09-09-2011, 02:07 PM
I am not against the identification of crests on Berkasovo-type helmets, but I find the evidence as presented way too thin to accept that all or most Berkasovo-style helmets had crests on them.
Of the other finds mentioned by Miks, I am not so sure as he apparently is.
The Koblenz crest mentioned above is just a crest. There is no way whatsoever to judge what type of helmet it may have belonged to. The main difference between a Berkasovo and an Intercisa type being the nasal, the longer cheek guards with hinges attached to the bowl, the guard plates and a base ring, and even these can apparently be on other types (as we see on the Worms-guard plates or the Iatrus - longer cheek guards). As far as I know, the main difference is not formed by the crest, yet Miks is clearly interpreting this part of the helmet as the main type indicator.
The Augsburg helmet mentioned here is not a perfect specimen of a Berkasovo type, nor of an Intercisa type – it’s mainly the nasal and the decoration on the helmet which pushes the classification towards the Berkasovo, but this is not universally accepted.
Quote: I guess many is a term I used loosely But there are a few, Figure 22 from the article shows the Koblenz whole ridge, with the crease in the ridge, which is classified as a Berkasovo variant. Then there is the Augsburg helmet, clearly a Berkasovo II helmet, with slots on the ridge.To be exact, my reaction was not about ‘some Berkasovo finds’, but about ‘some Koblenz find’. Of this, Miks shows us only one: fig. 22 indeed, which is just a crest (see below).
Of the other finds mentioned by Miks, I am not so sure as he apparently is.
The Koblenz crest mentioned above is just a crest. There is no way whatsoever to judge what type of helmet it may have belonged to. The main difference between a Berkasovo and an Intercisa type being the nasal, the longer cheek guards with hinges attached to the bowl, the guard plates and a base ring, and even these can apparently be on other types (as we see on the Worms-guard plates or the Iatrus - longer cheek guards). As far as I know, the main difference is not formed by the crest, yet Miks is clearly interpreting this part of the helmet as the main type indicator.
The Augsburg helmet mentioned here is not a perfect specimen of a Berkasovo type, nor of an Intercisa type – it’s mainly the nasal and the decoration on the helmet which pushes the classification towards the Berkasovo, but this is not universally accepted.
Quote:Then there is figure 41 from the "Von Prunstuck zum altmetall" that shows a part of a helmet and ridge, which has again the crease in the ridge, indicative of a crest.Not sure why a crease is indicative of a crest? Possible, but ‘indicative’?
Quote: I'm sure as with everything else, the cross over between styles is certainly a factor.I absolutely agree there. It seems the more helmets we find, the less secure we can be of clearly defined ‘types’.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)