Greek Helmet/ armour database

[Decebalus]

Here's the second part of my proposition for a classification of the Greek helmet-types:

Chalcidian helmets
I - with rigid cheekpieces
A - with cheekpieces of rounded form

B - with cheekpieces of siecle-form
1 - Greek group
2 - Italic group
3 - Macedonian group
4 - Thracian group

C - with cheekpieces in ram's head-form

D - with pointed cheekpieces

II - with hinged cheekpieces
A - with cheekpieces in spade-form

B - with cheekpieces of siecle-form

C - with cheekpieces in ram's head or griffin-form

D - with pointed cheekpieces

E - with curved cheekpieces

III- Italo-Chalcidian helmets
A - with straight brow

B - with curved/pointed brow

C - with curved/pointed brow and eyebrows

D - with temple-volutes

E - with temple-volutes and skull-rib

F - Phrygian-Chalkidian group "Conversano" ("Griffin-helmets")

IV- Ibero-Chalcidian helmets

Pilos-helmets
I - "Greek" group

II - "Italic" group

III- Attic-Boiotian form

Boiotian helmets
I - early form (Petasos-form)

II - main form (the helmet from the Tigris in Oxford)

III- late Attic-Boiotian form

Attic-Phrygian "Prototype"
I - (supposed) Attic prototype (Berlin L 40)

II - (supposed) Phrygian prototype (London GR 1927.10-11.1)

III- cheekpieces which can be connected with early forms of Attic or Phrygian helmets (like I and II)

A - cheekpieces with mouth-cutouts

B - cheekpieces with mouth-cutouts and stylised beard

Phrygian helmets
I - main group

A - calotte made of more than one piece

B - calotte made of one piece

II - Phrygian-Boitian form

III- Phrygian-Chalcidian form

Attic helmets
I - Attic helmets with peak
A - calotte made of more than one part

B - calotte made of one part

C - Attic-Boiotian form

II - Attic helmets without peak

Hellenistic helmets (this would contain all the parts of helmets which have been found in Hellenistic context or bear Hellenistic decoration but cannot be connected to known types)
I - cheekpieces

II - fragments

Some of the subtypes will raise questions (for example the "ethnic" groups in the section for the Chalcidian helmets with cheekpieces in siecle-form). Here's not the place to explain all divisions in-depth, but I would try and show pictures of a typical example to show what is meant.
This is of course not the only way how the material can be classified, but it follows the widely accepted works done until now with some additions here and there.
The system cannot show any chronological or regional evolution, but something like this has to be used to get an overview of the material which can let to further knowledge regarding these questions.
A classification-system cannot be perfect, because different types are treated in different ways (form of cheekpieces, decoration etc.). It has to be flexible enough to put in new finds without reworking the whole classification.
The type-names can be open to debate, but as most members interested in this field will be familiar with, we should use them.
There are many fragmentary finds which cannot be classified to their sub-types, but we can - for example - name a Chalcidian with missing hinged cheekpieces as Chalcidian-II-x(number in sequence).
Of all the listed types there exists at least one example. It could be misleading to put helmet-types in which are only known from representations in ancient art. It is perhaps the main fault of the work of Dintsis in his "Hellenistische Helme" that he mainly relied on works of art to classify the material. It is too dangerous to judge from works of art if it is a representation of an existing helmet-type we just have no original found or artistic license. Works of art can be helpful - if we have originals - to show with which types of armour they could be have worn, how a crest or missing cheekpieces would look like etc. So it would make sense to have an accompanying database of these interpretations when the "real stuff" is settled.

I would be thankful for questions and critics.

Greets,

Decebalus/Andreas Gagelmann