09-01-2006, 11:00 PM
Wish I had seen this thread sooner.
Many archival and classification systems use taxonomically-based, descending hierarchical order, i.e., from general to specific. A few examples from different classification systems:
Geology: rock igneous intrusive granite pink
Meteorology: cloud cirrus spissatus cumulonimbogenitus
Biology: Pinaceae Pinus pinea (common name: Italian stone pine)
Using a typologically-based, descending hierarchical classification for helmets would sort typologically similar helmets closer together. This works well with Windows Explorer, where I can more quickly compare & contrast within & between clusters of helmet types. Grouping by find location or collector's name would slow such analyses.
Basically, a typologically-based, descending hierarchical classification for helmets would be something like: [common name] [variant] [find location or collector's name] (number)
Many archival and classification systems use taxonomically-based, descending hierarchical order, i.e., from general to specific. A few examples from different classification systems:
Geology: rock igneous intrusive granite pink
Meteorology: cloud cirrus spissatus cumulonimbogenitus
Biology: Pinaceae Pinus pinea (common name: Italian stone pine)
Using a typologically-based, descending hierarchical classification for helmets would sort typologically similar helmets closer together. This works well with Windows Explorer, where I can more quickly compare & contrast within & between clusters of helmet types. Grouping by find location or collector's name would slow such analyses.
Basically, a typologically-based, descending hierarchical classification for helmets would be something like: [common name] [variant] [find location or collector's name] (number)
AMDG
Wm. / *r
Wm. / *r
