Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion
#1
Laus 4 U!
[Image: 120px-Septimani_seniores_shield_pattern.svg.png] [Image: Estalada.gif]
Ivan Perelló
[size=150:iu1l6t4o]Credo in Spatham, Corvus sum bellorum[/size]
Reply
#2
Just because the helmet isn't based on an actual "find" disqualifies the work for the award ?

Please tell me how many Attic helmets have been found, someone.

All we have to go on are carved reliefs. Antony's research was both thorough and methodical. He's shown which reliefs were used to reconstruct this helmet but that isn't good enough ?

What a crock !

It's a better repro than many other repros that are based on actual finds.

~Theo
~~~~~jaime~~~~~~
Fathers of the Church
[Image: CRShield02.png]
Reply
#3
Travis has a point. Is there room for another award, for outstanding conjectural work? Or is that somewhere people don't really want to go. Any nomination would need heaps of backup work to justify it, far more than the Hasta Pura I imagine, and anyone nominated would need to realise they come into it with their eyes wide open. I imagine the research work itself would spark many a discussion in itself.

There doesn't even need to be a winner each time. I'd also recommend a grade of award, as there could never be a "It was just like that".
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#4
Quote:Just because the helmet isn't based on an actual "find" disqualifies the work for the award ?

Please tell me how many Attic helmets have been found, someone.

All we have to go on are carved reliefs. Antony's research was both thorough and methodical. He's shown which reliefs were used to reconstruct this helmet but that isn't good enough ?

What a crock !

It's a better repro than many other repros that are based on actual finds.

~Theo

Theo, you are mixing up two terms here. One is reproduction, the other is reconstruction. Both terms are clearly defined in the field of experimental archaeology, that is, scientifically defined. The Hasta Pura is given for the best reconstruction or Ancient historic impression.

Apart from that, we stopped discussing whether this object presented here qualifies for the hasta pura or not, since a moderator not concerned with the hasta pura in any way let slip out some information from the moderator´s board, which was, however, not decisive information, but only the opinion of one of the five members of the hasta pura award committe. This happend at a point where only two votes had been cast. Sparked by that, we had a discussion about the award, and decided that it should remain as is. There will perhaps be somehting like an artisan´s award for good craftsmanship, if someone is going to volunteer to moderate it.

As for your other questions:
I don´t know how many attic helmets were found, but it is quite a lot. Most of the derive from Greece and southern Italy.

I can´t tell you if the helmet had qualified or not, as explained above. Now, as there was a discussion about the whole thing, and the rules have been (very very slightly) changed, it would not qualify.

It has nothing to do with "good enough". It is not a reconstruction, and presentations of reconstructions are what is awarded. You can´t go with a Ferrari to a 2CV rally and wonder that you are not in the race. As I also said, I like the helmet, it is great work IMO (except for the bought pieces, the laurels and roses IMHO), but by definition it is not a reconstruction.

The work should propably be honoured in some way, but as the award rules are, to which I am going to stick ( and I think also the other committee members), the Hasta Pura is not the right thing to do so.
I know that there are also some other people, who are not happy with this decision, but it simply doesn´t make sense to bend the rules of the award. The previous awardees had to cope with these rules, and so sould the future awardees. It would neither be fair nor sensible to change them now.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.

LEGIO XIII GEMINA

[Image: BannerAER-1-1.jpg]
Reply
#5
That being said. We want to make an award for excellent craftmanship in the field of making things for use in our hobby, even if we can't make an exact original as the origination model. Not too many complete mail hamata shirts, for example.... So, while I suggested something like a Golden hammer award, what would you, the people who could receive the award like to call it?
