ISSN 0961-3684

("\,J

oN

JOURNAL OF ROMANMILITARY EQUIPMENT

STUDIES

IVOLUME 8 1997 1

Montefortino-type and related helmetsin the Iberian Peninsula:a study in archaeological context 1

Fernando Quesada Sanz

Over the past few years our knowledge of the 'jockey­cap' helmets of Montefortino and related types in the IberianPeninsula has been greatly enhanced by the publication ofmany catalogues2 and the discovery of new pieces) Anattempt has also been made in some of the more detailedworks to produce classifications that try to deal with theproblems posed by some types and variants that seem speci­fic to Iberia4 and are not therefore adequately covered byexisting typologies.

Although much promising work remains to be done inthis 'typological' field, we believe that a parallel analysis ofarchaeological and cultural contexts in which the helmetshave been discovered can throw much light, first, on thosevery problems of classification, and then, on the much moreimport~lnt matters of cultural intel1Jretation. For example,the most recent and up-to date attempt at typology (GarcfaMaurino 1993) has failed to appreciate correctly the diffe­rences between knob-helmets of Etrusco-Italic origin andthe so called Buggenum type. This in turn has led to helmetsthat are probably of very different date being classified asthe same type (although admittedly different variants). Thishas been so partly because the artisanal, non-industrial natu­re of helmet productionS and the relatively small number ofcomplete available examples in Iberia, have obscured thetypologicaljinesse. However, the distinction has in this casean important implication, as the Bugennum type is muchlater and thus corresponds to a very different cultural andhistorical setting (from the Hannibalic Wars and earlyconquest of Hispania to the' Civil Wars).6

In the case of Iberia, also, the correct classification of hel­mets, taking into account not only the details of manufactu­re,? but also their archaeological context, is relevant to thediscussion of 'Celtic' or 'La Tene' influences in Iron AgeSpain, and also to the evaluation of the role of Punic armiesand Iberian mercenaries serving under the Carthaginians inintroducing many early examples of helmets in southernSpain.8

Thus we shall provide a very schematic layout of themain existing classifications (Table 1) - we remit for detailsto the works cited there, and a also very schematic catalogueand distribution map (Table II and Figure I), in which hel­mets from the Balearic Islands or Southern France are notincluded. Then we shall go on to discuss helmets and theirarchaeological contexts in three different scenarios: the'Celtic' problem in Spain; the finds of Etrusco-Italic -andeven Latin inscribed helmets- in clearly indigenouscontexts; and the geographical distribution of helmets datedto the period of the Roman conquest (roughly the secondcentury BC from c. 195 to 133 BC) and the Civil Wars of theLater Republic. We should however warn the reader thatmany pieces were found in 'uncontrolled' digs manydecades ago, and that unfortunately only vague details abouttheir general context are known.

MONTEFORTINO HELMETS, RELATED TYPES AND'CELTS' lN IBERIA

There is no doubt at all that during the Iron Age therewere many Indoeuropean-speaking peoples dwelling in theIberian Peninsula, mainly in the Ebro Valley, the Meseta (theinland central plateau) and the Southwest,9 and we are nottrying to deny what is evident. It has also been long accep­ted that these Spanish Celts did not share the 'La Tene' cul­tural complex with Gauls and other European Celts, but thatsome elements of La Tene type were imported into Spain,mainly swords and fibulae; and that these elements wereduly copied, transformed and converted into 'local' types. Itis clear that some of these elements, such as some types ofLa Tene fibulae, were adopted by the Iberian Culture. Quiteexceptionally, some burials in purely Iberian contexts alsocontain Celtic weapons, such as the La Tene sword andearly iron helmet from grave 478 at El Cigarralejo (Mur­cia), dated to c. 375-350 BC.

We maintain, however (see Quesada 1997a,b forth.) that

JRMES 8, 1997, 151-66

MONTEFORTINO AND RELATED TYPE HELMETSIN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA

152 Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8 1997

. ' " ... ~ .,.~.'~'-.

6~

Fig. 1: General distribution of Montefortino-type and related helmets in the Iberian Peninsula. A non-informative map.Site numbers refer to Table 11.

'true' La Tene weapons are rare in the Peninsula, even in theMeseta, and truly exceptional in the Southeast andAndalusia, the Iberian non-indoeuropean lands.

As it is widely known, research in France, Gennany andItaly has reached the conclusion that the Montefortino-typehelmets with angled neck-guard and knob at the top are notreally 'Gaulish', but in fact 'Celto-Italic' or 'Italo-Celtic',and the later versions even 'Etrusco-Italic' (Robinson 1975;Adam 1986:22 ff.; Schaaffin Antike Helme, 1988; Feugere1994a passim). However, for a long time nearly all the joc­key-cap helmets found in Spain and Portugal, except thosewhich are obviously Roman, have been considered proof ofCeltic penetration, even in purely 'Iberian' areas, and thisidea still pervades certain circles today, including Gennan aswell as Spanish scholars.

This position was already explicit in the very title of oneof the first catalogues by J.M. Bhlzquez (1959-60):

«Unpublished Celtic helmets». Nearly all of the pieces stu­died in that text are Montefortinos of Etrusco-Italic type, butthey are nevertheless considered proof of a 'Celtism' that -itwas thought-permeated all of Spain, including the Iberianareas, during the Iron Age (Blazquez 1959-60:382-383).This idea in turn comes from earlier scholars such as theinfluential A. Schulten, the excavator of Numantia (Schulten1914,11:224), and H. Sandal'S (1913:73).

Thus, when Abasolo and Perez first published the helmetfrom Gorrita in Valladolid (1980), found in a 'Celtic' regionbut without precise archaeological context,IO they classifiedit as 'Celtic' and postulated that it had been imported by'continental European trade' (Abasolo, Perez 1980: 114).However, in 1982 these scholars changed their minds, and ina new paper the helmet was labelled 'Celto-Italic' (Abasolo,Perez 1985), and the provenance changed to the Mediterra­nean world (ibidem, 48), perhaps connected with Carthagi-

Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8 /997 153

HELMETS IN INDIGENOUS CONTEXTS(MOST IN CEMETERIES)

CELTIC TYPES

•MQNTEFORnNC

Fig. 2: Helmets in indige­IWitS, Iberian Iron Agearchaeological context.

nian expeditions into the Meseta known from literarysources. The history of this particular helmet does not endhere, however, because years later a new fragment of theneck-guard was discovered, and it contained a faded Latininscription N.PAQVI (MartIn Valls, Esparza 1989:273).This. discovery proves that the helmet was in fact Roman,and should probably be dated to the latter decades of the 2ndcentury BC or later, instead of the end of the 3rd.

The find from Alarcos poses a similar problem. P. Menaand A. Ruiz (1985) still classified as 'Celtic' an Etrusco­Italic helmet of type Maurifio la (see Table I for correspon­dences), found at Alarcos (Ciudad Real, Southern Meseta)during agricultural work in an area that could be part of thecemetery of the important settlement nearby (ibid., 635).The lack of direct archaeological context, and the fact thatthe digs at Alarcos have proved that this is a culturally'Iberian' area (pottery, bronze figures, etc.) did not preventthe authors publishing the helmet as 'elemento celta' andconsidering it proof of strong Celtic influence in Iberianareas (1985:638). They however tried to reach a -in our opi­nion- difficult compromise, by stating that «parece que nosencontramos con una pieza que Ilega a traves de 10s cfrculoscomerciales meditemineos» (p. 639), but also that «la apari­cion de este casco hay que ponerla en relacion con la pre­sencia de soldados romanos durante la epoca republicana...hacia la mitad del s. II a.c.».

The recent investigations mentioned above, and Gorrita'scautionary tale, might have led other researchers to be less

inclined to rashly adscribe any new Montefortino helmet toCeltic influence, but this has not been so, notably amongcertain German scholars. P. Stary (1982 passim and still inj 994:94-97 and 303 ff.) considers the Knopfhelme proof ofstrong La Tene influence not only in Catalonia (where wewould readily agree that the panoply is more La Tene thanIberian, see Quesada 1997a forth.) but also in the South-Eastand other regions. Stary does not make any distinctionsamong the different types of helmets with crest- knob (seeStary j 994, II:4 and Karte 3), and seems to consider all ofthem to be Celtic except those at Alcaracejos, Lanhoso andQuintana Redonda (1982: 118 and 1994:95). As he believesthat Etruscans and Romans also adopted this type of helmetfrom northern Celts (which may well be true), he envisagesa similar process of diffusion from North to South for bothPeninsulae, Italy and Spain, during the fourth century BC(which is probably wrong). In fact, when we have some sortof archaeological context for helmets found in Iberian areas,it is always mid-3rd to mid- [st BC and not earlier.

As recent research by ourselves (Quesada 1989: II, j 6­20; 1992, 1996) and others (Garcfa Maurifio 1993) hasshown, most Montefortino helmets in the Iberian Peninsulaarrived in Spain from the Mediterranean during the PunicWars and during the Roman Conquest. Most of them havebeen found in Southeastern Spain, and the concentration offinds in the Northeast (Stary 1982: 1j 8) no longer holdstrue. lt

It is here that individual analysis pays. In our opinion,

154 Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8 1997

(~)",

H IN ROMAN CONTEXTS(MOST IN SETIlEMENTS)

MONTEFORTlNO BUGGENU~

• 1

Fig. 3: Helmets in Romanarchaeological contexts.

only three to six helmets can be considered 'Celtic' with anycertainity: those from Vallfogona de Balaguer in Lerida, CanMiralles in Barcelona and Cigarralejo in Murcia (fig. 2).Also, the three helmets from the cemetery of Les Corts atAmpurias (Gerona, near the French border) might also beconsidered 'Celtic' as they were found together with real laTene swords and scuta, but these burials have been dated tothe 2nd century BC or early 1st., and they might thereforealso be called 'Roman' (see Table 11 for references) and notrelevant to the discussion of the supposed 'Celtization' ofIberia.

The helmets from Vallfogona and Can Miralles (seeTable 11 for details and fig. 7 for illustration) were foundassociated with other objects of La Tene type, such asswords with iron scabbards and suspension loops; Cataloniais quite close to southern France -the Pyrenees not being areal obstacle along the Mediterranean coast, and there wascertainly a close relationship with Southern Gaul in manyfields of material culture from the 6th century BC onwards.Both helmets are forged in iron -which is very rare in Spain,and show certain manufacturing and decorative details (suchas the independent and riveted neck-guard of Vallfogonas'spiece and the decorated cheek-guard of the one from CanMiralles) that are completely absent in the rest of thePeninsula. The Vallfogona helmet, as well as the long LaTene I sword found with it, is probably earlier, dating to the4th or early 3rd century BC. The helmet from Can Miralles,found in grave pit 24, can be confidently dated to c, 225-175BC, that is, during the Second Punic War or the great rebel­lion against Roman rule of 195 BC.

The iron helmet found in grave 478 at El Cigarralejo isanother rare piece (Plate I). It has an hemispherical bowl,incipient neck-guard, no cheek-pieces and 'no knob. Badlypreserved and heavily restored, it could be taken as anexample of a 'heavy' Coolus type of Caesarian date ...(Feugere 1994:41 ft. for details) had it not been found in aburial dated by other elements to the first half of the fourthcentury BC. These materials among the grave goods inclu­de Attic black glaze pottery decorated with linked palmettes,a 'ritual brazier' (bronze plate used for libations), bronzesitula, horse-bit, falcata, soliferreum, Iberian pottery, etc.,all consistent with a 375-350 BC date. The buriai was exca­vated in well controlled conditions, With a maximum dia­meter of 22.5 cm, front to back, and 20,5 from side to side,and a height of 15.5 cm" it is of normal size, but exceptio­nally heavy. As it has been very restored, it is possible thatit had a hole in the upper part of the bowl for an additionalpiece, and that it can be classified with hemispherical hel­mets with incipient neck-guards of the early La Tene type(Schaaff, 1988b:295 ss.; (see Tables I-U), and is probablythe only 'Celtic' helmet of such an early date in Iberia, Somedoubt still persists, however.

HELMETS IN IBERIAN 'INDIGENOUS' CONTEXTS(fig. 2)

The pieces of head-armour described above have all beenfound in 'Iberian' indigenous contexts, This is also the caseof about 30 helmets (or nearly 50% of the total) of Etrusco­Italic type, that is, 'real Montefortino' helmets. Many of

Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8 1997

GALLAIC 'NPE.

~~

155

Fig. 4: Helmets of localproduction, probably ofAugustan date.

them do not have a precise archaeological context, comingas they do from old archaeological excavations or casualfinds in Iberian sites, but there are enough that dO l2 to provethat nearly all of them should be dated to the final decadesof the 3rd and the whole of the 2nd century BC. Only hel­mets from Galera in Granada could perhaps be earlier, butthe complete looting of the site by robbers during the earlyyears of this century left only meagre remains for the laterarchaeologists. Thus the broad cultural setting is that of theHannibalic War and the early phases of the Romanconquest.

It is significant that -except for the three helmets fromLes Corts in Ampurias- nearly all of these helmets comefrom cemeteries in Alicante, Murcia, Albacete and EasternAndalusia, this is to say, the nuclei of the Iberian culture,Contestania and Bastetania. No helmets in this category areknown from the Meseta, except for the dubious piece fromla Osera 201, a site that in any case has strong connectionswith the Iberian South-East, as the finds from burial 350have proved (Quesada 1989,II:22).

These above-mentioned regions, ruled from the 4th to2nd centuries BC by monarchs and chiefs of different kindsand strenghts, supported by strong warrior clientelae, haveyielded big cemeteries with up to 600 cremation gravescontaining rich grave goods. About 30% of them -on avera­ge- contain weapons, a very high proportion. It should benoted that the presence of helmets proves to be, in thiscontext, a very rare, almost exceptional occurrence. Somesites, such as El Cigarralejo, have produced only two metal­lic helmets out of 600 graves, and the important site at

Cabezo Lucero, with 100 burials, has not produced a singlepiece. Admittedly, these are early, 5th-4th century sites, butcemeteries with a stronger representation of the later per­iods, such as Cabecico del Tesoro (fig. 7, Plates 6-7), presentthe same pattern of about one metallic helmet for every 50or so graves with weapons. This scarcity of head armourmeans in turn two things: that other types of helmet made oforganic materials such as sinew and leather were far com­moner (and this is confirmed by literary as well as icono­graphic sources); and that Montefortino-helmets wereimported and not locally produced.

It has been held (Garcfa Maurifio 1993: 139) that, giventheir scarcity, Montefortino helmets must have been a statusand/or wealth symbol among Iberian warriors. This is howe­ver not completely supported by the available evidence.True, some helmets have been found in very importantchamber tombs at Toya, Galera 0 Castellones de Ceal inAndalucia; but they have also been discovered in modestburials than cannot be counted among the richest in theirrespective cemeteries; this is the case of the two pieces atCabecico del Tesoro (Quesada 1989), or of helmets fromCastellones de Ceal (Jaen) or Les Corts (Em porion, Gero­na). At the same time, there are very rich graves with wea­pons that do not contain any bronze head-armour.

It seems that the occurrence of Montefortino helmets incertain tombs has much to do with individual experiences.Some of them might have been purchased in coastal sitessuch as Los Nietos in MUl'cia, but it is quite probable thatmost belonged to mercenaries or allies -officers as well ascommon soldiers- fighting under Carthaginian standards. It

156 Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8 J997

c

of a La Tene bivalve umbo, and some other minor metalobjects. All these grave goods could be consistent with a 4thcentury date, except for the helmet and probably the la Tenesword. The absence of the scabbard deprives us of the bestchronological indicator; the sword itself is 72.5 cm. long.;the blade is 62.5 cm. long with plain, rounded shoulders andparallel edges and a short point, apparently rounded (it isbadly corroded); it has no midrib. The iron shield boss, alsofragmented and incomplete, forms part of a long bivalvepiece, usually dated to the 4th century BC (Rapin 1983-84)but also found in much later, 2nd century contexts14 In all,this grave would appear to be the mid-4th century burial ofan Iberian warrior with a set of 'captured/traded Celtic wea­pons'. However, the helmet poses a particular problem(Garcfa Maurino 1993: 116; de HOl 1994); in our opinion, itis much later, ans chould be dated to the later stages of theSecond Punic War at the earliest.

