.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
拍品专文
This later Roman iteration of the Montefortino variety can be recognized as of the Buggenum subtype due to its lack of ornamentation. Here, only a small indented edge runs above the lower perimeter of the bowl and the knob is left undecorated. According to Junkelmann (op. cit., pp. 62-63), the comparative austerity of Buggenum helmets was born out of necessity: the Roman civil wars of the late 40s and early 30s B.C. required a helmet that could be mass produced for large armies.
Of note, this example includes a punched inscription towards the front of the proper-right side reading, “ISCHAL.” It has been suggested by G.E. Thüry (p. 117 in Junkelmann, op. cit.) that this can be read as an abbreviation of “Is(…) centuria (Hal…),” or “Is(…) from the centuria of Hal(…).” For a similar example, see p. 111 in R. D’Amato and G. Sumner, Arms and Armour of the Roman Imperial Soldier: From Marius to Commodus, 112 BC-AD 192.
Of note, this example includes a punched inscription towards the front of the proper-right side reading, “ISCHAL.” It has been suggested by G.E. Thüry (p. 117 in Junkelmann, op. cit.) that this can be read as an abbreviation of “Is(…) centuria (Hal…),” or “Is(…) from the centuria of Hal(…).” For a similar example, see p. 111 in R. D’Amato and G. Sumner, Arms and Armour of the Roman Imperial Soldier: From Marius to Commodus, 112 BC-AD 192.