12-04-2009, 10:23 PM
Just when you thought it was safe to go to the database!
I strongly suspected that we would eventually get to this point. It was worth a try (even if I started off very much with tongue in cheek – but I was interested to see how this approach would pan out in practice). Let me try and explain a bit here about how we use the mnemonic system with samian pottery and how this might interact with our helmet classification problem.
Below is a photograph of a small portion of a rim of a samian bowl (for those interested it is a Dr.37 bowl from ‘Southern Gaul’, i.e. the region around the small (today) town of La Graufesenque in the Puy de Dome (not far from Cleremont Ferrand). The ‘Dr’ stands for “Dragendorff” – the bloke who largely typed these vessels. The ovolo frieze is the series of looped shapes at the top. For this, the mnemonic group would be: 2PPRRUTR = a double-banded (2), plain-bordered (P) ovolo with a plain (P) tongue on the right side ®, whose tip leans to the right ® and which is formed as one (U, i.e. ‘unitary’), with a trident tip (TR).
[attachment=0:29fnywbl]<!-- ia0 Ovolo, 1.JPG<!-- ia0 [/attachment:29fnywbl]
There are, in fact, quite a few examples of ovolos which would have exactly the same mnemonic group as this – because the sequence carries no information as to size. You can only determine this by direct comparison. What the mnemonic does allow you do is to perform a search for this particular set of characteristics, which you can then go through and compare with your piece of pottery. In this particular case, the ovolo in question was used by a group of potters all of whom were called “Germanus”.
Note that we already know that the bowl is a Dr.37 – the mnemonic doesn’t tell us that at all. So we are not using it to type the vessel but to tell us what the likely name of the potter is. Our problem with the helmets is somewhat different. We can assign characteristics for some 20+ fields and produce a mnemonic sequence as for the ovolos. However, if you do this, you will find that the vast majority of these are going to be identical for each helmet design – in other words we haven’t gained a thing! We can tell what major type the wretched helmet is just by looking at the thing, can’t we?
Where I think HRR was wrong is that he tried to come up with too detailed a system which was based on only a comparatively small number of examples. Take the ‘Montefortino’ type, for example. HRR said that there were six sub-types there but I would say that there are only three at the most:
(a) Type Alpha – bulbous and decorated
(b) Type Beta – bulbous and plain
© Type Gamma – conical and plain.
I would characterise all these as “early Celtic types”. The HRR D and E types are really Coolus (hemispherical with or without brow guards) and the HRR F type also sounds like a M’fortino 'B'. Unlike HRR, we now have over 250 of these known, the vast majority of which are A, B and C HRR types – so it is now quite possible to establish exactly what types there are and what their characteristics are.
You can do the same for the bronze “Coolus” type (“late Celtic”, perhaps). HRR identifies no less than 9 sub-groups but I would say that there were just four (I'm not including the 'Coolus-Mannheim' type here - some people regard them as a sub-group, others as a completely different type):
(a) Type Alpha – simple hemispherical bowl, no brow guard or plume holder fitted.
(b) Type Beta – hemispherical bowl, applied crest knob, angled section brow guard
© Type Gamma – as for Type B, but with a solid bar brow guard
(d) Type Delta – hemispherical bowl, etc but with a ‘step-down’ at the rear in the occipital region.
Such considerations as the width of the neck guard and whether it curves in or meets the bowl at right angles cannot really be supported as being discrete ‘types’ unless you have far more of them to base this on. We have fewer than 60 in the DB and the majority of these are HRR Type E (around 30%) – and some of these even are Montefortinos that were shifted from that category to the Coolus section!
If you use the mnemonic for the IG types, they nearly all come out the same (and there are even fewer of those than the Coolus types as well!) They are all iron (except Type H – bronze), have ridged occipital regions, stepped neck guards and ‘eyebrow’ decorations to the front of the helmet bowl. The other variations mentioned by HRR are just concerned with the angle of the neck and brow guards. Again, because the numbers of each HRR type are so small (in single figures in all cases) it is difficult to see how we can say that they are ‘types’. It could be argued that the only two real ‘types’ here are concerned with whether the ear protection is applied or flanged out from the bowl. An awful lot of the variations noted by HRR are based on an opinion and not on an actual characteristic, i.e. they are subjective rather than being objective, e.g. “The 'eyebrows' have been given a more elaborate treatment.” – “more” elaborate is a debateable opinion when only a few are known. For the type F, HRR says: “On one sample, the brow-band is a strip of multi-reeded silver.” You cannot, surely, base a ‘type’ on one observed example, especially for such a minor decorative feature?
Are the Imperial Italics really a separate group, or another (cheaper) sub-group of the IG? (Even the cheapness is arguable – look at the Type H and the work that went into the decoration there!) Here the only real variant is what they are made of (iron or bronze). Irrespective of where they came from, are they not just a minor sub-type of the IG helmets? OK, I admit that one can be argued at length.
The question was asked as to what the purpose of constructing a mnemonic sequence was. Actually, I don’t think that there would be much purpose served by doing this. It is an interesting exercise and it might serve to point out what really were the criteria that should be used in typing these items. I think that HRR basically got it right and that we can tinker with this to some degree to try and simplify it in the light of the increased knowledge that we now possess.
I strongly suspected that we would eventually get to this point. It was worth a try (even if I started off very much with tongue in cheek – but I was interested to see how this approach would pan out in practice). Let me try and explain a bit here about how we use the mnemonic system with samian pottery and how this might interact with our helmet classification problem.
Below is a photograph of a small portion of a rim of a samian bowl (for those interested it is a Dr.37 bowl from ‘Southern Gaul’, i.e. the region around the small (today) town of La Graufesenque in the Puy de Dome (not far from Cleremont Ferrand). The ‘Dr’ stands for “Dragendorff” – the bloke who largely typed these vessels. The ovolo frieze is the series of looped shapes at the top. For this, the mnemonic group would be: 2PPRRUTR = a double-banded (2), plain-bordered (P) ovolo with a plain (P) tongue on the right side ®, whose tip leans to the right ® and which is formed as one (U, i.e. ‘unitary’), with a trident tip (TR).
[attachment=0:29fnywbl]<!-- ia0 Ovolo, 1.JPG<!-- ia0 [/attachment:29fnywbl]
There are, in fact, quite a few examples of ovolos which would have exactly the same mnemonic group as this – because the sequence carries no information as to size. You can only determine this by direct comparison. What the mnemonic does allow you do is to perform a search for this particular set of characteristics, which you can then go through and compare with your piece of pottery. In this particular case, the ovolo in question was used by a group of potters all of whom were called “Germanus”.
Note that we already know that the bowl is a Dr.37 – the mnemonic doesn’t tell us that at all. So we are not using it to type the vessel but to tell us what the likely name of the potter is. Our problem with the helmets is somewhat different. We can assign characteristics for some 20+ fields and produce a mnemonic sequence as for the ovolos. However, if you do this, you will find that the vast majority of these are going to be identical for each helmet design – in other words we haven’t gained a thing! We can tell what major type the wretched helmet is just by looking at the thing, can’t we?
Where I think HRR was wrong is that he tried to come up with too detailed a system which was based on only a comparatively small number of examples. Take the ‘Montefortino’ type, for example. HRR said that there were six sub-types there but I would say that there are only three at the most:
(a) Type Alpha – bulbous and decorated
(b) Type Beta – bulbous and plain
© Type Gamma – conical and plain.
I would characterise all these as “early Celtic types”. The HRR D and E types are really Coolus (hemispherical with or without brow guards) and the HRR F type also sounds like a M’fortino 'B'. Unlike HRR, we now have over 250 of these known, the vast majority of which are A, B and C HRR types – so it is now quite possible to establish exactly what types there are and what their characteristics are.
You can do the same for the bronze “Coolus” type (“late Celtic”, perhaps). HRR identifies no less than 9 sub-groups but I would say that there were just four (I'm not including the 'Coolus-Mannheim' type here - some people regard them as a sub-group, others as a completely different type):
(a) Type Alpha – simple hemispherical bowl, no brow guard or plume holder fitted.
(b) Type Beta – hemispherical bowl, applied crest knob, angled section brow guard
© Type Gamma – as for Type B, but with a solid bar brow guard
(d) Type Delta – hemispherical bowl, etc but with a ‘step-down’ at the rear in the occipital region.
Such considerations as the width of the neck guard and whether it curves in or meets the bowl at right angles cannot really be supported as being discrete ‘types’ unless you have far more of them to base this on. We have fewer than 60 in the DB and the majority of these are HRR Type E (around 30%) – and some of these even are Montefortinos that were shifted from that category to the Coolus section!
If you use the mnemonic for the IG types, they nearly all come out the same (and there are even fewer of those than the Coolus types as well!) They are all iron (except Type H – bronze), have ridged occipital regions, stepped neck guards and ‘eyebrow’ decorations to the front of the helmet bowl. The other variations mentioned by HRR are just concerned with the angle of the neck and brow guards. Again, because the numbers of each HRR type are so small (in single figures in all cases) it is difficult to see how we can say that they are ‘types’. It could be argued that the only two real ‘types’ here are concerned with whether the ear protection is applied or flanged out from the bowl. An awful lot of the variations noted by HRR are based on an opinion and not on an actual characteristic, i.e. they are subjective rather than being objective, e.g. “The 'eyebrows' have been given a more elaborate treatment.” – “more” elaborate is a debateable opinion when only a few are known. For the type F, HRR says: “On one sample, the brow-band is a strip of multi-reeded silver.” You cannot, surely, base a ‘type’ on one observed example, especially for such a minor decorative feature?
Are the Imperial Italics really a separate group, or another (cheaper) sub-group of the IG? (Even the cheapness is arguable – look at the Type H and the work that went into the decoration there!) Here the only real variant is what they are made of (iron or bronze). Irrespective of where they came from, are they not just a minor sub-type of the IG helmets? OK, I admit that one can be argued at length.
The question was asked as to what the purpose of constructing a mnemonic sequence was. Actually, I don’t think that there would be much purpose served by doing this. It is an interesting exercise and it might serve to point out what really were the criteria that should be used in typing these items. I think that HRR basically got it right and that we can tinker with this to some degree to try and simplify it in the light of the increased knowledge that we now possess.
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