The helmet belongs to G31Tia Maurino's type la, a ver­sion of Russell Robinson's B quite common in Spain, witha lot of punched and incised decoration on the rim and neck­guard. It has holes for cheek-guards, an iron ring at the backfor chin-straps and decorated knob. But it also has a pun­ched Latin inscription which reads 'MVLUS' on the innerpart of the neck-guard, probably the property-mark of theoriginal owner of the helmet, an Italian. The inscription hasbeen recently studied by J. de Hoz, who accepts the 4th cen­tury date given by the Greek import and maintained by theexcavator, and strives hard to find 4th century parallels forthe -VS termination instead of the more common -OS,dominant until the first years of the 2nd century BC (Hoz1994:226): De Hoz finally concludes that the owner couldhave been an Iberian mercenary fighting in Sicily during thefourth century BC who obtained the helmet there (seeQuesada, 1994 for a detailed list of sources on Iberian mer­cenaries).

However, apart from the general late typology of the hel­met, there is also another sign that this piece should proba­bly be dated to the early decades of the second century BC.On the neck-guard there is a punched decoration with waveswhich fits neatly in the 'Wellenranke' decoration category inU. Schaaff's scheme (Schaaff 1988:318 ff.), typical of the2nd-1 st centuries BC. The absence of cheek-guards leavesus without an interesting additional diagnostic element. Itmust be noticed that no cheek-guards have been discoveredin helmets found in Iberian burials, just as if Iberian usersdiscarded them as inconvenient or useless.

In all, the ephigraphical difficulty described above, thedecoration and shape of the helmet, and the even more sur­prising appearance of a supposedly 4th century Italic helmetin an Iberian burial even before the spread of this particularrvpe of helmet in Jtaly, l.' demands an alternative explana­tion, although a mid-fourth century date could be just bare­ly possible. This could be that the grave is in fact an early

d

a

b

may be significant in this context that Villaricos, a Puniccoastal site in Almerfa whose cemetery contains Semitic aswell as Iberian graves, and that was probably an importantrecruiting centre for Punic generals (see Quesada1994:204), has produced no less that six helmets (mostlybadly corroded fragments).

Other helmets are probably booty or weapons capturedfrom the Romans. We know, for example, that Hannibal re­equippped some of his troops with Roman weapons afterTrasimene and Cannae (Polybius, 3,87,3; 3,114,1; 18,28,9;Livy, 28,46,4),13 but the occasional acquisition of individualpieces in oher operational theaters was surely also common.

It is perhaps in this context that we should interpret thehelmet from cremation F4/2 at Pozo Moro (fig. 6). Thisgrave contained some pottery bowls, an Attic black-glazekantharos well dated to c. 375-350 BC, an Iberian brooch ofthe 'anular de timbal' type, and a complete set of weaponsincluding Iberian falcata, spearhead and butt, one or twojavelins, a big handgrip for a round shield, a bronze helmet,a bent La Tene type sword without its scabbard, an element

Fig. 5: Montefortino-type helmets in Jberian pottery of the_late third/early second centuries BC a. San Miguel de

Lliria; b. Castillo del Rio.; c-d. La Alcudia de Elche.

Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8 /997 157

~.;-

~ "M1,;;;j~

2

...sL

'!J':~. .... :;. ',' ~.-

3

2

Fig. 6: Helmets from Pozo Moro (left) and Quintana Redonda (right).

2nd century one in which an Iberian was buried with a set ofcaptured enemy weapons (helmet, shield and sword of per­haps a Roman auxilia) and his own (falcata, spearhead,Iberian round shield). The presence of a much earlier Greekvessel is not at all a rare occurence in Iberian burials; thereare some documented cases of 4th century Attic black-glazepottery found with 2nd century BC Campanian A ware inclosed contexts (Quesada, in prep.).

It may seem surprising that very few helmets in this 'indi­genous' group have been found in sanctuaries (only the ter­minal knob from Collado de los Jardines belongs to thiscategory), but in fact very few Iberian weapons of any typehave been documented in temples or sanctuaries. It seemsthat it was simply not an Iberian custom to deposit weaponsin these contexts, while about 30% of burials in cemeteriesdo contain weapons. 16

Iconography also plays a part in this study. Iberian hel­mets are carved in Iberian sculptures from the beginning ofthe Sth century BC onwards; these are helmets of Greek ins­piration but local manufacture and tradition. During the 4th­3th centuries BC helmets are as rare in art as they are in

burials, and most of them seem to have been leather helmetssometimes reinforced and decorated with metal elementsand crests. such as the piece found in Grave 277 atCigarralejo (Cuadrado 1989). It is only during the late 3rdand 2nd centuries BC that helmets were more frequentlydepicted on decorated vases of the Liria style (fig. S), andmany of these are clearly Montefortino helmets, the sametypes that the artisans could see in the Roman, Carthaginianand Iberian armies that during these very years were mar­ching up and down the Iberian coast, from Tarraco toCarthago Nova. These helmets are also sometimes worn bythe horsemen represented in Iberian coins, usually dated tothe second century BC and laterl ?

HELMETS AND THE ROMAN ARMY (fig. 3)The third group of helmets according to context and type

comprises those pieces whose context is not indigenous, asin the previous two groups, but rather 'Roman'. In fact, theycan be divided into two sub-groups according to type (figs.3 and 8). The first is that of 'Montefortino' helmets very

158 Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 81997

A

~~

La Podrera (Vallfogona de Balaguer. L6rida)Cabedco del Teso,o (Mu,da)

Pozo Moro (Albacete)

B

Can Mlralles (Barcelona)

Castallones de CNI (Ja6n)

D

c

Castelo d. A1jezur (Algarve, Portugal)

A1caracejos (C6rdoba)

Quintana Redonda (Soria)

Vaiamonde (Alemlejo)

P.~as Bartlad.. (CasteIl6n)

MONTEFORTINQ-TYPE AND RELATEDHELMETS IN IRON AGE IBERIA.

A SAMPLE OF TYPES AND CONTEXTS.

A. CELTIC TYPE HELMETS. IRON. CATALONIAB. MONTEFORTINOS IN IBERIAN BURIALS.C. ROMAN. LATE 3rd-EARLY 2nd. centuries BCO. BUGGENUM. Mid·1st century BC.E. GALICIAN LOCAL TYPE. August.an period.

E

After various authors '-=-:to: Lamoso (Braga, Portugal) Ca.lelo de Neiva (Portugal)

Fig. 7: Some examples of helmets in the Iberian Peninsula.

Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8 1997 159

similar to the pieces found in Iberian burials and settle­ments; the second consists of helmets of the Buggenum type,an evolution of the former but of much later, Caesarian date(Waurick 1990). It is here that a detailed use of typologybecomes a great ally of context, because many of the laterhelmets have often been incorrectly grouped with those ofthe early group, thus blurring distribution patterns.

Montefortino helmets: Roman conquest and Sertorian WarsThere are around nine helmets in this group. None of

them, of course, have been found in burials, and none ofthem comes from Eastern Andalucfa or the Southeast, wheremost helmets of the previous group have been found. Mostcome from the Meseta, in the battlegrounds of the Celtibe­rian Wars of the 2nd century BC; or from the Ebro valley,where Sertorians fought and died during the first decades ofthe 1st century BC. The already cited helmet from Pago deGorrita in Valladolid could be, with its Latin inscriptionNPAQVI, a good example of the problems posed by thesehelmets. In type, it is similar to many dated to late 3rd/early2nd centuries BC, although there are some minor differen­ces. It is not possible, however, to determine precisely if it isof that date or much later. Perhaps the helmet from Alarcosin Ciudad Real has the same origin, but as it was found neara Iberian site, it is probably better to classify it as 'dubious'.

A couple of Montefortino helmets have been found ingood contexts. The first is the well-preserved helmet fromQuintanas de Gormaz in Soria (fig. 6); it was found around1868 in a hoard together with two silver cups and over 1300silver coins from the mint at Osca in the Pyrenees. Fom itstype and decoration (waves on the neck-guard; scaled knob)it could perfectly be an early 2nd century helmet. However,the coins provide a close date in the first half of the first cen­tury BC, during the Sertorian Wars. In fact, the helmet maywell be a much earlier piece. It seems clear that Roman sol­diers used old helmets until they became unserviceable (seedetails and references in Quesada, 1992:68), so we canexpect to find a mixture of brand-new and quite batteredpieces of armour of different styles in military units. Thesecond well-dated helmet comes from a recent excavation atCaminreal (Teruel), in the Ebro valley. A plain, roundedknob of a late type was found with many other weapons andeven a catapult, in the Hellenistic-style house of an IberianRomanized notable called Likine The house and its contentshave been closely dated to c. 80-70 BC, during the Sertorianwars (Vicente et al. 1991:passim and p. 116).

Another interesting group of three helmets was foundunderwater at the ancient anchorage at Piedras Barbadas(Benicarl6, Caste1l6n). Only one of the three helmets hasbeen published in detail (OliveI' 1987-88), but it seems to bea Maurifio's Type la helmet (fig. 8), in association with aprobably later lb and another iron helmet. The place has alsoyielded other Roman materials, such as anchors, amphorae

and a stone mill. Although it has been suggested that thesehelmets might have been deposited as part of a ritual action(OliveI' 1987-88 :211), it seems to us more likely that thiswas probably a disembarkation point for Roman reinforce­ments during the last years of the Second Punic Wars andlater campaigns.

Buggenum-type helmetsAs we mentioned in the opening paragraphs of this paper,

the Buggenum-type helmets have been often confused withMontefortino types. In fact, as Feugere has remarked (1993,1994), they are of Caesarian, mid-I st century BC date, deri­ved from the earlier Etrusco-Celto-Italic types, but simpli­fied in manufacture and decoration, which is scarce or non­existent.

This type can be matched with type C -and some D's -inRobinson's classification. All of Type II and some Ib's andrc's in Garcfa Maurifio's typology belong to this group (seeTable I).18

All helmets of this type in the Iberian Peninsula havebeen found in the Southwestern areas (Spanish Extremaduraand Southern Portugal) or in the Ebro Valley. In the first areawe can count the helmets from Castelo de Aljezur inAlgarve, Cabezo de Vaiamonde in Alemtejo,19 Lacimurga inBadajoz, and perhaps also Mesas do Castelinho in Beja (seefig. 8 for some examples, and Table II for details). In theEbro Valley the helmet from Piquete de la Atalaya (nearBotorrita in Zaragoza) also belongs to this type 20 The hel­met from Alcaracejos, although apparently found in an oddcontext (a mine shaft in Cordoba) during the last few yearsof the 19th century, also belongs to this group on the basisof its type.

Local productions of the (pre-)Augustan era in Galiciaand northern Portugal (fig. 4)

A total of five helmets (Type Garcfa Maurifio Ill) formthis group. They are undoubtedly indigenous, GalJaic orLusitanian productions based on Montefortino and/orBuggenum models in the Roman army, and have long beenrecognized as imitations (Garcfa Maurifio 1993 for refe­rences; also Feugere 1994:41). All of them were found in asmall area of northern Portugal and Gal icia; four of them incastros and one while dredging river Mifi021 When there issome associated material, it points to the second half of the1st century BC. Typologically they are very distinctive, witha long pointed and very decorated knob, conical bowl andheavy cabled and incised decoration on the rim and neck­guard (see fig. 7).

CONCLUSION (fig. 8)Although there are many individual cases, the overall

pattern seems reasonably clear: there are four big groups of

160 Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8 1997

HELMETS IN INDIGENOUS CONTEXTS.(MOST IN CEMETERIES)

OALLAIC TYPE

~~

( .~.~ INSUFFICENT DATA )

C:Fl:IC TYPES

•MON-rEFO~nNO

••• 3+

Fig. 8: Geographicaldistribution of hel­mets in the IberianPeninsula accordingto type and context.

Montefortino-type and related helmets to be considered, anda fifth 'we don't know' group:

1. A very small number (about 5%) of 'real' Celtic hel­mets, found mainly in Catalonia (Vallfogona, Can Miralles,possibly Ampurias) but also in MUl'cia (Cigarralejo, grave478); these are early, and date to the fourth and third centu­ries BC. All these helmets belong to different types, All ofthem come from indigenous, Iberian graves. No comparablespecimens have been found in Celtiberian contexts, where

Pi. 1: Cigarralejo (Murcia). Grave 478. 4th century BCIron,

helmets of any type are very rare.2. Helmets dated to the second half of the 3rd century BC

or to the first decades of the 2nd, and found in indigenouscontexts. This is by far the biggest group, with 30 pieces(49%). Most helmets are of types la and lb in the classifica­tion by Garcia Maurifio (mostly B and some A inRobinson's). Many of them come from the Southeast andEastern Andalucia, and have been found in cemeteries(Galera, Cabecico del Tesoro, Hoya de Santa Ana, Pow

PI. 2: Helmet from Almaciles (Granada)

-- - --- --

Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8 1997

- -- -

161

PI. 4: Almaciles. Detail of incised linear decoration. Notethe low quality of workmanship.

PI. 6: Cabecico del Tesoro, Murcia. Grave 428.Neck-guard.Intentionally damaged during burial. Notice crude and re­used iron rings for chin-strap.

PI. 3: Almaciles (Granada). Detail of decoration on neck­guard. Perhaps this is original decoration.

Moro, Villaricos, etc.), usually in warrior's graves. Webelieve them to be helmets of Italic origin, used during thePunic Wars by Roman and Carthaginian soldiers, and byRomans and their allies during the early phases of the occu­pation of Iberia. This armour ended up in Iberian burials fora number of reasons: booty (the helmet with latin inscriptionfrom Pozo Moro in Albacete perhaps falls into this catego­ry), equipment distributed to Iberian soldiers underCarthaginian flags or purchased by them ... , even perhapstrade.

These elements of armour have been found in veryimportant tombs (such as the ashlar-built chamber tombs atToya and Castellones, or the rich grave 4F-2 at Pozo Moro),but also in more modest graves (such as Cabecico del Tesoro428).

3. The third group is that of helmets found in Romancontexts. They can be dated from the early 2nd to mid-1st

• . '-"

PI. 5: Helmet from Castellones de Ceal, Jaen (1955 digs).As most helmets in Iberian burials, it was deliberatelydamaged during the burial rites.

PI. 7: Detail of neck-guard decoration. Cabecico del Tesorosep.428.

162 Journal of Roman Milital)' Equipment Studies 8 1997

Garcfa R. Robinson Abbolo y P~rel Lenerz de WildeMauriiio (1975) (1980) (1991:179)(1993)

Fug~r<

(1994a.b)Cuadrado

(1989)Slary(1994)

Characteristics &. comments

la

Ib

le

Il

111

Varios

B

A

B

C-D

A.Independentneck·guard.

Variant of B. Conical bowl,Robinsoo's Type 8 crest knob. inte­

gral neck guardand cheek-guards

C.Badly pr<ser·ved.

Etrusco-itatiquesAboulon sommi·

lal.

Buggennum

lmilalionslwitanieones

'Cigarralejo'

Knopfbelme eehic type,Only two definite ex.ampLes at VaUfogona de Balaguer and Can MiraUes.

Hemisphencal/bulboll.O; bowl..Sloped Deck~guard with perforation for chio-straps.Solid crest knob with hole for crest-pin. forged iD ODe wil.h the bowl and decorated wilb ascale pattern..Cheek-guards (often lost). Thick lower rim. decorated with a cabled paacen..Rich incised and punched decoration in neck-guard and lower pan of the bowl. Waves are afrequent motif on neck-guard.This is by far the most commOn type in Iberia (at least 14 examples)

Similar. Cresl knob usually plain. of spherical or hemispberieal shape. Simplified deco{"3tiOlon neck-guard. Some ex.amples in lhis type may iD fact be of 'Buggenum' type. as any ofthem have hollow knobs (Galcra. Lacimurga)

Crest knob in the shape of a truncated cone. No decoration. ex.cept simple cabled decoratioIon lower rim.

Conical bowl.Neck-guard nearly al right angles with bowl.Scarce or nO decoration.Hollow crest-knob.

Conical bowl.Conical crest-knob, without perforation for crest.Rich decoralion of distinctive pal1ern.

'Bits and pieces'.

In fact a La Tene I iron helmel. Hemispherical bowl wilh incipient neck guard and no checkguards & nO koob. Of Diimber2-Bockweiler type.

