Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Naming conventions and images
#1
For the database it would be useful to use a naming convention for each helmet record. I suggest [Placename] [Robinsontype] (number), e.g., as in the example record: Nijmegen Imperial Gallic A. Since there's only one here - I think - a number is not necessary.

Images
- An unlimited number of images/graphic files can be connected to each record
- The maximum filesize (in pixels) is 650*650
- Format is jpg.

Suggestions?
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#2
I don't think that the Robinsontype is good for Late Roman helmets, if he even has one that is. I would like to propose the Klumbach typology for helmets dating from the late 3rd. c AD onwards.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#3
Where is that published?
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#4
Klumbach, Hans (ed.) (1973): Spätrömische Gardehelme, Münchener Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 15, (München).
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#5
I feel an editorship Late Roman helmets coming up... :wink:
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#6
Well, I still have in mind writing an article for the Fectio website, so maybe I could combine the two...
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#7
Big Grin
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#8
Perhaps [Findspot] [number] ["common name" (e.g. Robinson name, or other familiar name)]?
Don't start with any preconceived notions. If this goes off the way we want, it may be possible to see different developments.
Dan Diffendale
Ph.D. candidate, University of Michigan
Reply
#9
But Klumbach's typology for late helmets cannot accurately explain why some 'infantry/light' bowls seem to have 'cavalry/heavy' cheek-pieces or nasals... :?

Aitor (About to leave for Tarragona in four hours... Tongue )
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.

Rolf Steiner
Reply
#10
Quote:Perhaps [Findspot] [number] ["common name" (e.g. Robinson name, or other familiar name)]?
Example?

Robert/Aitor: can you give me an example of the Klumbach typology?
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#11
Quote:But Klumbach's typology for late helmets cannot accurately explain why some 'infantry/light' bowls seem to have 'cavalry/heavy' cheek-pieces or nasals... :?
Aitor (About to leave for Tarragona in four hours... Tongue )

Ah, so you're away from your pc are you? [Image: devilish.gif]

OK, Klumbach has not really set a typology, but the names for the helmets as used in his book become a sort of common set of names. Today, most authors on Late Roman helmets divide helmets into groups: Ridge helmets are subdivided into Berkasovo (heavy cheekplates, nasals) or Intercisa (light cheekplates, no nasals). But there are other attempts at classification and typology. One Hungarian archaeologist calls all helmets Intercisas. A Dutch archaeologist divides all helmets into decorated and non-decorated groups, even if the helmets themselves are identical.

Aitor is right of course, this approach has its problems, because there seem to be many hybrids that don't even seem to fit this very broad distinction. But that's the problem of Late Roman helmet typology - there does not seem to be one.

The helmets, if classified on their own, sometimes seem to form a subgroup each..
Therefore, the very rough classification based on the Klumbach book, which is also the widest known, seems to be the best fitting so far.

But discussion is always welcome.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#12
Yes, Robert, I'm away from my PC! :wink:
About the rest of your post, well synthesized! Big Grin

Aitor
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.

Rolf Steiner
Reply
#13
Quote:Therefore, the very rough classification based on the Klumbach book, which is also the widest known, seems to be the best fitting so far.
That would probably have to do then. All details can be added in other fields. Big Grin
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#14
Perhaps I should have started another thread here, but as it is to do with typology...

Looking at the helmet database today, I noticed one of the Guttmann helmets had been classified as a Gallic C.
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/

I have a problem with classing this helmet from the Axel Guttmann collection as an Imperial Gallic OR Italic 'C'

Compare it to the photographs of the Aquincum helmet, and you will see that it has far more similarities to it than with either the Kupa (Gallic C) or Cremona (Italic C) helmets. This is particularly evident in the cheek guards and the crest support. They are almost the same. It also has riveted-on ear guards unlike the Italic C's which are integral to the bowl. The Gallic C has none at all!

Also there are no typical 'Gallic' eyebrow decorations on this helmet to say it was definitely of Gallic manufacture, I would venture to suggest that it was of Italic manufacture.

Its possible find location is tentatively given as Northern Britain(?). Legio I Adiutrix were in Britain in the late first century, perhaps as this helmet bears a greater resemblance to the Aquincum helmet it is plausible it may have belonged to a soldier of the adiutrix legion?

Classifying recent helmet finds in a ‘Robinson type’ can get confusing, as the typology he used appears to be rather dated now.

Also, how did this get to be classified as a Gallic G?
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/


Just some thoughts!
Reply
#15
I would prefer the calssification by name of the site where the first example of a cartain type was found by far. I.e. "Niederbieber", "Hagenau" etc.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.

LEGIO XIII GEMINA

[Image: BannerAER-1-1.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump: