H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology

[jho]

Salvete,

First of all laudes to Jasper for resurrecting the forum and letting us continue this interesting discussion. I think that we are actually having three discussions in this thread at the same time which we may want to treat separately:

• the criteria on which any helmet typology should be based,

• what types and subtypes we would get applying such criteria, and

• what to call such types and subtypes?

With respect to the first issue, I do not believe that it will be possible to come up with a list of defined characteristics which will be applicable to ALL sorts of helmets. Rather I believe that the differentiation into the following main types:

(1) Montefortino and/or Jockey-cap Helmets

(2) Pseudo-Attic ("Cavalry") helmets

(3) Weisenau or "Imperial" helmets

(4) Masked Helmets

(5) Ridge Helmets

(6) Spangenhelme,

which is based on a mix of criteria, is sound and needs no revision, except that we have not yet catered for a small group of conical helmets traditionally associated with Roman archers:

• Dahovo, Bosnia - HRR, The Armour of Imperial Rome, Hoffiller, V. 1910-11: 'Oprema rimskoga vojnika u prvo doba carstva', Vjestnik Hrvatskoga Arheoloskoga Drustva (Zagreb) n.s. 11, 145-240 (p. 27) - Conical, bronze, 90 degree step about 2/3 to the back of the helmet, holes for aventail, cheekpieces inside the helmet (?), relief of Roman gods on the brow band, pearl strip edging
  
  Intercisa, Hungary - Szabo 1986, 'Le casque romain d'Intercisa - recente trouvaille du Danube', Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III, 421 - Conical, bronze, holes for aventail, on both sides two extra holes above the holes for the aventail, one above the other, for cheekpieces or strip, no decoration
  
  Karaagach, Bulgaria - Velkov, I. 1928-29: 'Neue Grabhügel aus Bulgarien', Bulletin de l'Institut d'Archéologie Bulgare 5, 13-55
  
  Bumbesti, Romania - Petculescu, L. and Gheorghe, P. 1979: 'Coiful roman de la Bumbesti', Studii si Cervetari de Istorie Veche 30, 603-6
  
  Breda - Bredase Akkers, 4000 jaar bewoningsgeschiedenis op de rand van zand en klei. C.W. Koot, R. Berkvens. RAM102 Breda 2004. ISBN: 90-5799-056-3 - conical, iron, constructed from 8 triangular plates riveted together, extra brow band (?) with holes for an aventail/lining (?), no decoration, dated by pottery to late 2nd/3rd century

which we may want to treat as a separate seventh (or eighth if you treat Montefortino and Jockey Cap as separate groups) group.

Therefore, I believe that we should treat each of those groups separately when trying to define criteria for subgroups within those groups.

But before we define such criteria, we may want to review whether it makes sense to define subgroups at all. After all, as has been said, any typology is just an instrument ultimately designed to draw conclusions with respect to dating or geographic, social or cultural context of the item.

To illustrate my point and to induce further discussion, I have made (rather crude) line drawings of some 50 plus Weisenau/Imperial helmets (which is far from including every known helmet of that type) and attempted to group them basically based on general form of the helmet bowl. The result is the following:

[url:1q1oscll]http://picasaweb.google.com/jho655/WeisenauHelmets?feat=directlink[/url]

In the document, the lines denote the general distinction between "Italic", "Gallic" and Guttmann or "Attic" types and the red areas clusters which may form potential subgroups. Many different subgroupings based on things like crest attachment, form of eyebrows etc. would be possible and everybody is invited to do his own grouping.

HOWEVER, the green circles denote helmets with a secure contextual dating in the Augustan period (note that I have not checked the dating on all helmets so there may be many more helmets from the Augustan period not so marked), i.e. all of these helmets are broadly contemporary. Now, what does that show us? It appears to show us that more or less ALL potential subtypes of Imperial Gallic helmets (large or small neck guard, flat or sloping neck guard, simple or full eyebrows etc.) were already present in the Augustan period and therefore any subgrouping based on those criteria is unlikely to produce much in terms of chronological information.

Finally, to also address the issue of what we call the babies, I am a strong proponent of the continental find spot based system. Why? Because I believe that it best fits the way that the human brain works (anybody who has ever seen the helmet from Niedermoenter will immediately know what a "Niedermoenter type helmet" looks like, but try to imagine an "ER-i-2B"). Secondly, I am a strong opponent of any system that would include assumptions with respect to dating or function. One of the problems of HRR's system is exactly that many of his "cavalry" helmets are now presumed to have been infantry helmets and many of his "sports" helmets may have actually been worn in combat. We still know very little in terms of function and chronology of helmets and the total number of known helmets, although vastly larger than at HRR's time, is still small. It has e.g. not unreasonably been claimed that both the Weisenau/Imperial and Hagenau/Coolus may have started their professional careers as cavalry helmets! Therefore any naming system should avoid including information which may make it obsolete with the very next find. Thirdly I am a strong opponent of any system that would involve numbers or letters, firstly for the reasons stated above and secondly because it would force us to give a number to every find whereas a find-spot based system will allow us to identify subgroups where possible (e.g. Weisenau-Niedermoenter) but leaves the option to bunch all of those helmets which may not (yet) fit into any specific subgroup together simply as "Weisenau" helmets.

Apologies for the long post but I find this thread extremely interesting.