Table I: Correspondence of main typologies.

century BC, and can be further sub-divided into two groupsaccording to place of find (land or underwater) or accordingto type and date. The second option is much to be preferred.These helmets are usually later that those from group 2, butthere is a noticeable overlap in the 2nd century BC. Fromthe point of view of typology, it is not possible to differen­ciate them, as they have exactly the same origin.

3.a. Montefortino types (Garcia Mauriiio's la and someIb and le; Robinson's A and B). Dated from c. 220 to c,,70BC. No clear-cut line of evolution is evident, as some hea­vily decorated types also appear in late contexts, such as thehelmet from Quintana Redonda (Sertorian Civil Wars, c. 80BC), or the two knobs from Fosos de Bayona, dated to the2nd. century BC by the excavators but perhaps fromSertorian times. They are mostly found in settlements(Gorrita) or directly in houses (La Caridad, type Ic, verylate, dated to c. 70 BC). A single piece (lost) was found in adeposit, together with gladii hispanienses and scuta, per­haps with ritual significance (La Azucarera). A sub-groupwithin this category consists of the helmets from the ancho­rage at Piedras Barbadas in Benicarl6 (CasteII6n), a pro­bable disembarkation point for Roman reinforcementsduring the last years of the Second Punic War and later cam­paigns.

3.b. Buggenum or Robinson's C and D (GarcfaMauriiio's II and probably some Ib and le). Dated toCaesarian times (mid- Ist century BC). Usually without pre-

cise archaeological contexts. Most in castros in WesternSpain and Portugal (Castelo de Aljezur in Algarve, SouthernPortugal; Vaiamonde, Alemtejo; probably also Lacimurga,Badajoz and Mesas do Castelinho, Beja) or in the Ebro val­ley, scenario of many Caesarian actions (Piquete de laAtalaya, Zaragoza). None of them were found in graves orin the Southeast.

4. The fourth group is very compact in the appearance,date and geographical distribution of its components. Itconsists of five helmets found in Galicia and northernPortugal (Briteiros, C. de Tuy, Castelo de Neiva (x2) andLanhoso). These pieces of armour belong to GarciaMauriiios' type Ill, and probably date to the second half ofthe 1st century BC. Four of them were found in castros, andone in the river Miiio, but there is only a good archaeologialcontext for the Castelo de Neiva helmets, which can bedated with some confidence to the early Augustan period.

5. As we have seen, some helmets of types Mauriiio laand Ib have been found either in 'Iberian' or 'Roman'contexts, with different cultural and sometimes also chrono­logical implications. This is to say that any helmet of thesetypes without a context cannot be confidently placed ineither group 2 or 3, and must be placed in an 'Indetenninate'category. This is the case of the pieces from Alarcos (CiudadReal), Cola de Zama (Albacete), Osca, and even perhapsthose from the sanctuary at Collado de los Jardines (Jaen).

Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8 i997 163

,IT[ GRAVE ""(1.11 TVI'( TYP[(G.H.lOA.T£ HAIII REFERENCES KAX.O. 111/1.0. HEIGHT

210 Al.ARCOS MUS. C!UDAD REAl .ltJHHFORTINO A I. \/2 S. 1I A.C. ? CAS!CIA 1\4IJW+o{J99J:99 Y FIG.2UIHIA.RUllll987> 24.S 17.5 16

20 AlCARACEJOS lJ{SCOJ(J(;IOO If.)!r(TUORl)SO C/8lXiG[:llti 11 SIN QATOS ~OAAS{1913.FIG.48) .GAACIA HAUAI~( 1986:64)(OM 8IBll<XlR.

204 AlJElUR HUS. REG. or L.AroS I"OST(Foo.TINOC?f8l.(;(lNLJ1 11 ABASOLO. PfRfZ(l9BO: 106). GARC[A HAURJll(H 199J: 100) 21.4 20.2 19

438 AlHACIL[S 11U5. /'tJII.CIA I":lHTEFORTiHO A " SIN DAIOS QL.'rSADA(1992) 2J.S 21 18

227 AlTO (flACON 0.12 .'1\jS. T(lI.lH iJOlITFORT /lrn S. !) A.C.? ArRIAN(l976:4}. F1G.2SF Y lNtnXIJJl

175 AliPlJt.IAS HUS£O 0( AliPU;UAS ? J(}!HEfQ.lHlt«l? VII d·1I1 d.L SOtAA.C( 1914; 198). GAAClA KAUAlllo( 1993: 100) 26 20 19

42 Bill i.'? iJ't)1mfORTINO~ c. -400/·300 PKfS£OO( 1982: 17) .GA.RCIA MAlJl.IAO( 1986:96)

207 BRITEIRQS i.? VAA. /'(JIflEFGfl.T1HO III S. fl-J A.C.? CAROOlO(l95J:7151.GARCJA 11A~INO(l993:J09 T FlG.6)

49 CAB[C1CO on TISORO 1'6 I1IJS.MURCIA.146/1 ,'(lNTF:FQRT1NO I. ·225/·l75 NIETOC 1939·40:FIG.12lQl.{S!o.OA(1989a:VCt.. I I :236·23B.245ss.155J

.49 CABEC1CO DEL TESORO 42S o'fJS.~C1A.428J3 t(JNTEFOiHINO 14 ·415/ .:;.0 NI(IO( 19J9·40:l.J1.,29) .QI.£5.ADA( 198<1d: \IOl. 11 :2J6-2J8.245-ss.199)

208 CAlO£L<S Q( TUY KUSEO Ol0Cf5AHO 0( TVV VAR. t()HTEFORTlNO III FIN II·PPIOS I A.L ABASOlO.P£REl( 1981l: 107) .GAAC IA HAlRlIlOO9ra6:8A ·8S.CCH BIBl.1 25.2 19 17.!i

1S4 CAN HIIW-lES S.2.4 11US. MATARO. B039 iTAJ..laJ. VAA. IOIITFoo.TlNO 'VARlOS' 22S·175a.C. PUJOL.ROSflLO (1983:67-71). 2J

20S CASTno DE N[JVA ,'ruSEO OE CONII'6RIGA VAR. ,'(lNTEFORTlI\O III 2/2s. I a.C. FERREIRA (I980l.GARCIA HAURlfl(J0993:112 Y FIG.231 236 19 .~ 25.9

205 CASTILO DE N[JVA HUSEO OE COHlt'BRlGA YAR. totDNTEFORTlND 8-C III 212s. I a.c. FERREJRA(l9BO).GAACIA KAURINO(\993:112 Y FIG.241 21.1 24.5 28.5

3S CASHllON(S O£ a:Al 21 JA(' t(JHT[Foo.TINO IlP1os. s· I11 ? F[Il1WID[Z OHCAQ:RQ( 1956: 113) .GAACIA tlAUil:INo( 1993'105)

J5 CAST[LlOItES OE CEA!.. 7 JA(' !'(lt4T[FOOTlMO B le 5.111-11 d.e. A!lASCl.O.PEREl0980: 105) .GAACIA ~1~(l986:5J·S4 COfl 8181...) 31 U

3S CASlHLOHES OE CfAl IWi ,I()NTEFOiHJHO? ss. v-lIt INEOnO

50 CIGARAALEJO 418 HU.A.515O ,BOOO£ILER? NO I"ONTIFORlltiO -315/-350 CUADRAOO( 1989: 111.F IG.52) 2.1.5 20.5 15.5

72 au [)[ Ul9. AlBAC£T(,5197 I()NT[FORTINO a " s1n ddtos GAAClA ~AU;tlRo (I993:105LA8ASCAL. SANZ GAKl(l993:1i2) 23.< 12 1.

4 I COllAOO JARO' NE S QTIfORTlMO SIN OATO~ CAlVO Y CA8.q( (1917'56). GAACIA MAlIl.1Ao <1986:105).

214 FOSOS OC IIAYOAA 1tIS. CU£NCA 1"O.IITEFOlHINO I. S. II A.C. Cl T. GRAS.HEIlA. VELASCO( 1964 :53) .GAACIA HAlRlllOf 1993: 106)

214 FOSOS DE BAYOHA l'()NTEFOil.TINO le S. I A.C.? Cl r. GRAS.MEItA. VELASCO( 1984 :53) .GARC1A MAIJl.I~Of 1993: 106)

4J GAlERA FUHDACION ROORlGUEZ AaJSTA t()HT[FORTlNO ID s.vI-II aC. GAACIA KAURlNo(1993:106) 22.< 2J7

43 GAlERA I'(lHT[FQRTIHO 1b .... 1-11 <t.e. CAS.QE '( f'()TOS(l918:501>.GAACIA MAlRISlo(l99J:JOb·I07>

4J GAlERA 124? HMi 1979170/514 I1JHlEFORll1lO 1b s.vl·1! d.e. GAACIA HAlJtIRo 0993: IOn

.43 GAlERA 124? KAN J979170/5J~ I1JN1EFORT1NO ID s.vI·II a.C. GAACIA HAlJl.lilo (1986:52)

43 GAlERA 27B ,'(lHT[FORTlNO s. VI-II o.e. GAAC!A KAURIRO( 1986:99l.CA8RE Y~TOS(l920:31)

43 GAl.ERA 76 I1JHTEFORTIHO ? ss. 11'·111 d.L GA,QCIA KAURIRo0986: 102>.CA6R.E Y~TOS(l9,O:39)

43 GAlERA"'! l'Hlv. 8AACElONA. I1JNTHORTINO C " SIN QATOS HAlOOUER(987)

67I{)YAOCS. AAA 0 ALBAC(TE.2108 t()NT[FORlINO 8 I. s. II d.C."'! S.oVICl,~1 J IH. (1~3:l. IX) .G' HAU~J~( 1986: 15) .8I..A~OU(Zf 1990)

671{)YA()[ S. '"" 32 ALIlAa:T[.2269 I'(lHT[FORTlNO ? VldL/ld.L 8UUIQVEZ0986:16J7 y 949 95])

67 I{)YA OE S. NU. 39 ALaACETE.2305 I()HlEFQRTlNO? V!a.G./ld.C. B~AHQIkl(1986:965·969)

46) LA AlUCARERA P(ROIOO ~THORTlHO Ib s. I o.C.: IRIAQ,TE [l Al.<I996: 17" y182)

230 LA CAAIOAO T[RLU t«:IHT[flJRllNO le C.1SAC. !IiEQ. CII. V!C[H11 ET At .(l'J91: U6>.GARCIA MAIJWlOCl993:1091

301 LA OSERA 1·11 201 IW< J'(J~TlFORTINO? FJ~ IV· IJJ A.C.? C.A8RLCMWE or t(JR-Vl(l9J3:4I. lAt'l. vJ).sm..lE(l969:l.120 l2)

240 LA PEDRERA MUS. L(RIOA L·8BO SIMILAR AL ~)"[FORI ItoO CELllCO JV-JlJ A.C. ? SC!"Iji..E0969:Tdf.18a) PITA HERCE(l975:92l. 22 17 IB.5

88 LA SERRETA 0( AL(QY N SUPF. HJIS. AlCllI ,l{»>TEFORTlND " 1l1·ld.L INEOIIO

J 434 lACll1URGA CGl. P.a..QTlaJlAA K)HTUORTlHD C Ib·11 " 1I·ld.C. AGUllAA SA[NI ET N.II{199J:J6>.GAACIA HAURINo(l993: 108)

206lANl-()SO VAA. K}Nf(FORTlNO 8·C III S. I A.C. ? GAACIA YBELLlOO{\~6).GAACIA KAURln01l993:109 Y FIG:19) IS 10 28,,5

178 lAS (ORTS 110 HUS. ,6JolPURIAS I'fJWITFORTINl) 8 I. -200/·150 ALKAGRO B.A.SOHI955.J.5<l).GARCIA MAIJl.IIlOCI993:111 CON BI8L.) 2.

178 LAS COOTS 31 HUS. MPUR1AS l'\ONT[FQR1JI() ID s.II-1 ALMAGR.O(lIf55.FJG.Z5Jl GAACJA IWJRUiO{l993:110 CCN BJBL.)

17B LAS (ORTS 7 1fJS. N1PlJl.1AS ttll{f[FORTlNO B Ib WIOS. s. 11 d.e. AlJV,GRO( 1955:FIG.?15.5) .G.~CIA HAURINo(1993: lID CON BIBl.)

'37 /i:SAS 00 CASTElINl-O SlXUtlNUi/f1JNIEfORTlNO c·o ? JJ c.7550aC.' F(RRElRA(l992:l) y 25).

244 05CA I()NTtFOIlllHO SIN OATQS CJ I. POR GAACIA IiAURI~O( 1993: 113)

260 PAGl:) O£ GORRI TA HUSEO VALlAlXllIO t()NT(FORTlNOAlB 'vARIOS' s.II·ld.C. ABASOLO. PfREZ( 1980.19851. VN.LS. ESPARl.M 1992: 273) .G'MAUR..IKo 26 20.S

136 PIEORAS BARB,01DAS m... PARTlCLtAR J. GREQJRI t()Hl(FORTINO " s. III ~ .C.II d.e. FOlZ.119BO:FG 3l.GARCIA MAUiUR00993: 101 LOL IVfR(l987 ·B5:('07 22 19.5 2&136. PIEORAS BAABAOAS MUSEO DE BOUCARlO IilNTEFORT INO 8 I. s.III·/d.C. OLlV[R<l987·88:106-9>.GAA.CIA I1AJ.IRI~O(J99J:IOI Y FIG.5) 13 20.1 22.&136 P[EORAS BAABADAS MUSEO OE 8tNtCARlO I"ONTEFORllNO s.III·la.C. OL IVER( 1987 -88: 209·2101.GAACJA MAUR IiK>( 1993: 101)

443 PIQUET[ DE LA ATAlAYA ZAAN1JZA.83/43/1 t()1HEFORTINO IJ SIN OATOS BRONCES RiJiANOS( 1990: 201 1.GAACIA IiAURI~O( 1993: 114) 20 .• I. 20.8

11 POZO ",,"0 4F-2 ..... ,l{)NI(FORTlNO I• 500/+100 GAIl.CIA y 8.Cl980:65l.GAACIA MAURINO<l986:11-131.ann994l 26.\ n.3 IUm QUINTANA RfOONOA REAl ACA[lEHIA OE LA I1ISTORIA ~THORTJNO C ,. S. IA.C. GAACIA KAlR/No (1986:34 -36 CON 8IBL. ) .PASCI)AL< 1991: 181 ·182). 24.B 19.3 18.8

442 S. JUA.II AlHAJ..FARAO£ all. PARTlClLAR tofTEFORTlNO 1.·8 Id-b SIN DATOS CABAllOS RLFIIKHt994l 22.9 IB.4 19la TOYA c.w.RA ~. CAIlR( CAlAC[1TE? o"OHT[FOIlTIHO INOET. s,. V·I! a.C. CrS.IIEROS( 1919)CABRE( 1925: la) .GARC lA MAIJl.I~O{ 1986:94)

28 TOYA I'\A,II COL. ROON PULlOO /"ONTEFORTINO 'vARIOS' ss. IV·II d.C. CA8R.E(l925:27l.GAACIA KAURI~O(1986:79 BD CDN BIBL.) 22.7 lB.5 17201 VAI#'(JNTE M. ETllOL. AlENf(JO t1JNT(FORTlNO 0 JJ S.II-IA.C. VASCOtlL (1929: 183. FIG.53LGARC1A I1MJl.lnDn993: 120 '( FIG.JJ)

48 vlllAAICOS 560,,1{) 'A' 1()NT[FORTltlO 1I·la.C A~lll..UCII95I:n Y 1lU'l.48.21.GARCIA i"AtJSIlilo<l986:91-92)

48 VIllAAICOS ACRDP. IWi , /iONTEFORllNO 8 I. ss.vI·lld.C SIRElf 1906:lAM.6.42) .GAAC lA MAIJl.IRO( 1986: 22·23).

48 vILLAAlCOS HAN.UlJA 2560 I"ONTEFORTINO I. ss. VI-IJa.C GARCIA KAIJl.IRO(I986:43·44)

48 VILLAR1COS HA!!' . CAJA 2560 t()Nl(FCRTlIoiO Ib ss. VI-Il d.C GARCIA HAl"UNO( 1986:45148 VlllAAICOS HAN.UlJA 2560 I()Hl[FCAT1NO INDET. VI-1I4.C GA.Q,CIA tWJUilOH986:93>

48 \!llLAAICOS 10&1.3 IWl' K)!'tTEFCiRTlNO 1'1·11 d.C ASTRUC( 1951;lAM. ~lVIII) .GAAC lA I1AURIR[){ 1986: 114)

• ..... TOtd1 .....

