so many more helmets (at least 500) are known now than was the case when he put his classification together. Some of HRR's opinions are now known to be incorrect. There is at least one helmet that he included twice, in two different categories (which means that the "Imperial Italic A" type doesn't actually exist!) We can ask the question is there, in fact, any such thing as an "Imperial Italic" group of helmets, particularly as so few of them seem to be known (we do have one more in Cardiff - but that has no provenance either).
I would opine, however, that any system (for classifying anything at all) that is based on defined characteristics is a superior system to one that depends so much on opinion and a comparison that may be difficult to make in sufficient detail to have any real meaning. Where the arguement should lie is in how we categorise such a system for maximum use. In other words, I completely agree with Mike B that a typology is a tool and it's up to people to make sure that the tool is as effective as is possible. Mike's further point that an on-line catalogue would be a decided advantage (because of its immediacy) is a valid one as well - which is what we are trying to do here on RAT. As he says, though, the major drawback is the issue of copyright for illustrative material. Thus far we are about 40% of the way there - and that's taken around 2 years to achieve!
Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)
For me, the problem with calling something a 'Weisenau' (or whatever), is precisely what is such an animal? And what happens with the sub-types? What happens is that we get ever longer groups of names, with less and less clarity about what we are talking about. So, in what way is a "Montefortino-Canosa" different to a "Montefortino-somewhere else"? Even if you had a photograph of the item in front of you, it might be taken from an angle that will prevent you coming to the proper conclusion as to what your unknown sample is. A list of defined characteristics, however, eliminates that difficulty. We can't all work in museums where there are hoards of the things lying around in cases.
There is also a problem with the "one-offs". At Caerleon we have an "Imperial Gallic, Type J" - which seems to be unique in that it has a large angled brow guard as well as an angled neck guard (which is how Robinson separated and distinguished it from the preceding types). Is this unique? Was it a 'Friday-afternoon' job on the part of the armourer? Or are there many more out there somewhere that we just haven't found yet? And what about a 'type' where the provenance is unknown? That same IG helmet is supposed to have come from Hungary (Bregetio) - but I can trace it only as far back as 1913 and a collection in Vienna. Are we to call this the 'Bregetio Imperial Gallic' when we are not even sure if it came from there?
I would be the first to agree that we should revise and revisit the HRR classification, especially as so many more helmets (at least 500) are known now than was the case when he put his classification together. Some of HRR's opinions are now known to be incorrect. There is at least one helmet that he included twice, in two different categories (which means that the "Imperial Italic A" type doesn't actually exist!) We can ask the question is there, in fact, any such thing as an "Imperial Italic" group of helmets, particularly as so few of them seem to be known (we do have one more in Cardiff - but that has no provenance either).
I would opine, however, that any system (for classifying anything at all) that is based on defined characteristics is a superior system to one that depends so much on opinion and a comparison that may be difficult to make in sufficient detail to have any real meaning. Where the arguement should lie is in how we categorise such a system for maximum use. In other words, I completely agree with Mike B that a typology is a tool and it's up to people to make sure that the tool is as effective as is possible. Mike's further point that an on-line catalogue would be a decided advantage (because of its immediacy) is a valid one as well - which is what we are trying to do here on RAT. As he says, though, the major drawback is the issue of copyright for illustrative material. Thus far we are about 40% of the way there - and that's taken around 2 years to achieve!
Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
