03-06-2007, 02:59 AM
"I don't think so, it's a type G."
"It's classed as a G and certainly doesn't look anything like an A, or even a Port helm"
It doesn't look like a 'G' either! I have to wonder who decided to classify it as such, as I am quite sure Robinson would not have.
I am unconvinced that this or a number of other more recently published helmets can comfortably be fitted into Robinson's typology. Robinson's typologies are inflexible in a way he probably did not intend and I agree with Mike Bishop that it is time we stopped trying to squeeze helmets into a typology which will not accept them and came up with something that was suitable descriptive and yet flexible enough to expand when it needs to. By this, incidentally, I do NOT mean I wish everything to be listed in the clunky format which relies on the findspot of one example to give a name to the type as a whole.
Crispvs
"It's classed as a G and certainly doesn't look anything like an A, or even a Port helm"
It doesn't look like a 'G' either! I have to wonder who decided to classify it as such, as I am quite sure Robinson would not have.
I am unconvinced that this or a number of other more recently published helmets can comfortably be fitted into Robinson's typology. Robinson's typologies are inflexible in a way he probably did not intend and I agree with Mike Bishop that it is time we stopped trying to squeeze helmets into a typology which will not accept them and came up with something that was suitable descriptive and yet flexible enough to expand when it needs to. By this, incidentally, I do NOT mean I wish everything to be listed in the clunky format which relies on the findspot of one example to give a name to the type as a whole.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
