Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion
#12
Quote:Now that is an ambiguous statement. The award was invented to honour the best reconstruction or impression, as said above. The term reconstruction is clearly defined: To recreate a historic object with exactly the same methods with which it originally was made.


To be eligible there are more parameters to meet than I originally thought. Still, there must have been some leeway granted to past winners. Deepeeka, for example, makes their Imperial helmets from two pieces in their construction as opposed to the original Roman method. Are Deepeeka helmets, therefore, a disqualifiable factor when considering candidates for the Hasta award ? Maybe they are, I honestly don't know how strictly the rules are adhered to. It seems like a tall order for those of us who aren't swimming in cash :?

Other examples I can think of are the subarmalis and pteruges. None survive. Yet, would wearing them for an impression disqualify the candidate ?

Quote:This is not so much about the use of or interpretation of archaeological evidence, it clearly plays a role, but it´s not at the centre. So then please tell me, if none of these helmets was ever found, how would you make a reconstruction?

Ok, I was drawn to the conclusion that somehow Roman art doesn't count as archaeological evidence. But to answer your question : you can't do so with 100% confidence. However, the highly detailed carved relief in two examples I know of give many clues to how the helmets must have been constructed. Plus, we could piece together our knowledge of surviving helmets and synthesize an intelligent guess.

Quote:And I know of some attic helmets in a Roman context, but they are all a bit earlier, that is: Middle Republican.

Touche. I forgot about those :oops: Then again, those helmets would serve well in my answer to your last question. They are clearly ancestors to the helmets from the Early Imperial period and as such can be used to create a more plausible reconstruction.

Quote:If you´d say "in an Early Imperial Roman context", then I´d agree.

Right. I should have been specific :oops:

~Theo
Jaime
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion - by Theodosius the Great - 07-31-2007, 09:28 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Primvs Pavlvs presentation discussion Peroni 7 11,882 01-14-2008, 04:56 PM
Last Post: Chuck Russell
  caiustarquitius - presentation caiusbeerquitius 0 6,748 05-06-2007, 06:34 PM
Last Post: caiusbeerquitius
  Model Presentation caiusbeerquitius 0 6,675 05-18-2006, 05:36 PM
Last Post: caiusbeerquitius

Forum Jump: