H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology

[caiusbeerquitius]

The Dragendorf 'classification' is entirely visual and depends on simple shape comparison. It is also not exhaustive, as there are 'supplementary' classifications due to Curle, Ritterling, Webster, Ludovici, etc for forms that Dragendorff didn't know about! In short, 'samian' pottery is a far simpler proposition than what we are faced with here for helmets.

That´s not what I meant. I meant applying a simple number to the helmets / helmet types. As soon as a helmet is a double add a/b .
Worked nicely for the Guttmann collection.

[Caratacus]

That´s not what I meant. I meant applying a simple number to the helmets / helmet types. As soon as a helmet is a double add a/b .

Yes, I do see what you mean. However, this will only work for small numbers of a particular type if you use an alphabetical system. If numbers are used instead, then you can add any number you like to a category. If I have understood you correctly what you are suggesting isn't too far removed from what we have at present (Coolus, A, B, C, etc). We still have to divide the helmets up according to their characteristics, working from the gross to the fine.

There's another one very much like it in Vienna Mike - albeit with applied cross-bracing.

Can you give me a more specific reference for this one? It may be that we already have it in the DB. If it isn't one known to me, I'd very much like to chase it up. This does, however, indicate the difficulty that we have. Does "very much like it" indicate that it's the same type, or merely a variation (again) because of the cross-bracing?

I think the most important groups would be the period indeed, wouldn't it?

The problem here is getting an accurate date (sometimes even a very rough one)! Frequently the date ascribed for the item depends on its 'style' - it's not often that there is anything that gives us a specific date for an item (e.g. a coin or an historic event - such as the destruction of Pompeii in AD 79). Then (and this is most important) there is a considerable overlap - i.e. different types of helmet were in use at the same time. These things were built to last! There's an IG in the British Museum that had four different owners. If they all served their full hitches, then this item could have been 100 years old when lost!

Any system that was put into place would have to have universal application. It's no good having one system for the Republican period and another for the Imperial one. That would be too confusing. The discussion continues!

Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hello All

I enter this thread with some nervousness as I know nothing about the area under discussion.

However, it's an important issue for all sorts of reasons and I'd love to contribute. I don't know whether the following will add to or detract from serious discussion, but I hope it may add.

What about a clear typology like Dragendorff´s for terra sigillata:
[url:3e8qri8x]http://www.potsherd.uklinux.net/atlas/types/sigillata/index.php?more=DR37[/url]

I followed caiustarquitius' link and found it thought-provoking. Those who have already inspected the link know it is styled "Database of Terra sigillata forms", where the whole gallery can be displayed according to Typology, Class, Form or Date of introduction. I'd invite readers to have a play with caiustarquitius' link, then inspect the links I'll give below, which I found on the "Hetman Militaria, Rome, Helmets" page ([url:3e8qri8x]http://www.hetmanmilitaria.com/en/index.php?id=20[/url]). I was directed there from another RAT thread in my (wise or otherwise) quest for knowledge of the "Roman Attic Helmet".

I was struck by the similarities between the Hetman diagrams and the various displays of the Potsherd Atlas' Terra Sigillata Database and I think they might have a use in the process of creating the tool you want, although not as the tool itself. See Caratacus' point:

The Dragendorf 'classification' is entirely visual and depends on simple shape comparison. It is also not exhaustive, as there are 'supplementary' classifications due to Curle, Ritterling, Webster, Ludovici, etc for forms that Dragendorff didn't know about! In short, 'samian' pottery is a far simpler proposition than what we are faced with here for helmets.

In addition to (certainly not replacing) the existing R.A. Helmet Database, a database in the Potsherd Atlas / Hetman diagrams form might (I stress "might" - I've no prior experience to assert "will") be a useful mapping device.

As to the ultimate "Catalogue Label" assigned to each item I have no useful input but I do have some observations. It does seem less helpful to assign labels to helmets according to their presumed user. Form and decoration, however, seem fairly sensible definers whether of pottery or helmets. Both of these respond to function and taste; and functions and tastes sit well on timelines. Metals and manufacturing methods are going to vary with date as well as location of both materials and producers. And vary also, I suspect, with attitudes (i.e. traditional/progressive) toward design and materials.

Anyhow, the links to the Hetman diagrams:

(1) [url:3e8qri8x]http://www.hetmanmilitaria.com/images/produkty/id49_1_b.jpg[/url]
(2) [url:3e8qri8x]http://www.hetmanmilitaria.com/images/produkty/id50_1_b.jpg[/url]; and
(3) A bit of a "whoopsie" with the direction of the dates: [url:3e8qri8x]http://www.hetmanmilitaria.com/images/produkty/id51_1_b.jpg[/url].

Hope this adds something.

Cheers and good fortune! It's a worthy project here.

Howard / SPC

[Magnus]

I don't think you need an accurate date to classify a helmet as belonging to a certain period of roman history. "Early imperial" for example encompasses enough of a space of time to give a clear idea of when a helmet was used.

[Caratacus]

I don't think you need an accurate date to classify a helmet as belonging to a certain period of roman history. "Early imperial" for example encompasses enough of a space of time to give a clear idea of when a helmet was used.

Yes, I can see that. I didn't really mean that a given helmet should (or could) be pinned down to just a few years. However, there is obviously often a considerable overlap in use of the various types. Metal was a valuable commodity and a helmet could continue in use many years after its manufacture. We see dates given for Coolus type helmets ranging from the 1st CBC to the 1st CAD and during the second half of this period we are also seeing the so-called "Imperial Gallic" types coming into use. My point was that a date - per se - isn't a useful basis for establishing a typology - when (a) more than one type occupies the same time period or (b) when the period/date of the helmet isn't known with any accuracy. I repeat that a typology must work under all circumstances, not just when we know some of the information in some of the cases. So, if a 'Coolus' and an 'Imperial Gallic' are both dated to the "1st century AD", we can't use "Early Imperial" as a type designation for two helmets that are clearly very different, can we?

Form and decoration, however, seem fairly sensible definers whether of pottery or helmets.

I can tentatively agree with this statement. There are clearly differences in form between the types that Robinson used and within those forms there are also differences in what we might call 'decoration'. I suppose the question arises as to whether a given 'decoration' is of any significance as to a type?

I work on a regular basis with 'samian' pottery (mainly decorated, but also plainware). There are roughly 100 common 'types', which differ as to shape/form (designated by "author-number", e.g. Dr.37, Dr.29, Curle 11). However, once you get past the shape of the pot, you get the decorative features, both figurative and non-fugurative (the latter often abstract) designs. These are described by other authors (e.g. Hermet, Oswald, Rogers, Mees) and there are thousands of the things (literally - around 5,000 all together). These, however, are not 'types' - they are merely used to describe the designs that appear on the vessels. The types are the shapes and these are basically only of one characterstic. When we move on to helmets we have a very different situation. The number of actual types is fairly small (far smaller than the samian types) but the variations within those types leading to sub-types is quite large (have a look at the helmet catalogue page on RAT and you will see how many there are.)

The database you quoted uses the pot shape as a search item (although you can narrow it down by specifying 'decorated' or 'plain' and you can also include a date range, e.g. 'Hadrianic'). Would that we had something like that for helmets!

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi again

I'd meant to have my 4 cents worth and nip out again, but Caractacus' last post finishes on an interesting note.

The database you quoted uses the pot shape as a search item (although you can narrow it down by specifying 'decorated' or 'plain' and you can also include a date range, e.g. 'Hadrianic'). Would that we had something like that for helmets!

Unfortunately, to proceed, I'm going to have to betray my ignorance further. Are there texts, or any sources, that examine roman helmet manufacture particularly? I make an assumption that there were a number of forms of "block" (I don't know if that's the correct term - I mean whatever the solid object was over which the metal was shaped). I'm also making an assumption (since artisans seem to learn their trades by mastering the previously tried-and-proven) that there would have been a limited number of such forms. You can probably see where I'm heading.

Also (more ignorance and referrals to sources happily accepted) were there mechanical means of helmet production at any stage of the periods to be covered? I mean, were all helmet forms (not decoration) manually beaten, were some stamped/pressed from hot sheet metal, were any spun?

So much to learn - so little time.

Cheers

Howard / SPC

[marcos]

An observation about attempt to classify roman military helmet .
While in ancient times there was a clear classification for gladiatoral helmets , the some wasn't for military helmets .

As we all know , we never find in classic sources some mention to a definite type of helmet, but only generically to the helemet.

The attempt to make now a clasification is thus forced , just to follow an our own exigence of modern men, and therefore it will be always hard and never accurattely. Often we will have difiiculties to put into it an hlemet or another.

I dont' t know how much right is this attempt .

[Caratacus]

Also (more ignorance and referrals to sources happily accepted) were there mechanical means of helmet production at any stage of the periods to be covered? I mean, were all helmet forms (not decoration) manually beaten, were some stamped/pressed from hot sheet metal, were any spun?

It depends on the metal from which the helmet was made. Montefortino helmets could be cast (bronze) and then worked on afterwards as to, for example, decorations and also the 'knocking back' of the rims to thicken them. The Coolus type of helmet - sheet bronze - seems to have been spun (in some cases the circular spin marks can be seen) as well as formed by being hammered over a former of some sort (possibly a suitably shaped wooden block - like those my mother used to use for making hats!) Iron as a metal isn't soft enough to be worked in this way (by spinning), so the Imperial series of helmets would have been made by hammering over a former.

Are there texts, or any sources, that examine roman helmet manufacture particularly?

I don't know of anything that examines this question as such, but there are volumes devoted to helmets (such as the famous H R Robinson one, and also the Junkelmann series on the Guttmann collection and Angelo Bottini's monumental work - of which he was the editor - on ancient helmets, published by RGZM at Mainz) that include mentiion of the methods of helmet manufacture.

The attempt to make now a clasification is thus forced, just to follow an our own exigence of modern men, and therefore it will be always hard and never accurately. Often we will have difiiculties to put into it an helmet or another.

Well, if we don't try, we are loosing out on a lot of fun, for one thing! Of course (to be serious) all such classifications are forced to a degree. The Romans had no idea that they were making a Dr.37 bowl - but they were making something with a distinctive shape that they recognised because we find tiles scratched with a roster of the number of pots of a particular shape that were fired together in the kilm (the potters often worked together as sort of cummunes - firing thousands of vessels at one go, so they had to have some way of identifying who had made what).

Things such as pottery vessels were made in certain shapes, as were other things such as brooches, belt plates, glass vessels, etc. etc. Helmets were no exception. New designs were tried out and were probably circularised throughout the army. I have records of the service postings of centurions that show some of them had served in as many as 15 different legions - that's half the Roman Army! Why? I suspect that some of these characters at least were moving around the army, disseminating information on tactics and possibly equipment. New types of helmet (e.g. with the two iron cross-braces over the crown) may have been included in this. The fact remains that - even though our designations may be at fault - the Romans (and other civilisations before and after them) made things in certain ways and with recognisable characteristics. In establishing a typology all we are doing is identifying what these were.

Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi Caratacus

Many thanks for your help there. I'll follow up those names although Robinson's I might have to sneak out of a library under my coat - IF I can find a library with it.

Pity wood tends not to age too gracefully - it's be brilliant if someone stumbled over a bunch of formers one day. The stuff of dreams - sigh.

Again, many thanks!!

Howard / SPC

[marcos]

the Romans (and other civilisations before and after them) made things in certain ways and with recognisable characteristics. In establishing a typology all we are doing is identifying what these were.

Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)

yes, of course; I completely agree on that.
I don't want to say that this classification is unusefull or wrong (apologize for my bad english :oops: ) , but just that , because it didn't exist in ancient time , each type of classification always will have some "black point".
Anyhow , there is a nice catalogation of celtic sword of the British Library. Do you know it? It wolud be a fine source of ideas.

[Caratacus]

Oh yes, Marcos, there will always be your 'black spot', because we can never be sure that we have all the evidence. It's rather like studying fossils and looking for that elusive 'missing link'. Just because we haven't found it doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Where there is an error is in assuming that the typology is somehow set in stone, that we know everything there is to know about a given artefact. Any such typology is only a guide and we must always recognise that it can be altered once new evidence comes in. In a way it's the same as saying that a scientific theory is 'only' a theory and imagining that it cannot be altered. Newston's Law of Gravity was superceded by the Einstein view of gravity because new information came to hand.

Hey - there's nothing wrong with your English if I can understand it! It's certainly way better than my Italian! lol:

Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)

[Peroni]

Oh yes, Marcos, there will always be your 'black spot', because we can never be sure that we have all the evidence. It's rather like studying fossils and looking for that elusive 'missing link'. Just because we haven't found it doesn't mean that it isn't there.

And I have recently seen photographs of that very 'missing link' helmet!! (cavalry, & as yet un-published) It's a real mix of styles and uses decoration seen on many infantry and cavalry helmets all on the one piece! It's a stonker!!

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

And I have recently seen photographs of that very 'missing link' helmet!! (cavalry, & as yet un-published) It's a real mix of styles and uses decoration seen on many infantry and cavalry helmets all on the one piece! It's a stonker!!

Any sneak previews possible or must we wait for a coming publication??

Cheers

Howard / SPC

[Peroni]

Sorry! sworn to secrecy at this time! :wink:

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Sigh! Understood .

(To complaining inner voice: "Be still, my pet, you shall see that helmet one day.")

Cheers

Howard / SPC