Naming conventions and images

[Peroni]

I agree, the one I had originally called a Gallic C is an Italic C

Hi Mike, I don't blame anyone! Just having a discussion.

The Guttman Italic still poses some problems, as it seems to be somewhat of halfway-house between Gallic I and Italic something else. I'm afraid I still can't see the similarity between this and the Cremona Italic C helmets. (Other than it being made of cupric alloy).

This is particularly evident in the cheek guards and the crest support type. They are almost the same as the Aquincum helmet.

See my comparison...
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ ... ttmann.jpg

The cheek guards of most early Italic helmets are crude to say the least. These have nicely bound edges which the earlier C types don't have. Nor do they have the decorative brow band strip or a carrying handle.

It also has riveted-on ear guard flanges, unlike the Italic C's which are integral to the bowl, just flared.

This helmet is a perfect example of a find which doesn't neatly slot into one of Robinson's pigeon holes. This is where his 'development' system falls down.

Maybe this 'Gallic C' is a new type and should be recognised as such?

Possibly, but are you forgetting the helmet found at Kessel/Lith in the Netherlands? It too has similar eyes. It's kind of a hybrid of a Port Bei Nidau type B and a Gallic A. Neither of these helmets have a brow guard like the later Gallic C from the Kupa river.