Quote:Jim,
That was an interesting link thankyou (being a newbie I had not gotten round to reading that yet!).
Interesting how Lorica Segmentata are apparently classified via find sites -maybe Mike Bishop is looking at a Robinsonesque typology for those? :wink:
[size=200:1bhp3rsc]
No![/size]
For those who want to see what I wrote 20 years ago (eek!) about typologies and military equipment, you can have a look at my
'"Evolution of certain features"' paper (which is a 5Mb download – sorry, but it's just a scan of the pages; it will be reset to be much smaller if and when the whole book appears on the web ultimately). What I say there still stands, only I now think things are more complex and that you have to delve into evolutionary theory (adaptive radiation and the like) and taphonomy to even begin to understand why the typologies that we construct are so flawed, two-dimensional, and simplistic.
A Robinsonian system of classification differs little from the Pitt Rivers Museum's displays of things arranged according to how they look and is essentially, as best, two-dimensional. You need to think in
at least three dimensions to even begin to grasp the complexities of what determines why one helmet looks the way it does
and be prepared to defend your definition of 'similarity' (for pre-industrial hand-made artefacts) if you say helmet A is identical to helmet B and is thus an Imperial-Wibbly type Z.
The development of lorica segmentata (like most military equipment, in my opinion) will never be satisfactorily classifiable in a Type A/Type B system precisely because of adaptive radiation. At the moment we have Kalkriese –> Corbridge –> Newstead (we'll leave the Alba Iulia out of it for the time being) but how long will it be before we find a Kalbridge or Corstead hybrid – and does that mean anybody in the Roman period even gave a damn but rather were just concerned with improving segmental body armour per se? What we are describing is what we see, not what was. The developmental process of lorica seg was more organic, fluid, dynamic... whatever, than is encompassed in Robinson's scheme and we need to recognise that and the fact that our sample from which we are working is ridiculously small, and invariably biased in ways we can't even begin to comprehend (hence the need for archaeologists to understand taphonomy... which most don't (many haven't even heard of it), but they're not alone in generalising from the particular; palaeontologists have only 30 T-Rexes to work from out of however many million originally lived, and they supposedly
do understand taphonomy!).
The type-site system is no more or less satisfactory and both are equally flawed as an attempt to define a complex process in simplistic terms. That is not to say we should not use typologies, they are a valuable research tool. However, they are not, never have been, and never can be an absolute upon which you pin a theoretical framework forever more.
Mike Bishop
(Imperial-Wibbly Type C, but verging on a D)