From Greek boar tusk helmets to the first European metal helmets: New approaches on development and date. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 34/2, 391-412

MARIANNE MÖDLINGER

FROM GREEK BOAR’S-TUSK HELMETS TO THE FIRSTEUROPEAN METAL HELMETS: NEW APPROACHES ONDEVELOPMENT AND CHRONOLOGY

Summary. After more than a century of research into Bronze Age helmetsthroughout Europe, both the development and chronology of conical helmetswith spool-shaped sockets still remain unclear. The comprehensive studies andanalysis of the helmet from Biecz have not completely resolved the discussions.Other helmets, when not solitary finds, have been usually dated according totheir alleged associations in a hoard but have never been extensively discussedas a single helmet type of one date range. By introducing to the discussion aGreek bronze helmet with incised boar’s tusks as well as those boar’s-tuskhelmets with bronze cheek plates, more light is shed on the development andchronology of these very first European bronze helmets.

INTRODUCTION

Finds of European metal defensive armour, as opposed to those of weapons, are scarce.Omitting a few older finds, metal armour really first appears at the beginning of the Urnfieldculture (c.1300 BC). Approximately 95 shields, 120 helmets, 30 cuirasses and 40 greaves(sometimes found as pairs) are known. The best studied objects are shields (Uckelmann 2012)and helmets (v. Merhart 1941; Hencken 1971; Clausing 2001; 2005). The distribution areas ofthe various classes differ significantly. For example, we do not have any secure finds of bronzehelmets or greaves from the United Kingdom and just two secure helmet finds from the IberianPeninsula, though depictions are known. Again, metal shields are lacking in France, the Alpineregion and Italy. The only regions where all types of armour are found together are theCarpathian Basin and Moravia/Slovakia.

Helmets are usually distinguished according to their construction technology as wellas their shape. In western Europe, two-piece, crested helmets are the main types; another typeof crested helmet, the Pass Lueg, is distributed throughout the Austrian Alps (for the mostrecent discussion, see Lippert 2011). In central and eastern Europe, conical helmets, caphelmets and bell helmets dominate. Apart from some cap helmets, all the above types have asocket or knob on the top, which generally sports an opening in the middle so as to attach aplume.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 32(4) 391–412 2013© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 391

Conical helmets with spool-shaped sockets have received many appellations: firstdescribed as ‘Kegelhelme’ (cone-helmets; v. Merhart 1941), then as ‘helmets of the Lúcky type’(Mozsolics 1955, 35–6), later as ‘conical bell helmets’ (Hencken 1971), once more as‘Kegelhelme’ (Borchhardt 1972), becoming ‘helmets with spool-like socket’ (Mozsolics 1985,24) and most recently ‘Helme mit konischer Kalotte und Scheitelknauf’ (helmets with conicalcalotte and a crest-knob; Clausing 2001, 217–18). In the following account, they will be calledconical helmets.

The oldest-made finds, namely the helmets from Oranienburg, Biecz and Lúcky, werethen considered as part of v. Merhart’s group of ‘Glockenhelme’ (bell-helmets) (1941, 5, fig. 2,4–6). Hencken (1971, 33–4) refined v. Merhart’s definition into ‘conical bell helmets’ and‘rounded bell helmets’, placing the three oldest helmets in the first group. Furthermore, he addedto his group of conical bell helmets the examples from Knossos, Spišská Belá, Žaškov andKeresztéte. Borchhardt (1972, 126–7) added to his ‘Kegelhelme’ corpus the helmets from Biecz,Oranienburg, Keresztéte, Lúcky and Csönge. The helmet from Csönge dates to Hallstatt(hereafter Ha) C/D (800–550 BC); in shape it does not resemble the other conical helmets. Thus,this helmet will not be discussed here. Thirty years and several new finds later, Clausing (2001,218) augmented Hencken’s group of conical bell helmets with the finds from Sîg, Dunaföldvárand Nadap. Today, one more piece can be added: a helmet with an unknown find-spot, comingfrom a private collection, was sold at Christie’s in New York on 18 December, 1998 (Buchholzet al. 2010).

While analysing a polished micro-section of this helmet at the Metropolitan Museum ofArt, R. Stone and K. Roth noted inter-granular corrosion in the metallic matrix. Furthermore,corrosion grew over the tool marks, respectively chasing lines. Both observations, which areusually found on antique bronzes (as on other conical helmets, see Mödlinger et al. 2013),certainly eliminate any doubt as to the authenticity of the helmet.

DESCRIPTION

Almost all conical helmets are complete or missing just a few parts (Figs. 1 and 2),though only the spool-shaped sockets of the Slovakian finds from Spišská Belá and Žaškov arepreserved today (Fig. 3). From the helmet from Keresztéte only one fragment of the edge now

Figure 1Conical helmets with spool-shaped sockets (scale 1:4). 1 – Oranienburg. 2 – Dunaföldvár.

FROM GREEK BOAR’S-TUSK HELMETS TO THE FIRST EUROPEAN METAL HELMETS

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.392

remains; however, a photograph published by Mozsolics (1985, pl. 150:9) shows a morecomplete object (Fig. 4). The helmets from Dendra and Knossos and that with boar’s-tuskdecoration and unknown find-spot (Buchholz et al. 2010), all related closely to the conicalhelmets, are almost whole (Fig. 5).

The conical helmets were usually worked into shape out of a flat, cast disc made oftin-bronze (Mödlinger et al. 2013). All are rather thin, as is also indicated by their light weight:this characteristic distinguishes them significantly from the later and more massive bellhelmets. In size and weight they closely resemble each other (Table 2). Once the conical capwas finished, the socket or knob was usually cast on. This last feature served to hold a crest orplume of some organic material, as we know from older depictions of boar’s-tusk helmets(Borchhardt 1972).

The caps (or bodies) of the conical helmets have rivet holes, regularly distributed,running all round and parallel to the lower edge. The helmet from Biecz alone has them only onthe broader sides: three rivet holes to attach each of the cheek plates, and on the neck threefurther (rivet) holes to attach a neck guard. Here the lack of further rivet holes probably indicatesthe presence of a separate cap made of organic materials over which the bronze helmet was worn.All the other helmets probably had such an organic cap or inner padding permanently attachedto the inside of the helmet by the rivets. The helmets from Biecz, Keresztéte and Lúcky show asmall alteration to the lower edge profile, either a shallow semicircular bite taken out or a gentler

Figure 2Conical helmets with spool-shaped sockets (scale 1:4). 1 – Biecz (cross-section after Hencken 1971, fig. 13, d).

2 – Nadap (cross-section after Makkay 2006, pl. 1). 3 – Sîg (after Soroçeanu and Lakó 1981, fig. 9.4). 4 – Lúcky(cross-section after Hencken 1971, fig. 13, b).

MARIANNE MÖDLINGER

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 393

Figure 3Conical helmets with spool-shaped sockets (scale 1:1). 1 – Spišská Belá (cross-section after Hencken 1971, 35,

fig. H). 2 – Žaškov (cross-section after Hencken 1971, 38, fig. 17, b).

Figure 4Conical helmet with spool-shaped sockets (scale 1:4). Keresztéte (after Mozsolics 1985, pl. 150:9).



upward curve in its line; these are most likely to be positioned at the back of the helmet, to permitthe wearer easier head movements. However, on the helmet from Biecz the larger cut-out is in thefront of the helmet, while on the back the cut-out is much smaller. It might also have permittedthe placing of a neck guard, as an integral part of the internal organic padding. Other than thehelmets from Dunaföldvár and Keresztéte, where the upper part is missing and so with it anypotential socket, all the helmets have a spool-shaped attachment, small in size and cast on, whichcontains a central hole. The socket of the helmet from Knossos alone was held in place by sevenrivets. The knob of the helmet without a find-spot is unique in its nature – neither cast nor rivetedon, but worked up directly out of the sheet of the helmet. Additionally, this specimen is decoratedwith abstract motifs: boar’s tusks and running spirals. The different manufacturing or joiningprocesses of helmet and knob seen in the Greek helmets mean that production sites separate fromthose of the European helmets must be considered for them (see below).

DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION

Though the distribution area of conical helmets is rather wide – it ranged from theHavel–Oder region in northern Germany to the Carpathian Basin and the Aegean, the similarityof the helmets as well as the fact that they do not resemble any other type of helmet shouldindicate a close connection. This belief is also supported by other imported Aegean finds thathave turned up in the Havel–Oder region, such as the spearhead from the hoard from Kyhna(Hänsel 2003, 82), as well as the fact that such elaborate sheet metalwork in bronze is scarce inthe Nordic Bronze Age work of this period. According to Hencken (1971, 9), the helmets wereproduced in the general region of Slovakia, whereas Buchholz et al. (2010, 201) assume for thehelmet with the unknown find-spot a production area north of the Gulf of Corinth or in thePeloponnese.

Figure 5Conical helmets with spool-shaped sockets (scale 1:4). 1 – Knossos. 2 – helmet with unknown findspot.

3 – Dendra.

MARIANNE MÖDLINGER


However, the production area might be even broader in accordance with theirdistribution pattern, if we rule out the idea that they were all exports from the Aegean (Fig. 6).Different centres of production were suggested by Hood and de Jong (1952, 259–60), whonoted that the Biecz helmet is of lighter calibre, the knob applied differently and the helmetgenerally of ‘worse’ quality than the helmet from Knossos; the last exhibited, in their opinion(1952, 259, note 86), higher standards of workmanship than would be found ‘at someprovincial centre’. Hood and de Jong (1952, 258) pointed out that the conical helmets havetheir origin in the Aegean, if not specifically in the Minoan culture: a view which remainsprobable today, despite the fact that the quality of the more western helmets does not seem tobe inferior. This question of provenance, however, can be discussed only by means of detailedmaterial analyses of all the helmets (Mödlinger et al. 2013). However, it seems morereasonable to assume that the initial production centre was in the Aegean with some helmets(i.e. Biecz) being exported and that later a second production area developed on the way in theCarpathian Basin.

Figure 6Distribution map of conical helmets with spool-shaped sockets.



We should note that so far only ‘complete’ caps of conical helmets and sockets fromconical helmets are known. Fragments coming only from the cap or from the rim with its rivetholes have not been identified yet, though there might exist pieces, as for example in the hoardat Jászkarajeno (Mozsolics 1985, pl. 251:26), that are worth further examination. However, sincethe helmets found in hoards are all complete or represented by the knob only, perhaps sometradition prevented the placing of only a fragment of the cap in hoards.

Generally speaking, the circumstances under which the conical helmets have beenfound are not at all uniform and thus are not dictated by the type of helmet involved, but rathermore by the deposition practices operating in the region where they were found (Table 1).Regrettably for the unusual helmet with the unknown find-spot, no further information isavailable. The helmet from Knossos is from a grave, while the helmets from Dunaföldvár andOranienburg are each a single find from a river. All other helmets were parts of hoards. Thehigh numbers and condition of those helmets deposited in hoards are highly surprising: thosefrom Nadap, Keresztéte, Lúcky, Biecz and Sîg were more or less complete. This situation ispoles apart from, say, circumstances surrounding cap helmets with rib- and star-decoration,which date to HaA and overlap in their distribution area with the conical helmets. They areusually represented by just a single fragment in their hoards (Mödlinger 2013). In the sameway, only the spool-shaped sockets of the conical helmets were deposited in the hoards fromSpišská Belá and Žaškov.

Further, the composition of the hoards differs. The helmet from Biecz was allegedlydeposited with two ingot torques and one triangular blade of an Early Bronze Age Oder–Elbe-type dagger. The helmet from Nadap is part of one of the biggest Bronze Age hoards inEurope with, roughly, all the categories of known bronze objects being represented (Makkay2006); other defensive armour was present, namely two pairs of greaves, as well as shield anddecorated cap helmet fragments. According to Mozsolics (1985, 135), the hoard fromKeresztéte consists of one fragmented bronze disc, one spearhead with a profiled socket, threefurther similar spearheads and another smaller example, one cauldron with both triangularhandles and a thick, round-sectioned wire which served for the cauldron’s suspension-handle,a biconical jug of sheet bronze, 16 bracelets, some with round cross-sections and chevrondecoration, another one with rhomboid cross-section, one ring and the helmet. Thecomposition of the hoard from Lúcky might be open to question, since the find circumstancesare not completely secure: the hoard was bought from an itinerant salesman and the corrosionon the allegedly companion objects – a situla of Hajdúböszörmény type and a cauldron withcross-shaped handles – differs from that on the helmet. The hoard from Sîg contains inaddition to the helmet a vessel of Hajdúböszörmény type, further vessel fragments with cross-shaped handles, a handle of yet another vessel, five bronze cups of the Kirkendrup andFuchsstadt types, five bracelets, phalerae, one spearhead, sickle fragments, two socketed axeswith double V-ribs and a possible fragment of a saw. The hoard from Spišská Belá yielded,besides the spool-shaped socket of the helmet, three spearheads, four plain bracelets (threewith an oval cross-section, one with a rhomboid cross-section) and parts of two cups of theSpišská Belá type. Further recorded finds, namely four spearheads, four bracelets andthree socketed axes (two with ‘Schnabeltülle’, one with ribs parallel to the rim of the socket)and a round object, are now missing (Hencken 1971, 33). Lastly, the hoard from Žaškovconsists of the spool-shaped socket of the helmet, alongside socketed axes, the hilt of aLiptau-sword, rings and a bowl of Satteldorf type, pins, a socketed chisel, sickles, twospearheads and two ingots.

MARIANNE MÖDLINGER


TA

BL

E1

Find

circ

umst

ance

san

dal

lege

dfin

dsm

ade

with

coni

cal

helm

ets

Arm

ring

sM

etal

vess

els

Spea

rhea

dsA

xes

Sick

les

Swor

ds/

dagg

erM

etal

lurg

ical

obje

cts

Phal

erae

Oth

eror

nam

ents

Def

ensi

vear

mou

rO

ther

Tota

lno

.of

obje

cts

inho

ard/

grav

e

Nad

apx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

>70

0Ž

aško

vx

xx

xx

xx

xx

43Sî

gx

xx

xx

xx

50Sp

išsk

áB

elá

xx

xx

x23

Ker

eszt

éte

xx

xx

25B

iecz

xx

4L

úcky

(x)

3K

noss

osx

xx

x13

Unk

now

nsi

teun

know

nfin

dci

rcum

stan

ces

Ora

nien

burg

sing

lefin

dfr

omth

eR

iver

Hav

elD

unaf

öldv

ársi

ngle

find

from

the

Riv

erD

anub

e



CHRONOLOGY AND TYPOLOGY

The course of the development from boar’s-tusk helmets to the oldest European metalhelmets so far is marked by three helmets: the helmet from Dendra (the only boar’s-tusk helmetwith metal cheek plates), the helmet from the unknown find-spot and the one from Knossos. Thelast is considered to be the oldest European metal helmet and so the oldest of the conical helmetswith spool-shaped sockets: it is dated to the fifteenth century BC (Müller-Karpe 1962, 271;Hencken 1971, 20).

The Dendra helmet, also dated to the first half of the fifteenth century BC (Verdelis1967, 7), is still a boar’s-tusk helmet but with bronze cheek plates added, thus testifying for thefirst time in Europe the adoption of metal in the construction of helmets. The helmet with theunknown find-spot is completely metal, but in its cap profile and also its incised decoration refersdirectly to the boar’s-tusk helmet with spool-shaped socket as exemplified by the ivory appliquésfrom Mycenae or further depictions from Mycenae and Delos (for further depictions seeBorchhardt 1972, catalogue 3–5, 9). Unfortunately, no cheek plates for this helmet are preserved.However, the cheek plates of Europe’s first completely metal helmet, that from Knossos, closelyresemble the cheek plates from the Dendra helmet (Hood and de Jong 1952, fig. 12; Borchhardt1972, 58, pl. 6:2–3). Both sets of cheek plates were defined as type IA by Borchhardt (1972, 72,fig. 6).

The similarity of the cap’s profile of the helmet from Knossos with that from theunknown find-spot is surely no coincidence. Of course, we have to take into account theheavily fragmented original state of the helmet from Knossos at the time of its discovery,deformed owing to the collapse of the tomb chamber. However, these similarities mightindicate that the adoption of metal in the construction of helmets happened rather fast. This inturn would allow us to date the helmet with the unknown find-spot to around 1400 BC,probably holding some intermediary position between the helmets from Dendra and Knossos.Such a premise is consistent with dates in LH II and LM IIIA respectively, i.e. the middle ofthe fifteenth century BC, in accordance with the nature and manner of its decoration(Buchholz et al. 2010, 193, 201).

Further, the spool-shaped socket also places this unprovenanced helmet close to thehelmet from Knossos. The incised decoration of boar’s tusks, arranged in the same way as weknow from such helmets, makes this piece a perfect transitional type between the older boar’s-tusk helmets proper and the conical helmets, and would thus suggest a date for it prior to that ofthe helmet from Knossos. Even so, we have to bear in mind that later Aegean depictions ofboar’s-tusk helmets might be representing ones such as this and not always actual boar’s-tuskhelmets – for example the yellow-coloured boar’s-tusk helmets with neck guards seen with thechariot riders in the Pylos fresco (Borchhardt 1972, pl. 5:1).

An indication for the contemporary appearance of boar’s-tusk helmets and bronzehelmets might be derived from thirteenth century BC frescos at Pylos. Here are to be seen whiteboar’s-tusk helmets, yellow helmets with several registers similar to boar’s-tusk helmets and yetother yellow helmets with bosses, nose guards and sockets (Borchhardt 1972, pl. 11:1). On theship-fresco from Thera-Akrotiri dated to the sixteenth century BC, both white boar’s-tuskhelmets and yellow bronze(?) helmets with knobs are visible. Both types hang from the shiptimbers, set over their owners. Another very probable bronze helmet with a knob (similar to theEuropean bell helmets, but not actually connected with them) is depicted on a fresco fromMycenae and dates to 1400 BC (Borchhardt 1972, pl. 37:3).

MARIANNE MÖDLINGER


Searching further for early bronze conical helmets with spool-shaped knobs, we have totravel to the north-east of central Europe – to Biecz, Poland. Hänsel (2003, 77–84) convincinglyconcludes that the helmet from Biecz is part of the hoard with an Ùnetice dagger and ingottorques, so assigning a possible date to this helmet of already within the late Early Bronze Age(around 1600 BC). Hänsel (2003, 77–84) agrees with Hencken (1952), who first suggested thisdate in print and was criticized heavily for it (Sprockhoff 1956, 85; v. Merhart 1956–1957, 144;Hachmann 1957, 176; Gimbutas 1965, 58). If the dating of the hoard is correct and the helmetreally belongs to it, the helmet from Biecz would be even older than the helmet from Knossosand would thus become the oldest metal helmet in Europe (for the detailed discussion of findcircumstances of each helmet see Catalogue, pp. 401–9). However, the appearance of the helmetwith the unknown find-spot mitigates against the helmet from Biecz being older than the helmetfrom Knossos, as Hänsel (2003, 77–84) considered, since the helmet with the unknown find-spotproves a direct and later connection between boar’s-tusk helmets and conical helmets. To assumethat the hoard from Biecz was actually deposited in the late Middle Bronze Age (fourteenthcentury BC), and its helmet is thus younger than the helmet from Knossos, seems therefore amore reasonable position (see Catalogue, p. 403). However, it would most likely still be theoldest bronze helmet from central and eastern Europe (assuming the helmets from Dunaföldvárand Oranienburg were not placed in their rivers even earlier). All other conical helmets found inhoards are usually dated to Bronzezeit (hereafter Bz) D–HaA1–2 (1300–1050 BC) or, accordingto the presence of vessels of alleged Hajdúböszörmény type, at times as early as HaBl (i.e. thetenth century BC).

Since the helmets from Oranienburg and Dunaföldvár were found in rivers, they have tobe dated according to their resemblance to the other conical helmets. This has already been done:Egg and Waurick (1990, 14) placed the helmet from Oranienburg in the twelfth–thirteenthcentury BC; Szabó (1994, 224) considered the helmet from Dunaföldvár, which he dated,according to Mozsolics (1985, 24) for Keresztéte and Petres (1982, 58) for Nadap, to HaA–B.

The hoards from Nadap (discussed most recently by Uckelmann 2012), Spišská Belá,Žaškov and Keresztéte (Schauer 1988, 183–4) are dated to BzD–HaA1. Novotná (1964, 21)dates the hoards from Žaškov and Spišská Belá generally to HaA. Müller-Karpe (1959, 158, note3) places the hoard from Keresztéte in HaA2, as does v. Brunn (1968). Mozsolics (1985, 135)most recently dates it to the horizon Kúrd B Vb, resp. HaA1. According to the presence ofalleged fragments of vessels of Hajdúböszörmény type in the hoards from Lúcky and Sîg, theseare to be dated to HaB1 (Soroçeanu and Lakó 1981, 156; Schauer 1988, 184–91; Patay 1969,205). Mozsolics argues that helmets of the Knossos type therefore date to the Kúrd horizon/HaA1 (1985, 24). However, it must be noted that it is not securely proven that the helmetfrom Lúcky was found with this hoard or even that Lúcky is the actual find-spot (see Catalogue,p. 406).

It seems that the most reasonable course is to assume the conical helmets are one of theoldest objects in all the hoards, and thus should date to BzD. Excluding the hoards from Lúckyand Sîg, most authors place the hoards in the time-span from BzD to HaA. Including these sametwo hoards extends the date down to HaB1 (thanks only to the presence of the Hajdúböszörménytype vases); the helmets can still thus be fitted within the shorter date range, if one accepts theyare one of the oldest objects within the two hoards.

As recent analyses have also demonstrated (Mödlinger et al. 2013), the alloycomposition of conical helmets is quite uniform. With the exception of the cap of the helmetfrom Spišská Belá with 8.6 wt% tin, the tin content of conical helmets is quite uniform in the



range c.10–14 wt% tin. Lead is usually a trace element, as are silver, arsenic and nickel; sulphurand iron are also trace elements, but with higher amounts than the previously mentionedelements. The higher amounts of lead in the helmets from Dunaföldvár and Keresztéte might bedue to the non-invasive analytical methods used (PGAA, PIXE). The Biecz helmet was analysedby qualitative XRF for the State Archaeological Museum, Warsaw in 1993, which showed thatthe cap was made of tin-bronze with traces of lead and nickel. The knob turned out to be madeof slightly leaded tin-bronze containing traces of nickel and silver (Cowell and Hyne, BritishMuseum, Department of Conservation and Scientific Research, internal file number 6427). Wehope that the recently undertaken quantitative XRF analysis on the cap of the Biecz helmet at theBritish Museum will be published by S. Hansen soon. At present, the helmet from Biecz fitsperfectly within the group of conical helmets, whose caps so far contain 10.3–14.4 wt% tin(Mödlinger et al. 2013).

CONCLUSIONS

Three helmets so far define the development from boar’s-tusk helmets to the oldestEuropean metal helmets: the boar’s-tusk helmet from Dendra with its bronze cheek plates,closely resembling those from the helmet from Knossos; the conical bronze helmet from theunknown find-spot, ornamented with incised or punched boar’s tusk as decoration and with aspool-shaped socket; and, last, the bronze helmet from Knossos with its bronze cheek plates,conical cap profile and spool-shaped socket. Ten further bronze helmets with the same profileand spool-shaped knob are known: they range across to the north-east of central Europe, with aprobable distribution centre in the northern Carpathian Bow. Paradoxically, the helmet fromBiecz, chronologically the closest and probably an Aegean export, is the furthest distant from theAegean. It is likely that this dates to BzC2 (fourteenth century BC). The helmets fromOranienburg and Dunaföldvár were retrieved from rivers, thus not directly contributing tomatters chronological. Most hoards with similar helmets, namely those from Keresztéte, Nadap,Spišská Belá and Žaškov, are dated usually to BzD–HaA, whilst those from Lúcky and Sîg runon down to HaB1. The helmets are almost certainly one of the oldest objects in these hoards, thusindicating a main period of usage for the conical helmet from the fifteenth century in Greecedown to the thirteenth century in eastern Europe.

CATALOGUE (Table 2)

Cat. no. 1. Greece (?) (Fig. 5, no. 2) – find circumstances unknown – complete – height:17.8 cm; diameter: 19.5 x 21 cm; thickness: cap: < 1 mm; knob: 1–2.5 mm; weight: 497 gm –private collection. The helmet was sold at Christie’s in New York, on 18 December, 1998 (Sale9020, Lot 64) – Born 2009, fig. 24; Buchholz et al. 2010.

In 1952 the helmet appeared on the market in Massachusetts; it had been offered earlier,together with other potential associated finds, to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. However,no securely connected finds are known (Buchholz et al. 2010, 139, 192). According to the natureof the corrosion, the helmet was most likely found in a grave. The chlorides in the corrosionindicate a deposition close to the sea.

The helmet has 26 rivet holes approximately 4 mm in diameter along the edge, whichwere punched through from the outside to the inside. Five rivet holes were replaced during therestoration; further parts of the original helmet are missing close to the spirals. On the inside of

MARIANNE MÖDLINGER


TA

BL

E2

Ove

rvie

wan

dm

ain

char

acte

rist

ics

ofth

eco

nica

lhe

lmet

sdi

scus

sed

Cat

.no.

Find

-spo

tFi

ndci

rcum

stan

ces

Wei

ght

Dia

met

erba

seH

eigh

tM

useu

mIn

v.no

.

1un

know

nun

know

n49

7gm

19.5

x21

cm17

.8cm

repo

sito

ryun

know

nno

inv.

no.

2K

noss

os,G

reec

egr

ave

695

gm21

x24

cm17

cmH

erak

lion

Arc

haeo

logi

cal

Mus

eum

Her

aklio

n–

3B

iecz

,Pol

and

hoar

d(b

og)

353

gm19

.5x

21.5

cm18

cmB

ritis

hM

useu

mL

ondo

n18

68-1

228.

248

4O

rani

enbu

rg,G

erm

any

rive

r63

8gm

?x

22.5

cm21

cmH

eim

atm

useu

mO

rani

enbu

rg–

5Ž

aško

v,Sl

ovak

iaho

ard

––

–Sl

oven

ské

náro

dné

múz

eum

Mar

tin35

04

6Sp

išsk

áB

elá,

Slov

akia

hoar

d–

––

Podt

atra

nské

Múz

eum

Popr

ad88

2

7L

úcky

,Slo

vaki

aho

ard

–20

x21

cm19

.5cm

Arc

heol

ogic

kém

úzeu

mSN

MB

ratis

lava

4518

8K

eres

ztét

e,H

unga

ryho

ard

32gm

(not

com

plet

e)–

–M

agya

rN

emze

tiM

úzeu

mB

udap

est

31/1

941/

1-25

9N

adap

,Hun

gary

hoar

dno

tpo

ssib

leto

mea

sure

–18

.5cm

Szen

tIs

tván

Kir

ály

Múz

eum

Szék

esfe

hérv

árno

inv.

no.

10D

unaf

öldv

ár,H

unga

ryri

ver

488

gm(w

ithou

tkn

ob)

21.1

x22

.2cm

16.9

cm(w

ithou

tkn

ob)

Wos

insk

yM

órM

egye

iM

úzeu

mSz

eksz

árd

O.9

3.33

.1

11Sî

g,R

oman

iaho

ard

112

gm(n

otco

mpl

ete)

–10

cm(n

otco

mpl

ete)

Muz

eul

Jude

tean

deIs

tori

esi

Arl

a-Z

alau

Zal

auno

inv.

no.



the helmet horizontal traces of hammering are still visible (Buchholz et al. 2010, fig. 57). Twoancient repairs can be seen: one 5.5 cm long crack was held together by a now lost bronze sheetpatch which was fixed on both sides of the crack by two rivets, again now missing. It is possiblethat the mend was carried out before the decoration was applied (Buchholz et al. 2010, 149).Another crack below the knob was fixed with a bronze sheet patch and three rivets. Two furthercracks from the knob downwards were not fixed, though they are severe. The depressed knob andthe latter cracks might be the result of an impact during fighting.

At the knob, the bronze sheet is approximately double the thickness of the rest of the cap.According to Buchholz et al. (2010, 158, figs. 74–5), the knob is a skeuomorph: it reflects themethod of closing the top of a leather padding in earlier and contemporary helmets made of organicmaterials, such as boar’s tusks (envisage a bag closed at its neck with a band, leaving the upper partof the bag still projecting above). Such an act results in a spool-shaped form, as we can see, forexample, on the ivory plaques from Mycenae. Depictions of helmets with spool-shaped sockets areknown until LH/LM IIIA (1400–1300 BC) from Crete and the Argolid (Borchhardt 1972).

The decoration on the helmet is punched; originally it was probably infilled to improveits visibility. However, the white pigmentation visible today was added to the decoration duringthe restoration process. The bronze helmet is decorated with registers of punched ornament: twobelow the finial and two above the bottom edge. The registers become broader from the top downto the rim of the helmet, as we also see in actual boar’s-tusk helmets (e.g. Vaphio, Delos orDendra). Each of the registers is filled with simplified boar-tusk motifs, each set facing in theopposite direction to its neighbour. The lowest register also bears four left-turning runningspirals. The ‘lines’ making up the patterns are similar to those seen on the well-known Cypriot‘Whiteslip Ware’: they look like ladders. Similar decoration is known from LH III ceramics fromCrete, Kallithea or Tiryns, bronze vessels from Knossos or silver vessels and gold cups fromMycenae and Dendra (Buchholz et al. 2010, 170).

The middle register, the broadest, is left without any decoration. There is no indicationof gilding or silvering here (Buchholz et al. 2010, 156). Parallels for a blank register of this sizein combination with others filled with boar’s tusks are scarce. However, blank registers per se areknown: for example from the helmet depiction on the ceramic vase from Isopata, grave 5 or themarble engraving from Ayia Irini, Keos. If we do not want to consider a completely blank area– and given that gilding or silvering has to be excluded, we might think of a perishable materialsuch as a ribbon, whose ends could be left loose to flutter in the wind, as we know from Syria.

Spiral decoration is usually not found on actual bronze or depicted helmets, thoughcircles are seen, as on the ivory miniature helmet from Knossos. However, as the vase fromIsopata shows, spirals and helmets are connected. Similar spirals as on our helmet, also withinner ‘open end’, can be found in Gournia, Crete on LM II ceramics and on a bronze pan fromIsopata, Crete. It must be noted that usually only precious goods or luxury objects bear this typeof spiral decoration (Buchholz et al. 2010, 180).

Cat. no. 2. Knossos, Crete, Greece (Fig. 5, no. 1) – grave 5 – complete – HeraklionArchaeological Museum (Αρχαιολογικο Μουσειο Ηρακλειου), inv. no. unknown – height:17 cm; diameter: 24 x 21 cm; knob height: 3.9 cm; diameter at the knob’s base: 5 cm; thickness:1–1.5 mm; total weight helmet: 695 gm. Cheek plates: length: 16.5 cm; breadth: 9 cm; weightcheek plates together: 214 gm – Clausing 2001, 218; Buchholz et al. 2010; Vasilakis 1999, 114,fig. on the right; Hencken 1971, 20, fig. 3, e–g; Schauer 1988, 183; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985,196–7, 199, table 1; Bouzek 1981, 21–3, fig. 1, 1; 3; Borchhardt 1972, 56–7, 60, cat. no. 11, I;

MARIANNE MÖDLINGER


Müller-Karpe 1962, 271–2; Schachermeyr 1960, 63, 66, fig. 54; Yalouris 1960, 55; Hachmann1957, 176; Matz 1956, 126; Ventris and Chadwick 1956, 377, fig. 26 A; Marinatos 1959, 113;Zervos 1956, fig. 719; Hencken 1953, 107; Hood and de Jong 1952, 252–60, pls. 50–2:a.

The helmet was first published in 1952, after two years of excavation at Ayios Ioannisand the new hospital site in Knossos. Grave V from the latter site contained the helmet: with itwere a rapier and a spearhead, as well as stone vases (three of alabaster and two of othermaterials). Close to the helmet, a lead disc 5.5 cm in diameter with a cover of bronze was found.Evidently it was part of the helmet, e.g. an extra weight attached to an organic neck guard, so thatit would not wave about. Unfortunately, the helmet had been smashed and crushed into over ahundred fragments when the tomb chamber collapsed. Nevertheless, it was possible toreconstruct it almost completely. Possible traces of usage or manufacture, however, were hard todetect. The helmet resembles the older boar’s-tusk helmets in profile and recalls the ivorycarvings from the House of Shields at Mycenae (Hencken 1971, 8).

The row of rivet holes parallel to the rim served to fix an organic padding, as well asthe cheek plates, thus connecting the helmet with the younger central European examples. Itis also possible that the holes in the rim held a neck guard, such as is shown on the ivoryheads of warriors equipped with boar’s-tusk helmets (Hencken 1971, 20). It is not clear if thecheek plates overlapped the bottom of the helmet or if they were fitted edge to edge. Theassumed internal padding of the helmet and cheek plates might have been of a piece. Thecheek plates each have 18 small rivet holes between 1.5–2 mm in diameter. The rivet holes onthe helmet are set about 1.6 cm apart and were punched through from the outside to the insideof the helmet.

The socket for the plume is attached to the calotte with seven rivets; it is pierced by a4 mm wide hole to hold the plume. The helmet from Knossos is the only conical helmet withcheek plates preserved.

Cat. no. 3. Biecz (Beitzsch), woj. małopolskie, Poland (Fig. 2, no. 1) – hoard (bog find) –complete – height: 16.2 cm (cap); 1.8 cm (socket); diameter: 19.5 x 21.5 cm; weight: 353 gm –British Museum, reg. Num. 1868.1228.248 – Buchholz et al. 2010, 201; Clausing 2005, 36–8;2001, 218; Hänsel 2003, 77–84, fig. 2; Albrecht 1991; Calzecchi-Onesti 1991, 74, fig. 3; 76, no.4; Blajer 1990, 28, 33, 102; Egg and Waurick 1990, 14; Uenze 1990, 23–4, 41, no. 51, pl. 5.2;Schauer 1988, 185; Goetze 1984, 36; Bouzek 1981, 23, fig. 1, 2; 4; Jazdzewski 1981, 288; Otto1981, 60; Borchhardt 1972, 127, cat. no. 28, 1; Bukowski and Dabrowski 1972, 116; Hencken1971, 33, fig. 13, c–d; 37; Patay 1969, 205, note 122; Hundt 1955, 105; Hencken 1952;Sprockhoff 1956, 85; v. Merhart 1956–1957, 144; Hachmann 1957, 176; Gimbutas 1965, 58; v.Merhart 1941, 11, fig. 2, 6; Uenze 1938, 37, 83; British Museum Guide 1904, 97; Dahn 1881, 48;Genthe 1874, 170–1; Klemm 1868; Kemble 1863, 52, 170, pl. 12:6; Lindenschmit 1858, pl. 1:1;Klemm 1854, 157–8; 1851, 52, note 2; undated, V, 13.

The helmet was found below a pine trunk in a peat bog in 1847. From the samefind-spot, a small deposition is known, consisting of two ingot torques and one triangular bladeof a dagger of the Oder–Elbe type. The hoard was purchased from Johannes Gustav Klemm(collection in Dresden) and is now stored at the British Museum, London. Analyses carried outat the British Museum in 1952 revealed that tin-bronze and leaded tin-bronze were used for themanufacture of the conical helmet. Since the X-ray analyses did not reveal traces of solderbetween the knob and the cap of the helmet, the first was most likely cast on, as is the case withthe other conical helmets, excepting that from the unknown find-spot and the helmet from



Knossos. Additionally, the notes on the analyses from the British Museum mention as well thepresence of small fragments of charred oak and plum wood inside the helmet. Unfortunately,these fragments are not preserved any more, as the recent study of the helmet revealed.

Though Hencken discussed in detail the find circumstances and the changing ownershipof the helmet (1952), doubts still remained about whether it was from a closed context. Greatefforts were expended in trying to explain the contradiction of Early Bronze Age objects foundtogether with an – as assumed – Urnfield-period helmet. Thus, attempts were made to prolongthe life span of the dagger (Goetze 1984, 36), while ignoring either the find context (Schauer1988, 185, note 37; Breddin 1969, 42) or the helmet (Billig 1963, 247). However, Hänsel (2003)has discussed the crux of the misgivings, namely the circumstances surrounding the finds andtheir first recording. The first report on the hoard leaves no room for any doubts about its unity(Hänsel 2003, 80). Even so, as is true in many other hoards, we have to consider the possibilityof ancient objects, not in use perhaps for several centuries, being deposited together with recentobjects. Such is the case, for example, with the Spindlersfelder hoard (BzB/C–HaB1), that ofMušov (BzC1–HaA) or generally with tongue sickles (Hänsel 1995).

However, if we take into account a possible earlier date for the Middle Bronze Age inthe Carpathian Basin – BzD to the fourteenth century BC (Della Casa and Fischer 1997), a longerduration of the Ùnetice culture in the Oder region and argue for a deposition history similar tothat of the Spindlersfeld hoard, and if we consider as well the composition of the Biecz hoard(which differs from Urnfield-period hoards) together with the fact that other Aegean objects(such as the spearhead in the hoard from Kyhna) were deposited in the same region (Hänsel2003, 82), it seems reasonable to propose that there were deposited in the hoard from Bieczbronzes collected over a long period of time, including a helmet heavily influenced by or evenimported from the Aegean. Hänsel therefore reinforces the case for dating the hoard and thehelmet to the Early Bronze Age, pointing out that there is a lack of convincing arguments for notdoing so (2003, 83) – though he first argued for a deposition date between 2000 and thefourteenth century at the latest. Nonetheless, considering the arguments above, the closerelationship to the helmet from Knossos and the presence of Early Bronze Age finds in the Bieczhoard, it might be more reasonable to date the helmet and the deposition of the hoard at earliestto the later Middle Bronze Age/BzC2 (fourteenth century BC). This would make the helmet fromBiecz slightly later in date than that from Knossos.

Cat. no. 4. Oranienburg, Lkr. Oberhavel, Brandenburg, Germany (Fig. 1, no. 1) – a solitaryfind from the River Havel – complete – height: 21 cm; diameter: approx. 22.5 cm; thickness:0.3–3 mm; weight: 638 gm – Heimatmuseum Oranienburg, inv. no. III/51 – Lippert 2011, 31;Born 2009, figs. 21–2; Hänsel 2003, 82–3, fig. 1; Clausing 2001, 218; Albrecht 1991; Bouzek1981, 23, fig. 2, 3; Borchhardt 1972, 127, cat. no. 28, 2; Hencken 1971, 33, fig. 13, e; 37–8; v.Merhart 1941, 11, fig. 2, 4; Sprockhoff 1930, 44, pl. 9, a.

The helmet was found as a single find in the River Havel before the 1930s.The helmet has 20 rivet holes, placed approximately 2.5 cm above the thicker rim and

punched through from the outside to the inside of the helmet. On one side of the helmet a smallsection of the rim-line has been altered – over a length of 8.5 cm it is raised by 0.6 cm: an actintended to improve the owner’s range of vision, or to permit more free space for movement atthe back of the neck and/or to leave room for the organic padding of a neck guard. The socketis cast on; its hollow interior runs right through to the inside of the helmet. On one side of thehelmet, at least three severe sword impacts are visible.

MARIANNE MÖDLINGER


Cat. no. 5. Žaškov, okr. Dolný Kubín, Slovakia (Fig. 3, no. 2) – hoard – knob – height: 2.7 cm;diameter: 2.1 cm (above), 1 cm (shaft), 2.8 cm (base); weight unknown – Slovenské národnémúzeum Martin, inv. no. 3504 – Mörtz 2011, 370; Furmánek and Novotná 2006, 38, nos. 173–7;Clausing 2001, 218; Hansen 1994, 509, CS 731; Calzecchi-Onesti 1991, 75, fig. 4, b, no. 3;Novotná 1991, 14, no. 5; 24, no. 18; Mozsolics 1985, 24; Schauer 1988, 183; Hencken 1971, 37,fig. 17, a–c; Novotná 1970, 53–6; 1964, 21; Eisner 1933; Hampel 1892, 173.

The hoard from Žaškov consists of the spool-shaped socket of the helmet, socketedaxes, the hilt of a Liptau-sword, rings and a bowl of Satteldorf type, pins, a socketed chisel,sickles, two spearheads and two ingots.

To the spool-shaped knob, which was cast on, fragments of the cap of the helmet arestill attached. Interestingly, the socket from the helmet from Žaškov had been repaired: theupper part was cast onto the lower, thus resulting in the upper part being solid, with only thelower being spool-like in cross-section. From the inside of the helmet, a drop of metal fromthe upper and later repaired part of the socket can be seen inside the central hole, which oncedid pass completely through the original socket. A potential fragment of the helmet’s cap iscited in the literature and depicted by Hencken (1971, fig. 17, c), but it could not be found atthe museum.

Cat. no. 6. Spišská Belá, okr. Kežmarok, Slovakia (Fig. 3, no. 1) – hoard I (1891) – knob –height: 2.2 cm; diameter: 2.2 cm (above), 1 cm (shaft), 3.2 cm (base); weight unknown –Podtatranské Múzeum Poprad, inv. no. MK 882 – Mörtz 2011, 370; Vachta 2008, 123, list V.1.5,no. 14; Clausing 2001, 218; Calzecchi-Onesti 1991, 76, no. 2; Novotná 1991, 22, nos. 10–11, pl.19:A3; Schauer 1988, 184; Hencken 1971, 33; 35, fig. 15, f–h; Novotná 1970, 53–6; 1964.

The hoard today consists of three spearheads, four plain bracelets, parts of two cups andthe spool-shaped socket of a helmet. Further finds, namely four spearheads, four bracelets, threesocketed axes and a round object, are now missing (Hencken 1971, 33). The knob of the helmetwas clearly cast on through a hole in the middle of the helmet.

Cat. no. 7. Lúcky (?), okr. Ružomberok, Slovakia (Fig. 2, no. 4) – hoard (?) – complete –height: 19.5 cm; diameter: 20 x 21 cm; weight unknown – Archeologické múzeum SNM, 4518– Clausing 2001, 218; Novotná 1991, 47, no. 48; 58–9, no. 54; Calzecchi-Onesti 1991, 76, no.1; Bouzek 1981, 23, fig. 2, 1; Borchhardt 1972, 127, cat. no. 28, 4; Hencken 1971, 32, fig. 13,a–b; Novotná 1970, 53–6; Müller-Karpe 1959, 114–15, 204; Mozsolics 1955, 42; 44, fig. 9, 1; v.Merhart 1952, 63, 70; v. Merhart 1941, 11, fig. 2, 5.

Though the village of Lúcky is always named as the find-spot, the actual find-spot isunknown. The helmet was bought from an itinerant salesman by the museum in Martin; he wasalso selling Hallstatt cups. Hencken notes that the patina of the helmet differs from that of thesitula of Hajdúböszörmény type and of the cauldron with cross-shaped handles, which weresupposedly found together with the helmet (Hencken 1971, 32–3). Thus, the objects might nothave been really recovered together. However, the composition of the hoard is very similar to thatof Mezokövesd (Patay 1969, 211).

The helmet is partly broken and distorted; the rim is thicker than the upper part of thehelmet. The helmet bears eight rivet holes, punched through from the outside to the inside ofthe helmet. There is a slight upward curve to the rim at what was either the front or the back ofthe helmet. The spool-shaped socket of the helmet was cast on perfectly. On the inside of thehelmet, traces of hammering in a horizontal zone are visible – mainly the longer marks lie



parallel to the rim for over 1.2 cm up towards the rivet holes, thus creating a little step or stagewith respect to the rest of the cap. In this area, several vertical cracks are visible.

Cat. no. 8. Keresztéte, kom. Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén, Hungary (Fig. 4) – hoard – twofragments – length: 12 cm; bent: 2.1 cm; breadth: 5.3 cm; weight: 32 gm – Magyar NemzetiMúzeum, inv. no. 31/1941/8 – Mörtz 2011, 362; Vachta 2008, 123, list V.1.5, no. 4; Clausing2001, 218; Hansen 1994, 541, H 330; Patay 1990, 19, no. 3; Schauer 1988, 184; Mozsolics 1985,24, 135, 388, pl. 150:9; Kemenczei 1984, 149, no. 17; Hencken 1971, 39, fig. 18, a;Müller-Karpe 1959, 158; Mozsolics 1955, 41–2, fig. 7, 7.

The hoard, which was found during ploughing, consists of five spearheads, 16 braceletsand rings, a cauldron, a bronze boss (diameter 11.5 cm), a biconical jug of sheet bronze and thehelmet without its socket. It was found at the end of the 1930s in a field.

Today, only two fragments from the helmet soldered together during restorationremain. The rest of the helmet might have been lost during the Second World War. Thesurviving rivet holes were punched through from the outside to the inside of the helmet. Asvisible on the photograph from Mozsolics (1985, pl. 150:9), the calotte displays the sameslight upward curve on part of the rim as, for example, on the helmets from Lúcky, Biecz andOranienburg. The inner lining was fixed also on the outside of the helmet by the rivets, as isindicated by the differential corrosion up to 2 cm above the rim. On this helmet the socket wasmissing.

Cat. no. 9. Nadap, kom. Fejér, Hungary (Fig. 2, no. 2) – hoard – almost complete – height(total): 18.5 cm; thickness (cap): 0.3–0.1 mm; height (socket): 1.8 cm; diameter (socket base):2.2 cm; weight: not possible to measure, since the helmet is permanently attached to a modernbronze sheet – Szent István Király Múzeum, Székesfehérvár, no inv. no. – Uckelmann 2012,18–19; Makkay 2006, 7, pl. I; Clausing 2001, 218; Jankovits 1999/2000, fig. 1, 2; 1998/1999,fig. 1, 2; Schauer 1988, 184; Hansen 1994, 546, H 451; Calzecchi-Onesti 1991, 77, no. 12;Schauer 1988, 184, fig. 4; Petres 1982, 57–8, fig. 1, a–b.

Thirty-six years after its discovery, the hoard was finally published, for which I warmlythank Makkay (2006). The hoard was found at Jánoshegy (John’s hill) in spring 1970 after heavyploughing in the autumn of 1969. People from the area found during the following months morethan 350 bronze objects and several thousand sherds, in an area of dark earth approximately 25sq m in size (Makkay 2006, 4). Mozsolics (1985, 151) and Hansen (1994, 546) mention 713objects with approximately 80 fragments; Uckelmann 628 objects/fragments (2012, 18–19);Makkay’s total of 567 or 568 objects is very reasonable, as his is the most well-informed account(2006, 6). As well as the defensive armour – a helmet, two pairs of greaves, a fragment of a shieldof Nyírtura type, probably nine further fragments from the edge of a shield and potentialfragments of a cuirass, the associated finds are: two hilts from Dreiwulst-type swords, fragmentsfrom daggers and spearheads, socketed hammers, chisels, punches, an anvil, socketed axes,winged axes, sickles, knives, a razor of the Ciumesti variant, two razors of the Großmugl type,and Mixnitz variant, one fragment of a razor of the Großmugl type, and Mesic variant, bronzevessels of type A, variant A2, a bronze cup of the Gusen type, a bronze cup of the Gusen/Blatnicatype, eight bronze cups of the Blatnica type (all fragments), another bronze cup and bowl, a sieve,fibulae, pins, neck rings, arm rings, pendants, a belt plate, pieces of bronze, casting flakes andoff-casts. The list of associated finds varies in different catalogues; the list as cited here is afterMozsolics (1985, 163).

MARIANNE MÖDLINGER


The helmet today is heavily fragmented; less than a third of the cap remained. The caphas several cracks and missing parts and is heavily corroded. The spool-shaped socket was castonto the top of the conical helmet. Parallel to the edge of the cap, a row of rivet holes is visible.The seven complete preserved rivet holes differ in size from 5 to 8 mm in diameter. They werepunched through from the outside to the inside of the helmet. According to Petres, two furtherfragments from the hoard might belong to this helmet or another one (1982, fig. 10, c–e; Makkay2006, pl. V:10–11). From the profile, at least one of the two fragments might belong to a rib- orstar-decorated cap helmet (Mödlinger 2013).

Cat. no. 10. Dunaföldvár, kom. Tolna, Hungary (Fig. 1, no. 2) – single find – complete –height (without knob): 16.9 cm; diameter: 21.1 x 22.2 cm; thickness: 2 mm (rim); 0.4 mm(calotte); weight: 488 gm – Adám Béri Balogh Museum Szekszárd, inv. no. O.93.33.1 – Mörtz2011, 369; Clausing 2001, 218; Szabó 1994, 219–20, pl. 1.

The helmet was found in the Danube at Dunaföldvár in 1986 and bought by the museumfrom the private collection of Lajos Dánó.

The cap of the helmet is complete, just the formerly cast-on socket has broken off. It wasnot recovered with the helmet. A row of 23 rivet holes runs parallel to the edge at a height of3 cm, with a distance of approximately 3 cm between each of them. Despite one (recent?) longercrack and a shorter one from the rim up to and slightly above one rivet hole, the cap does notshow any damage. The rivet holes were punched through from the outside to the inside of thehelmet.

Inside the helmet traces of hammering on a horizontal alignment are visible all over thecap. Around the rivet holes and down to the rim the corrosion looks slightly different from thaton the upper part of the cap. This indicates the presence of an original organic padding or lining,fixed in place by the rivets on the inside of the helmet but also wrapped around to the outsidesurface: this influenced the corrosion process of the metal in the areas so covered (as also notedby Szabó in 1994).

Interestingly, the helmet shows on the upper third, in one area, four more or less parallel,linear impressions 2.5–5 cm in length which might be the result of sword impacts. An axe-blowwould have passed straight through the thin helmet, as is the case even with the much later andmore massive helmets of the Negau type.

Cat. no. 11. Sîg (Sâg), Jud. Salaj, Romania (Fig. 2, no. 3) – hoard – almost complete – height:10 cm (incomplete cap); 2.5 cm (knob); thickness: 0.1 mm (cap); 1.1 mm (rim); weight: 56 gm(cap); 56 gm (knob) – Muzeul Judetean de Istorie si Arla-Zalau, no inv. no. – Mörtz 2011, 370;Soroçeanu 2008, 58, nos. 17–19; Vachta 2008, 123, list V.1.5, no. 12; Clausing 2001, 218; Rusu1990, 77; Schauer 1988, 184–5, fig. 5, 8; Soroçeanu and Lakó 1981, fig. 9.4, 147, 153–4;Petrescu-Dîmbovita 1977, 134.

The hoard was found in 1972 in Sîg (Salaj) at a depth of some 60 cm, when Lajos Kallaywas extracting clay for bricks close to the area called ‘Coasta Piscilii’, approximately 150 m westof the school building. It consists of a vessel of Hajdúböszörmény type, further vessel fragmentswith cross-shaped handles, five bronze cups of the Kirkendrup and Fuchsstadt types, a handle ofa vessel, bracelets, phalerae, a spearhead, sickles, two socketed axes, a possible fragment of asaw and the helmet.

The heavily corroded fragments of the cap as well as the socket were sand blasted. Thus,they are in a rather delicate state today. The spool-shaped socket is rather massive; the hole at the



centre of the top of the knob is only 3 mm deep and of not much practical use. The two preservedrivet holes differ in size from 5 to 10 mm in diameter.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) and the FP7/Marie Curieactions that supported the research through the Schrödinger Fellowship no. J 3109-G21. Furthermore, thisresearch project has also been supported by the European Commission under the 7th FrameworkProgramme through the Key Action: Cultural Heritage Advanced Research Infrastructures: Synergy for aMultidisciplinary Approach to Conservation/Restoration (CHARISMA). Many thanks are due also toMalcolm Wiener (INSTAP), Richard Stone (Metropolitan Museum of Art), Barry Molloy (University ofSheffield) and Svend Hansen (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin), for fruitful discussions on thetopic. An especial debt of gratitude is owed to everyone who supported and helped me with informationabout and documentation of the helmets in the museums concerned: Juraj Bartík (Archeologické múzeumSNM, Bratislava), Ioan Bejinariu (Muzeul Judetean de Istorie si Arla-Zalau, Zalau), Magdaléna Bekessová(Podtatranské Múzeum, Poprad; also for the assistance at the Tucianske múzeum Andreja Kmet’a, Martin),Katalin Biró, Ildikó Szathmári and Ádám Szabó (Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest), Gabriella Nadorfi(Szent István Király Múzeum, Székesfehérvár), Márta Vizi and Géza Szabó (Wosinsky Mór MegyeiMúzeum, Szekszárd) and Quanyu Wang (British Museum).

Dipartimento di Chimica e Chimica Industriale – DCCIUniversitá di Genova

Via Dodecaneso 31I – 16146 Genoa

ITALYE-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

ALBRECHT, M. 1991: Der bronzezeitliche Helm von Szczecin-Zdroje im Museum für Ur- undFrühgeschichte. Forschungen und Berichte Staatliche Museen zu Berlin 31, 9–16.

BILLIG, G. 1963: Frühbronzezeitliche Funde der Niederlausitz und ihre Stellung innerhalb der UneticerKultur. Alt-Thüringen 6, 246–73.

BLAJER, W. 1990: Skarby z wczesnej epoki brazu na ziemiach polskich (Wrocław, Prace KomisjiArcheologicznej PAN Kraków 28).

BORN, H. 2009: Die Helme des Hephaistos (München).BORCHHARDT, J. 1972: Homerische Helme. Helmformen der Ägäis in ihren Beziehungen zu orientalischen

und europäischen Helmen in der Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit (Mainz).BOUZEK, J. 1981: Die Anfänge der blechernen Schutzwaffen im östlichen Mitteleuropa. In LORENZ, H. (ed.),

Studien zur Bronzezeit. Festschrift für W. A. v. Brunn (Mainz), 21–38.BREDDIN, R. 1969: Der Uneticer Bronzehortfund von Bresinchen, Kr. Guben. Veröffentlichungen des

Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam 5, 15–56.BRITISH MUSEUM GUIDE 1904: A Guide to the Antiquities of the Bronze Age in the Department of British and

Mediaeval Antiquities (London).BUCHHOLZ, H.-G., MATTHÄUS, H. and WIENER, M. 2010: Helmentwicklung und ein unbekannter altägäischer

Bronzehelm. In BUCHHOLZ, H.-G. (ed.), Archaeologia Homerica 1, Kapitel E, Teil 3. Kriegswesen.Ergänzungen und Zusammenfassung (Göttingen), 135–208.

BUKOWSKI, Z. and DABROWSKI, K. 1972: Swit kultury europejskiej (Warszawa).CALZECCHI-ONESTI, G. 1991: Connessioni europee di alcuni elmi italiani. Annali della facolta di Lettere e

Filosofia dell’Universita degli studi di Perugia 25, NS 11 (1987–1988), 65–111.CLAUSING, C. 2001: Spätbronze- und eisenzeitliche Helme mit einteiliger Kalotte. Jahrbuch des Römisch-

Germanischen Zentralmuseums 48.1, 199–225.

MARIANNE MÖDLINGER


CLAUSING, C. 2005: Zwei neue urnenfelderzeitliche Bronzehelme mit Scheitelknauf. ArchäologischesKorrespondenzblatt 35, 31–8.

DAHN, F. 1881: Urgeschichte der germanischen und romanischen Völker (Berlin, Allgemeine Geschichtein Einzeldarstellungen 2/2, Vol. 1).

DELLA CASA, P. and FISCHER, C. 1997: Neftenbach (CH), Velika Gruda (YU), Kastanas (GR) und Trindhøj(DK): Argumente für einen Beginn der Spätbronzezeit (Reinecke Bz D) im 14. Jahrhundert v. Chr.Prähistorische Zeitschrift 72, 195–233.

EGG, M. and WAURICK, G. 1990: Antike Helme. Katalog zur Ausstellung Speyer (Mainz).EISNER, J. 1933: Slovensko v praveku (Bratislava).FURMÁNEK, V. and NOVOTNÁ, M. 2006: Die Sicheln in der Slowakei (Stuttgart, Prähistorische Bronzefunde

XVIII, 6).GENTHE, H. 1874: Über den etruskischen Tauschhandel nach dem Norden (Heilbronn).GIMBUTAS, M. 1965: Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe (Den Haag).GOETZE, B.-R. 1984: Die frühesten europäischen Schutzwaffen. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 49, 25–53.HACHMANN, R. 1957: Die frühe Bronzezeit im westlichen Ostseegebiet und ihre mittel- und

südosteuropäischen Beziehungen. Chronologische Untersuchungen. 6. Beiheft zum Atlas derUrgeschichte (Hamburg).

HAMPEL, J. 1892: A bronzkor emlékei Magyarhonban, II (Budapest).HÄNSEL, B. 1995: Seit wann gibt es die Zungensicheln? In SCHMID-SIKIMIC, B. and DELLA CASA, P. (eds.),

Trans Europam. Beiträge zur Bronze- und Eisenzeit zwischen Atlantik und Altai. Festschrift fürMargarethe Primas (Bonn), 11–22.

HÄNSEL, B. 2003: Bronzene Glockenhelme. Bemerkungen zu einem Altfund an der Neiße. In ECKERT, U.

and ZIMMERMANN, A. (eds.), Archäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel.Festschrift für Jens Lünning zum 65. Geburtstag (Rahden/Westf., Internationale Archäologie, StudiaHonoraria 20), 77–84.

HANSEN, S. 1994: Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen während der älteren Urnenfelderzeit zwischenRhônetal und Karpatenbecken (Bonn, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 21).

HENCKEN, H. 1952: Beitzsch and Knossos. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 18, 36–46.HENCKEN, H. 1953: Some early helmets. American Journal of Archaeology 57, 107.HENCKEN, H. 1971: The earliest European helmets. Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (Cambridge, Mass.,

American School of Prehistoric Research, Bulletin 28).HOOD, M.S.F. and DE JONG, P. 1952: Late Minoan warrior graves from Ayios Ioajjis and the new hospital site

at Knossos. Annual of the British School at Athens 47, 243–77.HUNDT, H.J. 1955: Versuch zur Deutung der Depotfunde der nordischen jüngeren Bronzezeit unter

besonderer Berücksichtigung Mecklenburgs. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen ZentralmuseumMainz 2, 95–140.

JANKOVITS, K. 1998/1999: Studio delle lamine di bronzo del ripostiglio di Pila del Brancon, Nogara(Verona). Padusa 34–35, 85–107.

JANKOVITS, K. 1999/2000: Neue Angaben zu dem Depotfund von Pila del Brancon, Nogara (Verona). ActaArchaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 51, 189–205.

JAZDZEWSKI, K. 1981: Pradzieje Europy Srodkowej (Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków and Gdansk).KEMBLE, J.M. 1863: Horae Ferales or Studies in the Archaeology of the Northern Nations (London).KEMENCZEI, T. 1984: Die Spätbronzezeit Nordostungarns (Budapest, Archaeologia Hungarica 51).KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, I. 1985: Noch einmal zu den ‘Kriegergräbern’ von Knossos. Jahrbuch des Römisch-

Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 32, 196–214.KLEMM, J.G. 1851: Das christliche Westeuropa (Leipzig, Allgemeine Cultur-Geschichte der Menschheit 9).KLEMM, J.G. 1854: Werkzeuge und Waffen, Allgemeine Culturwissenschaft. In Die materiellen Grundlagen

menschlicher Cultur (Leipzig), 157–8.KLEMM, J.G. 1868: Germanische Alterthümer, British Museum, London (unpublished manuscript), No. 429

(‘bei Pförten’).KLEMM, J.G. undated: Catalog der culturhistorischen Sammlung des verstorbenen Hofrath Dr. Gustav

Klemm in Dresden Königsbrücker Strasse Nr. 84. Einleitung (Dresden).LINDENSCHMIT, L. 1858: Die Alterthümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit. Nach den in öffentlichen und

Privatsammlung befindlichen Originalien zusammengestellt und herausgegeben von dem Römisch-Germanischen Centralmuseum in Mainz, 1 (Mainz).



LIPPERT, A. 2011: Die zweischaligen ostalpinen Kammhelme und verwandte Helmformen der spätenBronze- und frühen Eisenzeit (Salzburg, Archäologie in Salzburg 6).

MAKKAY, J. 2006: The late Bronze Age hoard of Nadap. A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 48,135–84 [1–52].

MARINATOS, S. 1959: Kreta und das mykenische Hellas (München).MATZ, F. 1956: Kreta, Mykene, Troja. Die minoische und die homerische Welt (Stuttgart).MÖDLINGER, M. 2013: Star ornamentation on Late Bronze Age helmets, cups and decorated discs in central

and south-eastern Europe. Arheološki vestnik 64, 57–86.MÖDLINGER, M., PICCARDO, P., KASZTOVSZKY, Z., KOVÁCS, I., SZOKEFALVI-NAGY, Z., KÁLI, G. and SZILÁGYI,

V. 2013: Archaeometallurgical characterization of the earliest European metal helmets. MaterialsCharacterization 79, 22–36 (DOI: 10.1016/j.matchar.2013.02.007).

MÖRTZ, T. 2011: At the head of concealment. The deposition of Bronze Age helmets in the CarpathianBasin. In BERECKI, S., NÈMETH, R.E. and REZI, B. (eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the CarpathianBasin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mures. 8–10 October 2010 (TârguMures), 357–76.

MOZSOLICS, A. 1955: Neue hallstattzeitliche Helmfunde aus Ungarn. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 5,35–54.

MOZSOLICS, A. 1985: Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte von Aranyos, Kurd und Gyermely(Budapest).

MÜLLER-KARPE, H. 1959: Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen(Berlin, Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 22).

MÜLLER-KARPE, H. 1962: Zur spätbronzezeitlichen Bewaffnung in Mitteleuropa und Griechenland.Germania 40, 255–87.

NOVOTNÁ, M. 1964: Bronzové kužul’ovité helmy a niektoré typy bronzových nádob v hromadnýchnálezoch na Slovensku. Sborník filosofikej fakulty Univerzity Komenského 15 (Musaicia IV), 19–43.

NOVOTNÁ, M. 1970: Die Bronzehortfunde in der Slowakei (Bratislava, Archaeologica Slovaca Fontes IX).NOVOTNÁ, M. 1991: Die Bronzegefäße in der Slowakei (Stuttgart, Prähistorische Bronzefunde II, 11).OTTO, K.H. 1981: Die historische Bedeutung der mittleren und jüngeren Bronzezeit in Mitteleuropa. In

COBLENZ, W. and HORST, F. (eds.), Mitteleuropäische Bronzezeit. Beiträge zur Archäologie undGeschichte (Berlin).

PATAY, P. 1969: Der Bronzefund von Mezokövesd. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 21, 167–216.PATAY, P. 1990: Die Bronzegefäße in Ungarn (München, Prähistorische Bronzefunde II, 10).PETRES, È.F. 1982: Neue Angaben über die Verbreitung der spätbronzezeitlichen Schutzwaffen. Savaria 16,

57–80.PETRESCU-DÎMBOVITA, M. 1977: Depozitele de bronzuri din Romania (Bucuresti).RUSU, M. 1990: Coifuri de bronz transilvanene din Hallstatt A–B. Thraco-Dacia 11, 69–78.SCHACHERMEYR, F. 1960: Das Keftiu-Problem und die Frage des ersten Auftretens einer griechischen.

Herrenschicht im minoischen Kreta. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes inWien 45, 44–68.

SCHAUER, P. 1988: Die kegel- und glockenförmigen Helme mit gegossenem Scheitelknauf der jüngerenBronzezeit Alteuropas. In EGG, M. and WAURICK, G. (eds.), Antike Helme (Mainz, Monographien desRömisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 14), 181–94.

SOROÇEANU, T. 2008: Vasele de metal prescitice de pe actualul teritoriu al României. Descoperiri debronzuri din România, III (Bistrita and Cluj-Napoca).

SOROÇEANU, T. and LAKÓ, E. 1981: Depozitul de bronzuri de la Sâg (judetul Salaj). Acta MuseiPorolisenssis V, 145–68.

SPROCKHOFF, E. 1930: Zur Handelsgeschichte der germanischen Bronzezeit (Berlin).SPROCKHOFF, E. 1956: Jungbronzezeitliche Hortfunde der Südzone des nordischen Kreises. Periode V

(Mainz).SZABÓ, G. 1994: A kárpát-medencei késö bronzkori sisakok készítésének problémái egy újabb lelet alapján.

In A kokortól a középkorig. Tanulmányok Trogmayer Ottó 60. születésnapjára (Szeged), 219–27.UCKELMANN, M. 2012: Die Schilde der Bronzezeit in Nord-, West- und Zentraleuropa (Stuttgart,

Prähistorische Bronzefunde III, 4).UENZE, B. 1990: G.F. Klemm and his Collection in the British Museum (Unpublished thesis, University of

London).

MARIANNE MÖDLINGER


U2ENZE, O. 1938: Die frühbronzezeitlichen triangulären Vollgriffdolche (Berlin, VorgeschichtlicheForschungen 11).

V. BRUNN, W.A. 1968: Mitteldeutsche Hortfunde der jüngeren Bronzezeit (Berlin, Römisch-GermanischeForschungen 29).

V. MERHART, G. 1941: Zu den ersten Metallhelmen Europas. Bericht der Römisch-GermanischenKommission 30, 4–42.

V. MERHART, G. 1952: Studien über einige Gattungen von Bronzegefäßen. Festschrift des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums in Mainz zum 100jährigen Bestehen, 2 (Mainz), 1–71.

V. MERHART, G. 1956–1957: Geschnürte Schienen. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 37–38,91–147.

VACHTA, T. 2008: Studien zu den bronzezeitlichen Hortfunden des oberen Theissgebietes (Bonn,Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 159).

VASILAKIS, A. 1999: Heraklion Archaeological Museum (Athens).VENTRIS, M. and CHADWICK, J. 1956: Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge).VERDELIS, N.M. 1967: Neue Funde von Dendra. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,

Abteilung Athen 82, 1–53.YALOURIS, N. 1960: Mykenische Bronzeschutzwaffen. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen

Instituts, Abteilung Athen 75, 42–67.ZERVOS, C. 1956: L’Art de la Créte néolithique et minoenne (Paris).