Table ll: Catalogue of Montefortino-type and related helmets in the Iberian Peninsula (the Balearic islands, a differentcultural context, are excluded).

B helmet found in the Iberian cemetery at Almaciles(Granada) by clandestine diggers and now in theMuseum of Murcia (Quesada, 1992); a MontefortinoA-B helmet dredged from the Guadalquivir river(Caballos Rufino, 1994); and a fragment -includingthe solid knob- of another bronze Montefortino fromthe surface layers of the Iberian cemetery at La Serretade Alcoy (Alicante): the cemetery is located near the

This paper has been prepared wthin the framework ofResearch Project PB94/0189 financed by DGICYT.Notably, Barruol, Sauzade (1972:25 ff.); Abasolo,Perez (1980); Stary (1982 and 1994,II.2-3), Quesada(1992:72); Garcfa Maurifio (1993).Five new entries must be made to the most recent cata­logue (Garcfa Maurifio, 1993): A new Montefortino A-

2.

3.

NOTES

1.

164 Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8 1997

enceinte wall and can be dated to the 4th-early 2ndcenturies BC (unpublished, we are grateful to M.Olcina for showing it to us). Also a knob from Mesasdo Castelinho in Portugal. dated to c. 70-50 BC. Last,another helmet was found in Alfaro (La Rioja, ancientGraccurris) in 1969 during a controlled excavation, ina deposit together with scutum bosses and straightswords of the gladius hispaniensis type (see Quesada,1997b forth.). It is lost, and has been published onlyrecently.

4. The recent catalogues by Lenerz de Wilde (1991),Stary (1994) and Feugere (1994a) are only lists, andcontain only a few hints in typological matters on anon-systematic basis. The most useful attempt isGarcia Maurino's, but his system is not free of pro­blems (see Table I, type Ib).

5. No two helmets are exactly alike. So, any classifica­tion implies some degree of simplification and perso­nal choice of significant variables in each piece.

6. As M. Feugere has correctly pointed out (Feugere,1994a:79-80).

7. Such as the manufacturing technique of crest-knobs.The detached ones, riveted to the bowl, are often ofCeltic origin, while those forged in one piece with itare of Italic origin (see Schaaff, 1981 passim; 1988:319; also Feugere, 1994:37).

8. The use of these helmets in Carthaginian armies hasbeen accepted since Robinson (1975: 13).

9. E.g. Almagro Gorbea, (1992, 1994); Almagro, Ruiz(1993); Berrocal (1994), Celtas (1991); Lenerz (1991),etc.

10. It was found during surface surveying at Pago deGorrita, together with Celtiberian wheel-made sherdsthat can be dated from the third century BC down tothe Augustan Era.

11. M. Lenerz de Wilde has also criticized Stary's approa­ch (notably in Lenerz, 1986.273). Stating that 'seul unpetit nombre [of these helmets] peut etre qualifie aveccertitude comme etant d'ongine celtique». She has

. however included a list of his type 'b' helmets (mixingMontefortino, Buggenum and local productions toge­ther) in her Iberia Celtica (1991:180-181), whichmight lead to confusion.

12. Notably, Castellones de Ceal, chamber tomb;Cabecico del Tesoro grave 146; Hoya de Santa Ana,grave '0': Les Corts, graves 7, 31,110. See Table IIfor bibliographical references.

13. Polibyus twice specifies (3,87 and 114) that it was theAfricans who were re-equipped in this way, but thisshould not be taken as absolute. Any enterprising indi­vidual could easily have equipped himself not onlyafter the big Roman disasters in Italy and in Spain, buton many other different occasions.

14. A very similar piece was found, together with a LaTene sword and spearhead, at El Hinojal (Arcos de laFrontera, Cidiz), in a Late Period cemetery dated tothe second century BC (CorlO, 1983: 13; also Stary,1994:II, 57)

15. Perhaps we should remember that the origin of thistype of helmet with crest-knob has been dated to c.350 BC (Adam, 1986:22; Connolly, 1981: 120) or per­haps a bit earlier (Feugere, 1994:37).

J6. The case of helmets from the Balearic Islands is diffe­rent. Most finds there come from sanctuaries (GarcfaMaurino, 1993 has collected the available evidence).

17. See Guadan, 1979:91 for examples. Also Lorrio(1995) for weapons on Celtiberian coins.

18. For example, the helmet from Lacimurga and probablythat of Cola de Zama.

19. Identified personally as such by M. Feugere (pers.comm.).

20. It was labelled as 'Montefortino' in its only publica­tion, a plate without study in Los Bronces Romanos:201.

21. There is a long tradition dating back to the Bronze Ageof underwater voti ve deposits containing weapons inrivers throughout Western Spain, so perhaps this is avotive object. Garcia Maurino is of the same opinion( 1993: 139).

BIBLIOGRAPHYABASOLO, lA.; PEREZ, F. (1980) «El casco celtico de

GOlTita (Valladolid»). Boletfn del Seminario de Arte yArqueologfa de Vafladolid, 46, 93-119.

ABASOLO, lA.; PEREZ, F. (1985) «El casco celtoitalicode Gorrita (Valladolid) y sus paralelos europeos».COl11wlicaciones at ler Congreso de Historia Mifitar,11. Zaragoza, 41-55.

ADAM, A.M. (1986) «Emprunts et echanges de certainstypes d'armement entre l'Italie et le monde non medi­terraneen aux Ve et lYe siecles avant J.-c.». In A.M.Adam, A. Rouveret, Guerre et societes en ltalie...Paris, 19-28.

ADAM, A.M.; ROUVERET, A. (1986) Guerre et societesen ltafie (Ve-1Ve s. avant 1.-C Paris.

ALMAGRO GORBEA, M. (1992) «El origen de los celtas enla Penfnsula Iberica. Protoceltas y Celtas». Polis 4,5-31.

ALMAGRO GORBEA, M. (1994) «Les mouvements cel­tiques dans la Peninsule Iberique, une revision cri­tique». In L'Europe celtique du Ve au !fle siecle avant1. -C, 13-25.

ALMAGRO GORBEA, M.; RUIZ ZAPATERO, G. (eds.)(1993) Los Celtas: Hispania y Europa. Madrid.

ANTIKE HELME (1988) Antike helme. Handbuch mit

Journal of Roman Militarv Equipmel/t Studies 8 1997 165

Katalog. (Monogr. RGZM, 14). Mainz.BARRUOL, G.; SAUZADE, G. (1972) «Une tombe de

guerrier aSaint-Laurent-des-Arbres (Gard). Contribu­tion al' etude des sepu1tures du Ier siecle av. le. dansla basse vallee du Rhone». Ommaggio a F Benoit, Riv.Studi Liguri, 35.3, 15-89.

BERROCAL, L (1994) Los pueblos celticos del Suroeste dela Peninsula Iberica. Madrid.

BLAZQUEZ, lM. (1959-60) «Cascos celtas ineditos. Notassobre los cascos hispanicos». Boletin de la Comisi6nde monumentos de Orense, 20, 371-387.

CELTAS (1991) Los Celtas en la Peninsula Iberica. Revistade Arqueologfa, numero monogratico. Madrid.

CONNOLLY, P. (1981) Greece and Rome at Wal: London.CORZO, R. (1983) «Necr6polis iberica y visigoda de El

Hinojal (Arcos)>>. Cauilogo de la Exposici6n Bel/asArtes 83. Cadiz, p. 13.

CUADRADO, E. (1989) La panoplia iberica de ElCigarralejo (Mula, Murcia). Murcia.

FEUGERE, M. (1994a) Casques antiques. Les visages de laguerre, de Myd:nes Cl lafin de I'Empire romain. Paris.

FEUGERE, M. (l994b) «L'equipement militaire d'epoquerepublicaine en Gaule». e. van Driel-Murray (ed.),Military Equipment in context. Proceedings of theNinth International Roman Military EquipmentConference, Leiden, 1994. JRMES 5,3-23.

GARCIA MAURINO, J. (1993) «Los cascos de tipoMontefortino en la Penfnsula Iberica. Aportaci6n alestudio del armamento de la II" Edad del Hierro».Complutum 4,95-146.

