02-20-2014, 12:38 PM
Some scholars refer to all the ridge helmets as 'Intercisa' types, no matter our current distinction between berakasovo and Intercisa types: Kocsis, László (2000): Helme vom Typ "Intercisa" in Pannonien, in: Visy, Zsolt (ed.) (2000): Von Augustus bis Attila, leben am Ungarnischen Donaulimes, (Limesmuseum Aalen), pp. 37-40.
For me it's the nasal, base ring and cheek plates that makes the difference. I think most scholars do that, no matter the problem that there certainly are hybrids.
Berkasovo type helmets have a base ring, hinged larger cheek plates and a nasal.
Intercisa type helmets have no base ring but leather edging, no nasal, simple cheek plates without hinges.
But the Berkasovo II helmet (not the jewelled one) has a bipartate bowl, yet it has managed to become the name-giver to the type clas. The other contender being the Burgh Castle helmet, which is also bipartate..
And some Intercisa helmets have a base ring, and some have a nsal, and some have larger cheek plates (but no base ring).
As mentioned earlier, the Romans almost certainly did not use typology as we do. Whereas we love to classify objects into groups and attach all sorts of explanations to that, especially with the intent to make predictions etc. (THIS type for cavalry, THAT type for infantry, etc.), it seems the Romans did not do so.
For me it's the nasal, base ring and cheek plates that makes the difference. I think most scholars do that, no matter the problem that there certainly are hybrids.
Berkasovo type helmets have a base ring, hinged larger cheek plates and a nasal.
Intercisa type helmets have no base ring but leather edging, no nasal, simple cheek plates without hinges.
But the Berkasovo II helmet (not the jewelled one) has a bipartate bowl, yet it has managed to become the name-giver to the type clas. The other contender being the Burgh Castle helmet, which is also bipartate..
And some Intercisa helmets have a base ring, and some have a nsal, and some have larger cheek plates (but no base ring).
As mentioned earlier, the Romans almost certainly did not use typology as we do. Whereas we love to classify objects into groups and attach all sorts of explanations to that, especially with the intent to make predictions etc. (THIS type for cavalry, THAT type for infantry, etc.), it seems the Romans did not do so.
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)
