H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology

[Caratacus]

Sorry! sworn to secrecy at this time!

Please do keep us (i.e. me!) informed when this one surfaces in the literature. This is exactly the sort of thing we need to jump on straight away and try and include in the database.

The 'normal' type of literature takes far too long to get this into the public domain and in many cases the academic literature isn't much better. The information that Adrian Wink passed on to me (and which I've now uploaded into the helmets db) on the IG-J from Bregetio (and now in Vienna) was published as long ago as 1975 - but in an Austrian journal that we don't have at Cardiff!

Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)

[marcos]

If I clean my mind , forgetting everything knew until now about roman infantry helmets, and thus not having baised opinions , I can see 2 leading groups of helmets.

First: from the beginning to the late republic - first empire.
Basically chaste , bronze, often with the knob on the top (but not always) , with a not elaborate neck guard.
According Robinson , from montefortino to coolus.
The picture below , one among several, if just to explain the type of helmet.



Second: from the first the empire to III century (more or less).
helmets more complex , made from iron, with a neck guard wide and normally down going, without knob on the top. Normally having eyebrows.
More elaborate than first group , and essentially different.
imperial gallic-italic according Robinson.

Another picture showing that





Of course , into these two groups we can have some under-groups, but my sensation is these are the two main .

[M. Demetrius]

I agree with your two main divisions, for infantry.

Cavalry has its own rules about neckguards, etc., so maybe a third sort, and the various cultural differences brought in by auxilai from other regions (Scythian archer comes to mind), but those don't need to be included in the Roman lists, really.

[Caratacus]

Marcos: that's pretty much what I would say as well. You might have a few sub-groups in there (some of the IG helmets are bronze rather than iron, for example). I've always felt that Robinson's division between Montefortino and Coolus lost something in the middle ground - I defy anyone to be certain as to whether the D+ types of the former are really that much different to the 'early' Coolus types.

Cavalry helmets are another matter - but even here I would say that there are only a few groups, rather than the large number HRR used. Fascinating stuff!

Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)

[markusaurelius]

If I clean my mind , forgetting everything knew until now about roman infantry helmets, and thus not having baised opinions , I can see 2 leading groups of helmets.

What about 4th and 5th Century Roman Helmets. They must be classified as well and are clearly not in the two groups mentioned. Within those helmet you will also have 2 or 3 sub groups.

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Logically, from Marcos' last post onward, then, could it be time, then, to put up a few "Aunt Sallies"? I mean, each forum participant, on his/her own bat, puts up one or a few, reasonably developed, proposals?

Such as: "Here's a string of examples (with illustration if possible) I think constitute one group for these reasons." AND, if you're not me, "Here's another group..."

And then let everyone have a shot at each proposal. Sooner or later there'd be (slow, but that's good) consensus as to what forum participants felt convinced belonged to each group. (Perhaps, I should say "model" or "pattern" rather than group?)

I myself couldn't think of how many groups/patterns/models would be out there and I don't think we need to think of that now. I think that's what is still to be discovered. Why not just start with whatever helmet fascinates you, find a few companions for it, argue that they're related "because...", then stand back (and wince if necessary)?

What think?

Cheers

Howard / SPC

[Paullus Scipio]

Caratacus/Mike wrote:

I've always felt that Robinson's division between Montefortino and Coolus lost something in the middle ground - I defy anyone to be certain as to whether the D+ types of the former are really that much different to the 'early' Coolus types.

...perhaps we should remind ourselves of why R-R made the distinction.The 'Montefortino' type, to it's demise, retains its essential characteristics - 'bulbous/bell' shaped bowl, crest finial drawn up in one piece from bowl, out-turned flange on the lower rim etc. Only in its final forms, under the influence of 'Coolus' types, does it acquire a large flat neckguard and cheek-piece of Gallic outline, and in some cases, a brow-guard, but the bowl is always recognisable as 'Montefortino' type, evolved from a native Italian type.
On the other hand the 'Coolus/jockey-cap type' originate with Gallic smiths in the Coolus-Marne district, evolving from a native gallic type and needing little other than cheek-pieces to suit the requirements of a legionary helmet. Originally, the bowl is a simple shape and had no flange on the rim, nor a crest finial drawn from the bowl, which is also of simple curvature, almost hemispherical in profile. While they acquire crest knobs, these are never integral, but applied/joined on.

However, it is true that 'Monefortinos' acquire 'Coolus' characteristics and vice versa until the two are visually similar ( see especially 'Montefortino "D" and 'Coolus' "D" - the latter probably even being made in Italian workshops according to R-R, because the re-inforcing peaks are of 'Italic' right-angle section), yet the observer can always distinguish between the two types of bowl, which is why R-R classified them as two distinct types.

[Peroni]

the latter probably even being made in Italian workshops according to R-R, because the re-inforcing peaks are of 'Italic' right-angle section

Robinson only had one example of this type that actually had an L section brow reinforce iirc.

The Haltern example being the best known example of a D with a solid brow reinforce.

We also see that HRR classified a couple of E types that have an L section reinforce.

I agree with Mike's point about there being hardly any difference at all visually between the Monte E and the Coolus E. The same seems to be true with the Coolus D's and E's

[marcos]

If I clean my mind , forgetting everything knew until now about roman infantry helmets, and thus not having baised opinions , I can see 2 leading groups of helmets.

What about 4th and 5th Century Roman Helmets. They must be classified as well and are clearly not in the two groups mentioned. Within those helmet you will also have 2 or 3 sub groups.

yes, you right, Marcus. 4th and 5th century helmets could be the 3rd leading group ( for infantry ).
You mean from "nederbieber" onward, isn't it ?
So , here the third picture (first two above , in previous post)



Huge difference from the first to the third hock: !!

Assuming, if right, these 3 main groups, the work is mere beginning. Then there is to
- name them , clearly and accountably.
I observe that mutations are tightly associated to historical periods, so may be the name have to recall them .
This is a basical but very hard duty.

- identify number and name of all the sub-groups

- understand, identify and name peculiarities of main groups and of all sub-groups.

Indeed, we have to tink a lot.

[Caratacus]

Now we're cooking here! This is just the sort of discussion that we should be having about this topic - maybe we can eventually reach some sort of concensus for a reasonable typology?

The 4th and 5th century helmets are indeed another kettle of scaled swimmy things! Vogt published a typology (see "Spangenhelme", RGZM, Mainz) that I know some people quarrel with. For wanting of something better, I've used this for the later pattern helmets that have been uploaded onto the database. There are difficulties with it, not least is his inclusion of what he calls 'special types' into several of the sub-groups. Another problem is that there are undoubtedly some helmets that should not be considered as being 'Roman' at all, being much too late (e.g. 6th CAD) and are more properly Merovingian. However, the design and characteristics of these later helmets are virtually the same as the late patterns that the Romans did use (and for which authentic dates exist), so perhaps they should still be included in some way, but with a note to the effect that they are developments of the Roman helmets, although not recognised as such?

However, it is true that 'Monefortinos' acquire 'Coolus' characteristics and vice versa until the two are visually similar (see especially 'Montefortino "D" and 'Coolus' "D" - the latter probably even being made in Italian workshops according to R-R, because the re-inforcing peaks are of 'Italic' right-angle section), yet the observer can always distinguish between the two types of bowl, which is why R-R classified them as two distinct types.

I'm not convinced that it is always possible to distinguish between the Montefortino and the Coolus bowl shapes where the 'overlap' occurs, despite the fact that they have different origins. In a way this comes back to the discussion as to what should be included in a typology - should we be including things like where the helmets came from, who used them and when were they used? I would prefer to look only at the physical characteristics of the items. These other things are certainly of interest and will add to our knowledge as to how the helmets developed, etc but they will not help us to place the helmets into groups for recognition purposes.

Then there is the so-called "Coolus-Mannheim" type. The French seem to talk these up as a distinct type, a sort of 'heavy' Coolus (HRR doesn't mention them at all as a type). Michel Feugère in his book on Roman military equipment has a map (of France & Germany, p.72 in the English translation) showing where some 30 of these helmets came from - but frustratingly there are no further details. Some of these have undoubtedly been classified as Coolus helmets by HRR, but what about those that were not so treated?

We also have to be very careful about using a "one-off" helmet as a distinct type (even a sub-type). Yes, I know, I've made this point before but it is of some importance. If we include these marginal elements as distinct types, we end up with a very complicated classification - which is roughly where we are now!

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi Paul

I agree you'd need to separate the Montefortino types from the Coolus. Not only the differences in form (bell versus dome) but probable differences in construction (see Caractacus post of Mon 05 Jan 2009, previous page).

Could I just query that Montefortino helmets "evolved from a native Italian type"? When I was making (school) materials on "Rome 1000 - 600 BC", I came across the following:

Images 1 and 2 come from: Connolly, Peter. The Ancient Greece of Odysseus. Oxford: The University Press, 1999. 28-29. ([url:16szt9z0]http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3sZHlOR24uQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Connolly,+Peter.+The+Ancient+Greece+of+Odysseus&client=firefox-a#PPA28,M1[/url])
while image 3 was obtained from: "European Bronze Age Helmet." Royal Athena Galleries: Greek Bronze. Thu 8 Jan 2009 <[url:16szt9z0]http://www.royalathena.com/pages/GreekCatalog/Bronze/Armor/HMS16.html[/url]>. The text on the Royal Athena page includes: "Ex Axel Guttmann (1944-2001) collection, Berlin. Hungary, ca. 1000 BC".

Could the Montefortino type of helmet perhaps have emerged and somewhat achieved its characteristic form about 1000 BC among the Central European Urnfield cultures (from whom both Italics and Celts emerged [1]) rather than later in Italy? Image 1 is a two-piece helmet worked in the same way as Villanovan "burial-pot" helmets but has the bell form. Image 2 I've guessed is a crushed bell-form but it may actually be more conical. It does seem to be a one-piece work and Connolly comments that it "is a very common central European type of helmet". Image 3 is problematic in that I haven't seen any other literature on this helmet (other than the gallery write-up) and so am taking it somewhat on trust that it might have been found in a hoard/grave etc in Hungary and actually date to 1000 BC.

([1] Mallory, J. P. and Adams, Douglas Q. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture London: Taylor & Francis, 1997. 318. ([url:16szt9z0]http://books.google.com.au/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC&pg=PA318&lpg=PA318&dq=urnfield+culture+italic+speaking&source=web&ots=wUmZ_344eI&sig=Mq3J6vwNfcG3Iqnz6Nwfp3-BYRA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result[/url]))

Cheers

Howard / SPC

[Robert]

Please excuse me joining the thread at such a late stage. I have been pounding metal into early seaxes during holidays.

But if I look at the work Miks did on swords, there is much to be said for looking at both form and period of use. Most of our impressions are to portray an accurate picture as possible of a Roman soldier at a given moment in time. Most reenactors seem to prefer the first century, but there are many others around who chose a different period. Classifications should imho preferably be based on a system making it easier to assemble a matching group, period helmet, with right armour, with right sword, with right pugio, with right footwear. There will be overlap, as some articles are being fased out as others gain ground, but the dating of objects reflects the evolution of thinking about warfare and the protection or offensive strength needed. A helmet is part of a weapons system, both of the wearer as of that of the opponent.

[Caratacus]

Please excuse me joining the thread at such a late stage.

All good points for discussion and all relevant (whether you come into the thread now or at the beginning! ).

However:

• (1) can we get accurate dates for these things (and by accurate I don't mean precise historical dates, such as AD 79 - I mean time periods of a few decades when the helmet was in use, remember a burial date isn't necessarily when the thing was made - in fact would probably not be so),
  (2) furthermore, can we get dates in all cases - because any classification has to work all the time, not just some of the time,
  (3) is the date unique for a particular style - as I've said before, these helmets were not used in sequence but frequently together, i.e. they overlapped in use - if this is so then a date as a method of categorising them will not be of use and in fact may be confusing?

Where a date for deposition/use is known, this is interesting information and could well be useful under the conditions of use you mentioned but I doubt its relevance as a tool for grouping these various helmets together.

Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)

[Robert]

I am sure there will be no dates for all cases and sometimes dates will be unsure at best. In that case, form should be used to position it in between other finds with similar characteristics of known date. If date is not known and form is unrelated with any other, it should be put aside for the time being and just named for the findspot. It will not be a practicaly usable helmet for re-enactment anyway, because you would not know which other gear to wear with it (or just combine it with leather armour :lol: ) It will just sit there in limbo untill another helmet comes around with similar shape and a date.
The Miks table on swords shows overlapping and co-existing of several types, there are three types op Pompeji around during several decades, and late Mainz overlaps early Pompeji. The same could/should be seen with helmets.

[marcos]

In this attempt of classification , to not entangle ideas ourselve but instead get some success , I believe is idispensable to follow a working method, to be pratical.
The subject is wide and elaborate , and without a method we risk to jump around.
That's only my opinion , of course.

So , may be we can imagine a branched drawing ( I don't know the exact english name ), and to explain that , I made the simple one below (please , click on thumbnail to enlarge).



It is just the well-knew level method ; starting from the top and going down.
I level: Helmets, of course. Very easy
II level: the category : Infantry and Cavalry , easy this one too.
III level: the groups : Infantry X , infantry Y .....
IV level: sub-groups : Infantry X"goofy", infantry X"Miky mouse" etc.

When a level is described and clear, when all doubts are ended , then is possible to go on.

Now , how many and which are the groups for III level ? And which peculiarities must have helmets in each of them?

Previously I said I see three groups for infantry , linked to the period and to the shape, but this is just a my opinion.