Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Greek Helmet/ armour database
#61
Apologies for my extended absence. I had to go home to be in a wedding, and have been trying to catch up on the work thereby missed... plus the weather has been pleasant for a change 8)

I do hope Ralph will not absent himself overlong; I must admit that I have rather more training in matters topographical than matters typological. The system that he outlined, however, was used as the basis for Bottini's typology of "Apulo-Corinthian" helmets; e.g. eyes are (open/closed), nasal (raised/not), cheek-guards (separate/bridged/conjoined). His Type A, then, has open eyes, nasal in relief, separate cheek-guards.

It would probably be good to do a limited test, perhaps of the so-called "Illyrian" type as Ralph suggested, in order to establish the comprehensibility of the criteria. It will however be possible to start cataloging helmets with whatever information is available; only thus can we tell which helmets we need more information for!

I suggest that for those helmets whose photography is not permitted, note-taking is a respectable alternative, and indeed I would recommend it in addition to photos, since these don't always capture the information to be had from seeing in person.

I like Ralph's initial suggestions for attributes: Material, skull shape, construction, nasal, neck guard, cheek piece... of course, the options he gives for each would have to be expanded or shoe-horned to fit, say, Apulo-Corinthians into the system (sorry to sound like a broken record croaking "Awk! Apulo-Corinthian! Awk! Apulo-Corinthian!"...).

I might suggest the addition of Incised Decoration (present/absent), and possibly Crest Evidence (present/absent) -- this is of interest, perhaps, because in the case of helmets made of perishable materials (leather or wicker or what-have-you), the metal crest fittings are the only remaining evidence of the helmet! If you think these are non-essential, say so, or suggest other, more useful attributes...

Another important question: what are our limits? Do we have strict chronological limits (will one of the 'Material' options be 'boar's tusk'...?), or geographical, or 'cultural'(!)? Do we include helmets of Montefortino-type, or exclude them because (maybe) they belong to a different 'tradition,' or arbitrarily because they're already in the Roman database? Include some if they fall within our chronological range? What about finds from Scythia? Thrace? Italy? Spain? (I think we have to include them all, but let me hear your dissent if you have it!)

What about Near Eastern helmets? Ralph mentioned an Assyrian helmet in an example. I am highly in favor of ignoring "cultural" distinctions since they can rarely be scientifically supported, but maybe geography or chronology is a factor here?

The location field has me thinking a bit. The grid system Ralph mentioned has its pros and its cons. On the one hand, I think that it may paint with strokes too broad for a world of city-states, as opposed to the big "blank canvas" of prehistory (no offense intended); on the other hand, regrettably many helmets have no provenience more specific than "(probably) South Italy," and a grid system would accommodate that more easily. For those with specific provenience, maybe something could be worked whereby "Athens" or "Olympia" or "Ruvo" were equated with their actual lat/long so they could be plotted on a dynamic map? Anybody handy with writing Google Earth apps?

These are more important questions at the moment than the format of the pictures, I think.
Dan Diffendale
Ph.D. candidate, University of Michigan
Reply
#62
Here is a proposition how the the structure of the database could look like.
As the material is much more complex than in the Roman helmet section, it is necessary to add a system of numbers and letters to the name of the main-type to classify the subtypes. As we are confronted with different helmet-types, whose subtypes are treated in a different way (form of cheeckpieces, calotte, decoration etc.) this system cannot be used to show characteristics of the different main types, so it is needed to show somewere why the subdivisions have been made. It would make sense to add the system proposed by Ralph at a later date to have the ability to make comparisons of the whole material.
If all the subdivisions are really necessary is of course open to debate.

Boar-tusk-helmets

Bell-helmets (only the examples found in Greek contexts)

Cypriot helmets (of Tamassos type)

Cretan helmets
I - Insular type (Snodgrass type "Ba")
II - type with cheeckpieces (Snodgrass type "Ca")

Ionian helmets (only to cheek-pieces which could have belonged to this type)

Geometric ("Kegel-")helmets
I - made of five pieces
A - calotte pointed with high crest ("Argos" variant)
B - calotte pointed without crest ("Budapest" variant)
C - calotte hemispherical ("Ordona" variant)

II - made of one piece (only Guttmann AG 445)

Illyrian helmets
I - early stage of evolution
A - made of two pieces
B - made of one piece

II - middle stage of evolution
A - with edge-roll
B - without edge-roll

III- late stage of evolution
A - with side-wedges
1 - with rivet-edge
2 - with punched edge
3 - with undecorated edge (apart from engraving)

B - with ear-cutouts
1 - with rivet-edge
2 - with punched edge
3 - with undecorated edge

C - with hinged cheeckpieces

Corinthian helmets
I - early stage of evolution
A - made of one piece
1 - with smooth calotte
2 - with Illyrian crest

B - made of two pieces
1 - horizontal division
2 - vertical division

II - middle stage of evolution
A - with rounded side-cutouts
1 - with rounded calotte
2 - with markedly transition from side to skull
(the famous "Myros"-group with more than 80 pieces which could be further divided from their style of edge-decoration)

B - with side-wedges
1 - with rounded calotte
a - with smooth calotte
b - with Illyrian crest
c - with lotosflower-decoration
d - with connected cheekpieces ("Picenian" variant, not to be confused with Apulo-Corinthian)
2 - with markedly transition from side to skull
a - without eyebrows ("Greek" group)
b - with eyebrows ("Italic" group)

III - late stage of evolution
A - with gable-formed brow
1 - sides and skull meeting on same level ("Lamia"-group)
2 - skull overlapping sides ("Hermione"-group)
3 - decorated Italic group

B - with wedge-formed brow
1 - decorated Italic group
2 - with connected cheekpieces ("Picenian" group)

Corinthian-Chalcidian helmets (Corinthians with ear-cutouts and helmets which show characteristics of both types like the one Gioi showed us in his last post)

The letters and numbers in bold would be parts of the helmet-name in the main-tab. A Corinthian helmet of the middle stage of evolution with side-wedges and rounded skull with Illyrian crest would have the name
Corinthian-II1b-x(number in sequence).
The main-tab should comprise the fields for findplace and whereabout wit further tabs like in the Roman database.

This is my proposition for now. I can give a classification for the other helmet types soon if wished.

Greets,

Decebalus/Andreas Gagelmann
Andreas Gagelmann
Berlin, Germany
Reply
#63
Just saw that Dan is back Big Grin and wrote in the same time

Quote:It will however be possible to start cataloging helmets with whatever information is available; only thus can we tell which helmets we need more information for!

There I absolutely agree. There are useful typologies for some types (Illyrian, Chalcidian) and an overview at least of the material we could be confronted with (for the Corinthians for example I just put the Informations given by Kukahn, Kunze and Pflug in tabellar form which contains all mentioned variants and some examples for them - and it works until now)

Quote:I suggest that for those helmets whose photography is not permitted, note-taking is a respectable alternative, and indeed I would recommend it in addition to photos, since these don't always capture the information to be had from seeing in person.
I might suggest the addition of Incised Decoration (present/absent), and possibly Crest Evidence (present/absent) -- this is of interest, perhaps, because in the case of helmets made of perishable materials (leather or wicker or what-have-you), the metal crest fittings are the only remaining evidence of the helmet! If you think these are non-essential, say so, or suggest other, more useful attributes...

We could collect all observations which are not self-evident through the photos in the "remarks"-field

Quote:Another important question: what are our limits? Do we have strict chronological limits (will one of the 'Material' options be 'boar's tusk'...?), or geographical, or 'cultural'(!)? Do we include helmets of Montefortino-type, or exclude them because (maybe) they belong to a different 'tradition,' or arbitrarily because they're already in the Roman database? Include some if they fall within our chronological range? What about finds from Scythia? Thrace? Italy? Spain? (I think we have to include them all, but let me hear your dissent if you have it!)

What about Near Eastern helmets? Ralph mentioned an Assyrian helmet in an example. I am highly in favor of ignoring "cultural" distinctions since they can rarely be scientifically supported, but maybe geography or chronology is a factor here?

In my opinion the database could of course be extended to the types which are either ancestors or descendants of the "Greek" types. There are so many interesting connections of different cultures in their helmet-traditions that such a database would give the opportunity to do further research in this direction (Ralph's system would be of great help here).
Perhaps someday we have the corpus cassidum antiquorum which I have in my mind for years Smile

Greets,

Decebalus/Andreas Gagelmann
Andreas Gagelmann
Berlin, Germany
Reply
#64
Quote:Perhaps someday we have the corpus cassidum antiquorum which I have in my mind for years
But that means simply restructuring the Roman helmet database... Big Grin
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#65
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
Andreas Gagelmann
Berlin, Germany
Reply
#66
All the above sounds good - perhaps Dan and Andreas could liaise together and with Jasper and set up a location to start tipping photos into?
( I think Ralph will be too busy for a while)

As a test batch, I suggest Corinthians ( you should get a few photos/drawings? etc of those contributed) and once these are 'tipped in', you'll have an initial set of data for test purposes.......
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace, ODES
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" -GeorgeC Scott as General George S. Patton
Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#67
Hello? Dan , Andreas?

Any progress to report? Have you at least liaised with each other and Jasper?........nearly two weeks since anything happened.... Sad
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace, ODES
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" -GeorgeC Scott as General George S. Patton
Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#68
This week Dan and me will discuss how to do it finally and then Jasper just has to provide the space Smile
As nobody has posted critics or questions about the suggested classification it seems to be not the badest way it could be done... Big Grin

Greets,

Decebalus/Andreas Gagelmann
Andreas Gagelmann
Berlin, Germany
Reply
#69
ANDREAS/DAN
...sorry to be a nag guys, but we don't want this most important project to go "cold", do we ? :wink:

Any more progress to report? Liaised with Jasper yet? Ready for test samples?...let us try to have something going soon.....for we shall all soon be pre-occupied with Christmas, and then it will be 2008 ! Sad

I know we all lead busy lives...... :?
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace, ODES
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" -GeorgeC Scott as General George S. Patton
Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#70
Hmmm,this thrad seems to be dead...
Here I made a sketch. Would something like that be acceptable? More accuracy? Would you prefer it black and white,just the pensil? Would you be interested at all?[Image: olympiaHelmet1.jpg]
[Image: painted-helmet.jpg]
Khairete
Giannis
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#71
I would agree to accept this sketch if I were moderator. its great Giannis Smile
MNI Gioi u F**ckers Smile <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />Smile
Remarks by Philip on the Athenian Leaders:
Philip said that the Athenians were like the bust of Hermes: all mouth and dick.
:lol: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" />:lol:
Reply
#72
[Image: painted-helmet-small.jpg] [Image: olympia-Helmet-1small.jpg]
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#73
Thanks Gioi. I was wondering where were you? Do you see both images in the same size in my second post? In my screen i see the original one bigger. I don't know why,in photoshop the size is 298x320 pixels.
Khaire
Giannis
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#74
Another one.
[Image: 5612131_f30822c138_o.jpg][Image: Chalcidian-sketch.jpg]
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#75
[Image: ancient-and-sketch-small.jpg]
Khairete
Giannis
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Great picture Greek armour etc on 5th C terracotta sitalkes 3 1,393 04-15-2013, 08:17 PM
Last Post: Dan Diffendale
  A Greek Dark Age Centaur Armour hansi 8 2,844 11-01-2012, 08:52 AM
Last Post: Dan Howard
  PHOTOS-One more helmet for the database... Iagoba 20 4,885 11-25-2007, 09:28 PM
Last Post: Vishtaspa

Forum Jump: