09-04-2006, 04:59 PM
OK, Adrian, you win!!!! I admit defeat (they're at the bottom of de legs!)
Seriously, don't blame poor old Robinson for my failings. :oops: If you have a look, you will see that I have altered the entries for these two helms. I agree, the one I had originally called a Gallic C is an Italic C - for one thing the dratted thing is made of bronze (OK, "copper alloy"). I think I was paying too much attention to the form of the helmet and not enough to what it was made of. It doesn't have the 'eyebrows' and this would (should) immediately have pointed me at the Italic range, rather than the Gallic.
The other Guttmann helmet is much more of a problem. It appears to be a unique type, but I do think that it's nearer to a Gallic C than anything else and I've made a comment in the 'remarks' section to this difficulty. If anyone can come up with a better argument - with reasons - where it should go, then I'm certainly open to suggestions.
I'm not saying that Robinson''s classification is perfect (the comment I made above proves this). However, it should certainly serve as a basis for a system. As more information becomes available, any taxonomy can be expanded to accomodate the new data. Maybe this 'Gallic C' is a new type and should be recognised as such?
Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)
Seriously, don't blame poor old Robinson for my failings. :oops: If you have a look, you will see that I have altered the entries for these two helms. I agree, the one I had originally called a Gallic C is an Italic C - for one thing the dratted thing is made of bronze (OK, "copper alloy"). I think I was paying too much attention to the form of the helmet and not enough to what it was made of. It doesn't have the 'eyebrows' and this would (should) immediately have pointed me at the Italic range, rather than the Gallic.
The other Guttmann helmet is much more of a problem. It appears to be a unique type, but I do think that it's nearer to a Gallic C than anything else and I've made a comment in the 'remarks' section to this difficulty. If anyone can come up with a better argument - with reasons - where it should go, then I'm certainly open to suggestions.
I'm not saying that Robinson''s classification is perfect (the comment I made above proves this). However, it should certainly serve as a basis for a system. As more information becomes available, any taxonomy can be expanded to accomodate the new data. Maybe this 'Gallic C' is a new type and should be recognised as such?
Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
