01-07-2009, 03:16 PM
Now we're cooking here! This is just the sort of discussion that we should be having about this topic - maybe we can eventually reach some sort of concensus for a reasonable typology?
The 4th and 5th century helmets are indeed another kettle of scaled swimmy things! Vogt published a typology (see "Spangenhelme", RGZM, Mainz) that I know some people quarrel with. For wanting of something better, I've used this for the later pattern helmets that have been uploaded onto the database. There are difficulties with it, not least is his inclusion of what he calls 'special types' into several of the sub-groups. Another problem is that there are undoubtedly some helmets that should not be considered as being 'Roman' at all, being much too late (e.g. 6th CAD) and are more properly Merovingian. However, the design and characteristics of these later helmets are virtually the same as the late patterns that the Romans did use (and for which authentic dates exist), so perhaps they should still be included in some way, but with a note to the effect that they are developments of the Roman helmets, although not recognised as such?
I'm not convinced that it is always possible to distinguish between the Montefortino and the Coolus bowl shapes where the 'overlap' occurs, despite the fact that they have different origins. In a way this comes back to the discussion as to what should be included in a typology - should we be including things like where the helmets came from, who used them and when were they used? I would prefer to look only at the physical characteristics of the items. These other things are certainly of interest and will add to our knowledge as to how the helmets developed, etc but they will not help us to place the helmets into groups for recognition purposes.
Then there is the so-called "Coolus-Mannheim" type. The French seem to talk these up as a distinct type, a sort of 'heavy' Coolus (HRR doesn't mention them at all as a type). Michel Feugère in his book on Roman military equipment has a map (of France & Germany, p.72 in the English translation) showing where some 30 of these helmets came from - but frustratingly there are no further details. Some of these have undoubtedly been classified as Coolus helmets by HRR, but what about those that were not so treated?
We also have to be very careful about using a "one-off" helmet as a distinct type (even a sub-type). Yes, I know, I've made this point before but it is of some importance. If we include these marginal elements as distinct types, we end up with a very complicated classification - which is roughly where we are now!
The 4th and 5th century helmets are indeed another kettle of scaled swimmy things! Vogt published a typology (see "Spangenhelme", RGZM, Mainz) that I know some people quarrel with. For wanting of something better, I've used this for the later pattern helmets that have been uploaded onto the database. There are difficulties with it, not least is his inclusion of what he calls 'special types' into several of the sub-groups. Another problem is that there are undoubtedly some helmets that should not be considered as being 'Roman' at all, being much too late (e.g. 6th CAD) and are more properly Merovingian. However, the design and characteristics of these later helmets are virtually the same as the late patterns that the Romans did use (and for which authentic dates exist), so perhaps they should still be included in some way, but with a note to the effect that they are developments of the Roman helmets, although not recognised as such?
Quote:However, it is true that 'Monefortinos' acquire 'Coolus' characteristics and vice versa until the two are visually similar (see especially 'Montefortino "D" and 'Coolus' "D" - the latter probably even being made in Italian workshops according to R-R, because the re-inforcing peaks are of 'Italic' right-angle section), yet the observer can always distinguish between the two types of bowl, which is why R-R classified them as two distinct types.
I'm not convinced that it is always possible to distinguish between the Montefortino and the Coolus bowl shapes where the 'overlap' occurs, despite the fact that they have different origins. In a way this comes back to the discussion as to what should be included in a typology - should we be including things like where the helmets came from, who used them and when were they used? I would prefer to look only at the physical characteristics of the items. These other things are certainly of interest and will add to our knowledge as to how the helmets developed, etc but they will not help us to place the helmets into groups for recognition purposes.
Then there is the so-called "Coolus-Mannheim" type. The French seem to talk these up as a distinct type, a sort of 'heavy' Coolus (HRR doesn't mention them at all as a type). Michel Feugère in his book on Roman military equipment has a map (of France & Germany, p.72 in the English translation) showing where some 30 of these helmets came from - but frustratingly there are no further details. Some of these have undoubtedly been classified as Coolus helmets by HRR, but what about those that were not so treated?
We also have to be very careful about using a "one-off" helmet as a distinct type (even a sub-type). Yes, I know, I've made this point before but it is of some importance. If we include these marginal elements as distinct types, we end up with a very complicated classification - which is roughly where we are now!
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