Caius Fabius Maior
Charles Foxtrot
moderator, Roman Army Talk
link to the rules for posting
[url:2zv11pbx]http://romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=22853[/url]
Reply
#6
Quote:
Quote:Just because the helmet isn't based on an actual "find" disqualifies the work for the award ?

Please tell me how many Attic helmets have been found, someone.

All we have to go on are carved reliefs. Antony's research was both thorough and methodical. He's shown which reliefs were used to reconstruct this helmet but that isn't good enough ?

What a crock !

It's a better repro than many other repros that are based on actual finds.

~Theo

Theo, you are mixing up two terms here. One is reproduction, the other is reconstruction. Both terms are clearly defined in the field of experimental archaeology, that is, scientifically defined. The Hasta Pura is given for the best reconstruction or Ancient historic impression.

Apart from that, we stopped discussing whether this object presented here qualifies for the hasta pura or not, since a moderator not concerned with the hasta pura in any way let slip out some information from the moderator´s board, which was, however, not decisive information, but only the opinion of one of the five members of the hasta pura award committe. This happend at a point where only two votes had been cast. Sparked by that, we had a discussion about the award, and decided that it should remain as is. There will perhaps be somehting like an artisan´s award for good craftsmanship, if someone is going to volunteer to moderate it.

As for your other questions:
I don´t know how many attic helmets were found, but it is quite a lot. Most of the derive from Greece and southern Italy.

I can´t tell you if the helmet had qualified or not, as explained above. Now, as there was a discussion about the whole thing, and the rules have been (very very slightly) changed, it would not qualify.

It has nothing to do with "good enough". It is not a reconstruction, and presentations of reconstructions are what is awarded. You can´t go with a Ferrari to a 2CV rally and wonder that you are not in the race. As I also said, I like the helmet, it is great work IMO (except for the bought pieces, the laurels and roses IMHO), but by definition it is not a reconstruction.

The work should propably be honoured in some way, but as the award rules are, to which I am going to stick ( and I think also the other committee members), the Hasta Pura is not the right thing to do so.
I know that there are also some other people, who are not happy with this decision, but it simply doesn´t make sense to bend the rules of the award. The previous awardees had to cope with these rules, and so sould the future awardees. It would neither be fair nor sensible to change them now.

Damn right!
[Image: 120px-Septimani_seniores_shield_pattern.svg.png] [Image: Estalada.gif]
Ivan Perelló
[size=150:iu1l6t4o]Credo in Spatham, Corvus sum bellorum[/size]
Reply
#7
So, is there room for an award based on theoretical proposals? Unlike the Hasta Pura, decided by a Member's Poll perhaps?

Ask yourselves, how many academic publications on our beloved subjects have theoretical reconstructions and theories, based on best and educated guesses? So why can't we do it?

Hasta Non Pura?
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#8
for example, the "Kalkreise segmentata!" lol
Caius Fabius Maior
Charles Foxtrot
moderator, Roman Army Talk
link to the rules for posting
[url:2zv11pbx]http://romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=22853[/url]
Reply
#9
Thanks for explaining RAT's rationale, caiustarquitius. I disagree with the decision since both reconstructions and reproductions are based on archeological evidence.

Quote:I don´t know how many attic helmets were found, but it is quite a lot. Most of the derive from Greece and southern Italy.

Actually, the answer is : none. That is, if "Attic" is defined in a Roman context. "Attic" is the unofficial name given to helmets like these.


Quote:for example, the "Kalkreise segmentata!" lol

There you go. Good idea. Another one would be the lorica musculata. Lamellar armor too (right, Faventianvs :wink: )

~Theo
~~~~~jaime~~~~~~
Fathers of the Church
[Image: CRShield02.png]
Reply
#10
Quote:Thanks for explaining RAT's rationale, caiustarquitius. I disagree with the decision since both reconstructions and reproductions are based on archeological evidence.

caiustarquitius wrote:
I don´t know how many attic helmets were found, but it is quite a lot. Most of the derive from Greece and southern Italy.


Actually, the answer is : none. That is, if "Attic" is defined in a Roman context. "Attic" is the unofficial name given to helmets like these.

Now that is an ambiguous statement. The award was invented to honour the best reconstruction or impression, as said above. The term reconstruction is clearly defined: To recreate a historic object with exactly the same methods with which it originally was made. This is not so much about the use of or interpretation of archaeological evidence, it clearly plays a role, but it´s not at the centre. So then please tell me, if none of these helmets was ever found, how would you make a reconstruction?

At the centre of this award is ancient craftsmanship, working methods etc, not the object that turns out in the end. If you enter with a complete impression, then your research is honoured.

So what you are actually saying is that you disagree with the definition of the term reconstruction. There I can´t help. There are several organisations , magazines, and the academic world which use the term just in the way it is described above, i.e. this is how the term is defined.

And I know of some attic helmets in a Roman context, but they are all a bit earlier, that is: Middle Republican. Smile
If you´d say "in an Early Imperial Roman context", then I´d agree. Smile
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.

LEGIO XIII GEMINA

[Image: BannerAER-1-1.jpg]
Reply
#11
Quote:for example, the "Kalkreise segmentata!" lol
:lol: It's uncanny how something so big can be right in front of your nose, and you miss it completely.

The Kalkriese seg's a perfect example of a Hasta Non Pura candidate. Let's face it, any type of lorica is - even the muscualata. Let's not even go near the scutum including all of its fittings.....
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#12
Quote:Now that is an ambiguous statement. The award was invented to honour the best reconstruction or impression, as said above. The term reconstruction is clearly defined: To recreate a historic object with exactly the same methods with which it originally was made.


To be eligible there are more parameters to meet than I originally thought. Still, there must have been some leeway granted to past winners. Deepeeka, for example, makes their Imperial helmets from two pieces in their construction as opposed to the original Roman method. Are Deepeeka helmets, therefore, a disqualifiable factor when considering candidates for the Hasta award ? Maybe they are, I honestly don't know how strictly the rules are adhered to. It seems like a tall order for those of us who aren't swimming in cash :?

Other examples I can think of are the subarmalis and pteruges. None survive. Yet, would wearing them for an impression disqualify the candidate ?

Quote:This is not so much about the use of or interpretation of archaeological evidence, it clearly plays a role, but it´s not at the centre. So then please tell me, if none of these helmets was ever found, how would you make a reconstruction?

Ok, I was drawn to the conclusion that somehow Roman art doesn't count as archaeological evidence. But to answer your question : you can't do so with 100% confidence. However, the highly detailed carved relief in two examples I know of give many clues to how the helmets must have been constructed. Plus, we could piece together our knowledge of surviving helmets and synthesize an intelligent guess.

Quote:And I know of some attic helmets in a Roman context, but they are all a bit earlier, that is: Middle Republican.

Touche. I forgot about those :oops: Then again, those helmets would serve well in my answer to your last question. They are clearly ancestors to the helmets from the Early Imperial period and as such can be used to create a more plausible reconstruction.

Quote:If you´d say "in an Early Imperial Roman context", then I´d agree.

Right. I should have been specific :oops:

~Theo
~~~~~jaime~~~~~~
Fathers of the Church
[Image: CRShield02.png]
Reply
#13
Quote:It seems like a tall order for those of us who aren't swimming in cash
Hmm. Did you look at Matt Luke´s or Martin Moser´s presentation, or at the model presentation?

Quote:Other examples I can think of are the subarmalis and pteruges. None survive. Yet, would wearing them for an impression disqualify the candidate ?
No, it wouldn´t if it were a specific soldier from a specific tombstone wearing such an item were the model for it, for example. Smile

Quote:Touche. I forgot about those Then again, those helmets would serve well in my answer to your last question. They are clearly ancestors to the helmets from the Early Imperial period and as such can be used to create a more plausible reconstruction.

A more plausible interpretation, I´d say, but yes.
Again, it´s not that I want to keep anyone from getting the award, but something based not on an actual find is not a reconstruction, hence not eligible. I really hope we get that other award going, since it were quite sensible to also honour work like this.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.

LEGIO XIII GEMINA

[Image: BannerAER-1-1.jpg]
Reply
#14
I didn't know I started this thread BTW... Confusedhock:
[Image: 120px-Septimani_seniores_shield_pattern.svg.png] [Image: Estalada.gif]
Ivan Perelló
[size=150:iu1l6t4o]Credo in Spatham, Corvus sum bellorum[/size]
Reply
#15
It seems as though it just spawned in the middle of another conversation! :lol:
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Primvs Pavlvs presentation discussion Peroni 7 8,636 01-14-2008, 04:56 PM
Last Post: Chuck Russell
  caiustarquitius - presentation caiusbeerquitius 0 5,296 05-06-2007, 06:34 PM
Last Post: caiusbeerquitius
  Model Presentation caiusbeerquitius 0 5,169 05-18-2006, 05:36 PM
Last Post: caiusbeerquitius

Forum Jump: