12-31-2008, 11:29 AM
I think it's impossible to be sure 100% if a helmet its for cavalry or infantry, and a lot more if it belongs to a legionary or an auxiliar.
I think too, it's an mistake to use "gallic" or "italic" because we don't know if those helmets were produced in Gaul or Italy. For example, why we don't use itallic for the Montefortinos and coolus? It's very probable that were made in Italy...
As we have talk a lot of times, a helmet it's a thing dificult to mark in an specific type. Most of them were made one by one, so there were minor variations between one and the other.
I think to made a closed tipology it have no sense by itself. A tipology is used to compares a thing with another. If we have an specific helmet we can made the comparation with other ones. For reference, i think it's better to understand if we use the old tipologies than if we start an alphanumeric tipology.
In roman pottery, black glazed, Morel have done a very complicated tipology with some numbers in relationship with caracteristics of the piece (the lip, with foot or not, etc...). Personally, i think it's complicated and many scholars continue using the old Lamboglia clasification, less complicated and with a lot less variants.
I think too, it's an mistake to use "gallic" or "italic" because we don't know if those helmets were produced in Gaul or Italy. For example, why we don't use itallic for the Montefortinos and coolus? It's very probable that were made in Italy...
As we have talk a lot of times, a helmet it's a thing dificult to mark in an specific type. Most of them were made one by one, so there were minor variations between one and the other.
I think to made a closed tipology it have no sense by itself. A tipology is used to compares a thing with another. If we have an specific helmet we can made the comparation with other ones. For reference, i think it's better to understand if we use the old tipologies than if we start an alphanumeric tipology.
In roman pottery, black glazed, Morel have done a very complicated tipology with some numbers in relationship with caracteristics of the piece (the lip, with foot or not, etc...). Personally, i think it's complicated and many scholars continue using the old Lamboglia clasification, less complicated and with a lot less variants.
Cesar Pocinya
ALA AUGUSTA
https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/115550981827499/
OFFICINA AVITIANA
https://www.facebook.com/oficinaavitiana
ALA AUGUSTA
https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/115550981827499/
OFFICINA AVITIANA
https://www.facebook.com/oficinaavitiana
