01-09-2009, 09:15 AM
I do not want to appear a spoil sport and I do find this thread very interesting but I still believe that any general type of typology which would attempt to cover all sorts of Roman helmets based on certain typological criteria would be destined for failure.
The very broad typology cited by Christian Koepfer:
is certainly useful because these type can broadly be associated with a chronology. We may want to discuss some fine tuning, e.g. adding sub-categories to the Weisenau type helmets (e.g. Weisenau with or without eyebrows or with or without brow reinforcements (such as the Weisenau-Guttmann helmets or the Italic A) and changing some categories to subcategories (e.g. Montefortino-Buggenum, Coolus-Mannheim, Weisenau-Niederbieber etc.).
But any subcategories below those general categories in my opinion will be (a) unnecessary with respect to many categories and (b) will have to be based on different qualities for each category.
For e.g. there are certain indications that the thickness of the material may have a chronological or functional relevance with respect to certain helmet types (e.g. a possible tendency of Niederbieber helmets to become thinner over time, a distinction between heavy and light Mannheim helmets), but it may not be relevant to other categories (e.g. the Weisenau helmets).
With respect to the category most dear to most RATers, the Weisenau helmets, these certainly have many unique features which could be used for a typology (presence/absence or form of eyebrows, ear protections, decorative rivets, size and slope of neck guard etc.) but it currently appears very difficult to derive any chronological from these and this exactly is the problem with HRR's work, namely that it assumes a linear development of these features over time (e.g. increased size and slope of neck guard) which is not borne out by the few dated examples we have. Again, I invite everybody to look at these three completely different "Imperial Gallic" helmets, all dated broadly within one generation (around the birth of Christ):
Still, just for the fun of it, I would propose the following slight variation of Christian Koepfer's typology:
(1) Montefortino Helmets
(1.1) "classic Montefortino" ("Helme mit Wellenranke")
(1.2) Montefortino - Buggenum (no decoration)
(2) Jockey-cap Helmets
(2.1) Mannheim
(2.1.1) "light" Mannheim
(2.1.2) "heavy" Mannheim
(2.2) Hagenau
(3) Pseudo-Attic helmets
(3.1) Weiler
(3.2) Koblenz-Bubenheim
(3.3) Witcham Gravel?
(3.4) Guisborough
(3.5) Worthing (see also type 5)
(4) Weisenau helmets
(4.1) Weisenau-Mainz helmets (with eyebrows and brow reinforcement)
[subcategories to be discussed, potentially the form of crest attachment may be relevant]
(4.2) Weisenau-Cremona helmets (w/o eyebrows but with brow reinforcement)
(4.2.1) "simple" helmets (most Imperial Italic types such as Kiel, Cremona)
(4.2.1) Krefeld/Niedermönter helmets (with decorative applied cross banding)
(4.2.1) Hebron/Theilenhofen helmets (with "functional" applied cross banding)
(4.3) Weisenau-Guttmann helmets (w/o eyebrows or brow reinforcement)
(4.4) Weisenau-Niederbieber
(4.4.1) [possibly] "heavy" types
(4.4.2) [possibly] light types (e.g. Rainau-Buch, although it has recently been suggested that this was not a functional helmet at all but rather intended as decoration for a statue!)
(4.5) Weisenau-Heddernheim
(5.) Masked Helmets
(5.1) Pseudo-Attic helmets with cheek pieces and separate mask (Kalkriese)
(5.2) Pseudo-Attic helmets with a "low" brow (Nijmegen)
(5.2.1) type Nijmegen
(5.2.2) type Worthing
(5.3) all other helmets with face mask
(the difference to 5.2 being the attachment of the mask higher up the head than the brow which may make them unsuitable for combat use)
(5.3.1) [subcategories already developed by Junkelmann]
(6.) Ridge Helmets
(6.1) one piece bowl (Fernpass)
(6.2) two piece bowl
(6.3) four piece
(6.4) six piece
[subcategories could be developed based on the presence or absence of a crest, the form and attachment of cheek pieces etc.]
(7.) Spangenhelme
[subcategories already developed by M. Vogt.]
The tricky part will be the development of subcategories for the Weisenau-Mainz helmets.
Also, we have not even started discussion on cheek pieces!
The very broad typology cited by Christian Koepfer:
Quote:Montefortino
(Buggenum?)
Mannheim (Jockey-cap)
Weiler /Koblenz-Bubenheim
Hagenau (Coolus)
Weisenau (Imp-Gal and Imp-Ital)
Niederbieber
Heddernheim
Pfrondorf
Worthing
(Mask-Helmets: "Straubing?")
Guisborough / Theilenhofen
Deir-el-Medineh
Intercisa (several)
Burgh Castle
is certainly useful because these type can broadly be associated with a chronology. We may want to discuss some fine tuning, e.g. adding sub-categories to the Weisenau type helmets (e.g. Weisenau with or without eyebrows or with or without brow reinforcements (such as the Weisenau-Guttmann helmets or the Italic A) and changing some categories to subcategories (e.g. Montefortino-Buggenum, Coolus-Mannheim, Weisenau-Niederbieber etc.).
But any subcategories below those general categories in my opinion will be (a) unnecessary with respect to many categories and (b) will have to be based on different qualities for each category.
For e.g. there are certain indications that the thickness of the material may have a chronological or functional relevance with respect to certain helmet types (e.g. a possible tendency of Niederbieber helmets to become thinner over time, a distinction between heavy and light Mannheim helmets), but it may not be relevant to other categories (e.g. the Weisenau helmets).
With respect to the category most dear to most RATers, the Weisenau helmets, these certainly have many unique features which could be used for a typology (presence/absence or form of eyebrows, ear protections, decorative rivets, size and slope of neck guard etc.) but it currently appears very difficult to derive any chronological from these and this exactly is the problem with HRR's work, namely that it assumes a linear development of these features over time (e.g. increased size and slope of neck guard) which is not borne out by the few dated examples we have. Again, I invite everybody to look at these three completely different "Imperial Gallic" helmets, all dated broadly within one generation (around the birth of Christ):
- Imperial Gallic A from Nijmegen with its crude "Gallic" eyebrows,
fully developed Imperial Gallic from Oberaden, and
Imperial Gallic with a large strongly sloping neck guard from Tenedo/Zurzach (no Robinson type either).
Still, just for the fun of it, I would propose the following slight variation of Christian Koepfer's typology:
(1) Montefortino Helmets
(1.1) "classic Montefortino" ("Helme mit Wellenranke")
(1.2) Montefortino - Buggenum (no decoration)
(2) Jockey-cap Helmets
(2.1) Mannheim
(2.1.1) "light" Mannheim
(2.1.2) "heavy" Mannheim
(2.2) Hagenau
(3) Pseudo-Attic helmets
(3.1) Weiler
(3.2) Koblenz-Bubenheim
(3.3) Witcham Gravel?
(3.4) Guisborough
(3.5) Worthing (see also type 5)
(4) Weisenau helmets
(4.1) Weisenau-Mainz helmets (with eyebrows and brow reinforcement)
[subcategories to be discussed, potentially the form of crest attachment may be relevant]
(4.2) Weisenau-Cremona helmets (w/o eyebrows but with brow reinforcement)
(4.2.1) "simple" helmets (most Imperial Italic types such as Kiel, Cremona)
(4.2.1) Krefeld/Niedermönter helmets (with decorative applied cross banding)
(4.2.1) Hebron/Theilenhofen helmets (with "functional" applied cross banding)
(4.3) Weisenau-Guttmann helmets (w/o eyebrows or brow reinforcement)
(4.4) Weisenau-Niederbieber
(4.4.1) [possibly] "heavy" types
(4.4.2) [possibly] light types (e.g. Rainau-Buch, although it has recently been suggested that this was not a functional helmet at all but rather intended as decoration for a statue!)
(4.5) Weisenau-Heddernheim
(5.) Masked Helmets
(5.1) Pseudo-Attic helmets with cheek pieces and separate mask (Kalkriese)
(5.2) Pseudo-Attic helmets with a "low" brow (Nijmegen)
(5.2.1) type Nijmegen
(5.2.2) type Worthing
(5.3) all other helmets with face mask
(the difference to 5.2 being the attachment of the mask higher up the head than the brow which may make them unsuitable for combat use)
(5.3.1) [subcategories already developed by Junkelmann]
(6.) Ridge Helmets
(6.1) one piece bowl (Fernpass)
(6.2) two piece bowl
(6.3) four piece
(6.4) six piece
[subcategories could be developed based on the presence or absence of a crest, the form and attachment of cheek pieces etc.]
(7.) Spangenhelme
[subcategories already developed by M. Vogt.]
The tricky part will be the development of subcategories for the Weisenau-Mainz helmets.
Also, we have not even started discussion on cheek pieces!
Regards,
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
