H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology

[caiusbeerquitius]

There were Romans before there was Caesar.

Noo!? REALLY!?

As I said above, there is a working typology for the Greek, Hellenistic and Republican period. It could be better, but it works. I think it is utterly impossible to identify e.g. helmets from the punic wars period as "Roman". They might be from anywhere in Italy. That´s why I suggested Caesar as a starting point. One could also take Sulla / Marius, but IMO the helmet findings from this period are hard to be identified and scarce.

There may also be questions concerning the Agen-Port types (why are these considered together? They are really very different in appearence - whatever their origins.)

That´s what I meant with

Also: What to do with the eastern and western Celtic helmet traditions?

There is? Then why are we bothering? Surely Republilcan Rome is easy - just M or C (for infantry at least). This illustrates just some of the difficulty of attempting a typology based on dates. Concentrate on the physical characteristics of the helmets - that's all we need to consider. Anything else is a red herring. I repeat - we do not have reliable dates in the majority of cases and any tytpology must work for ALL CASES!

Are we talking about helmets that are "Roman" or about helmets that "were used by the Romans". If the latter, we´ll have loads of work for anything earlier than the 1st c. BCE... ^^
Of course you are right with this statement. Some helmets are dated absolutely, though. For the Niederbieber types e.g. we also have a quite good idea in which period they were used. Same goes for the Mont. Rieti, Buggenum and Mannheim tpes (See: G. Waurick, Helme in Caesars Heer, Mainz, 1990.) It gets quite spongy for the Weisenau and Hagenau types, though.
But, as such, I´d absolutely agree with a typology based on physical characteristica.