GUADAN, A.M. (1979) Las armas en la moneda iberica.. Madrid.

LENERZ DE WILDE, M. (1986) «Art celtique et armesiberiques». Revue Aquitania, Supplement 1, 273-280.

LENERZ DE WILDE, M. (1991) Iberia Celtica. Archiiolo­gische zeugnisse Keltischer Kultur auf del' Pyrenaen­halbinsel. Stuttgart.

LORRIO, A. (1995) «El annamento de los Celtfberos a tra­ves de la iconograffa monetal». La Moneda hispanica.Ciudad y territorio. Anejos de Archivo Espaiiol deArqueologfaXIV, 75-80.

QUESADA, F. (1989) Armamento, Guerra y sociedad en lanecr6polis iberica de 'El Cabecico del Tesoro' (Murcia,Espana). BAR International Series, 502. I-U. Oxford.

QUESADA, F. (1992) «El casco de Almaciles (Granada) yla cueti6n de 10s caseos de tipo 'Montefortino' en laPenfnsula Iberica». Verdolay 4, 65-73.

QUESADA. F. (l992b) Arma y simbolo: la falcata iberica.Alicante.

QUESADA, F. (1994) «Vfas de contacto entre la MagnaGrecia e Iberia la cuesti6n del mercenariado»,Arqueologfa de la Magna Grecia, Sicilia y laPenfnsula Iberica, C6rdoba, 191-246.

QUESADA, F. (1997) El armamento Iberico. Estudiotipol6gico, geografico. jill1cional, social i simb61ico delas armas en la Cllltura Iberica (siglos VI-I a. C.).

Monogr. Instrumentum 3, Montagnac.QUESADA, F. (1997 forth.) «Patterns of interaction:

'Celtic' and 'Iberian' weapons in Iron Age Spain». W.Gillies, D. harding & 1. Ralston (eds.), Celtic Connec­tions. Proceeedings of the 10th International Congressof Celtic Studies, ILEdinburgh.

QUESADA, F. (1997b, forth.) «The gladills hispaniensis».ROMECX.

RAPIN, A, (1983-84) «L' annement du guerrier celte au 2eage du fen>. L 'art celtique en Gaule. Exposition 1983­84,69-79.

ROBINSON, H.R. (1975) The Armour of Imperial Rome.London.

SANDARS, H. (1913) «The Weapons of the Iberians».Archaeologia, XXV. Oxford.

SCHAAFF, U. (1974) «Keltische eisenhelme ausVon"bmischer Zeit». JRGZM 21, 149-204.

SCHAAFF. U. (1981) «Zu den Konischen Helmen mitScheitelknauf in Italien». Archiiologisches Korrespon­denzblatt 11, 217-221.

SCHAAFF. U. (1988a) «Etruskisch-Rbmische Helme», inAI/tike Helme, 318-326.

SCHAAFF, U. (l988b) «Keltische Helme». in AntikeHelme.293-317.

SCHULTEN, A. (1914-31) Numantia: Die Ergebnisse derAusgrabungel/. I-IV. MLinchen.

STARY, P. (1982) «Keltische Waffen auf der IberischenHalbinsel». Madrider Mittteilungen 23, 114-144.

STARY. P. (1986) «Ital ische Helme des I Jahrtausends vorChristus». 1. Swaddling (ed.), Italian Iron Age Arti­facts il/ the British Museum. London, 25-30.

STARY. P. (1994) Zllr Eisenzeitlichen Bebawwnung undKa/1/pfesweise allf der 1berischen Halbinsel. I-ILBerlin.

WAURICK, G. (1990) Helme in Caesars Heet: Mainz.

Individual helmetsABASCAL. J.M.; SANZ, R (1992) Bronces antiguos del

Mllseo de Albacete. Albacete.ABASOLO. JA; PEREZ, F. (1980) <<El casco celtico de

Gorrita (Valladolid)>>. Boletfn del Seminario de Arte 'iArqueologia de Valladolid, 46, 93-119.

ABASOLO. JA; PEREZ, F (1985) «El casco celtoitalicode Gorrita (Valladolid) y sus paralelos europeos».CO/1/unicaciones al 1er Cong reso de Historia Militar,H. Zaragoza, 41-55.

AGUILAR, A; GUICHARD, P. (1992) «Lacimurga. La ciu­dad antigua y su entomo». Rev. de Arqueologia, 144,32-38.

166 Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8 1997

ALMAGRO BASCH, M. (1955) Las necropolis de Ampu­rias 11. Necropolis romanas y necropolis indigenas.Barcelona.

ALMEIDA, CA FERREIRA (1980) «Importantes objetosem bronze de Castelo dre Neiva». Gallaecia 6, 245-255.

ASTRUC, M. (1951) La necropolis de Villaricos. Informesy Memorias de la CGEA, 25. Madrid.

ATRIAN, P. (1976) El yacimiento iberico de 'El AltoChacon (Teruel)'. Excavaciones Arqueol6gicas enEspana, 92. Madrid.

BLANQUEZ, 1. (1986) El proceso de lberizacion en elSureste de la Meseta. Madrid.

BLAZQUEZ, J.M. (1959-60) «Caseos celtas ineditos. Notassobre los cascos hispanicos». Boletin de la Comisionde monumentos de Orense, 20, 371-387

BRONCES ROMANOS (1990) Los Bronces Romanos enEspafia. Catdlogo de la Exposicion. Madrid.

CABALLOS RUFINO, A. (1994) «Un casco Montefortinohallado en el Guadalquivir». Homenaje a 1. MO Bldz­quez, 2, 109-124.

CABRE, J. (1925) «Arquitectura Hispanica. El sepulcro deToya». Archivo Espafiol de Arte y Arqueologia, 73-103.

CABRE, 1.; CABRE, M.E. (1933) «Datos para la crono­logfa del punal de la cultura de 'Las Cogotas'».Archivo Espafiol de Arqueologia 24,37-47.

CABRE, J.; MOTOS, F. (1918) La necropolis iberica deTutugi (Galera, provincia de Granada). Memorias dela Junta Superior de Excavaciones y Antigliedades, 25.Madrid.

CALVO, 1.; CABRE, 1. (1917) Excavaciones en la cueva)'collado de los Jardines (Santa Elena, Jaen).Memorias de la Junta Superior de Excavaciones yAntigliedades, 8. Madrid.

CARDOZO, M. (1953) «Excava~oes na Citania deBriteiros».Revista de Guimaraes, 83, 715 ft.

CISNEROS, DJ. (1919) «La necr6polis ibero-romana dePeal de Becerro». Don Lope de Sosa, 308-312.

FERNANDEZ CHICARRO, C. (1956) «Prospecci6n ar­queo16gica en los terminos de Hinojares y La Guardia

. (Jaen)>>. Boletin del lnstituto de Estudios Jiennenses,7, 101- 120.

FERRElRA, CJ. (1992) «Excava~oes no povoado fortifica­do das Mesas do Castelinho (Almod6var»>. Vipasca,1, 19-37.

FERNANDEZ, A. (1980) «Estudio de los restos arqueol6gi­cos submarinos en las costas de Caste1l6n». Cuadernosde Prehistoria y Arqueologia Castellonense 7, 135-196.

GARCIA Y BELLIDO, A. (1946) «El casco de Lanho­so».Archivo Espaiiol de Arqueologia, 19, 356-358.

GARCIA Y BELLIDO, A. (1980) Arte lbirico en Espa­iia. Madrid.

GRAS, R.; MENA, P; VELASCO, F. (1984) «La ciudad de fo­sos de Bayona (Cuenca)>>. Rev. de Arqueologia 36, 48-57.

HOZ, 1. de (1994) «Una probable inscripci6n latina en uncasco de Pow Moro». Archivo Espanol de Arqueo­logia, 67, 223-227.

IRIARTE, A. et al. (1996) «El dep6sito de armas de La Azu­carera (Alfaro, la Rioja)>>. Cuadernos de Arqueologiade la Universidad de Navarra, 4, 173-194.

MALUQUER, 1. (1987) «Un casco iberico probablementede la necr6polis de Galera (Granada) en ellnstituto deArqueologfa de la Universidad de Barcelona». Archivode Prehistoria Levantina, 17,257-260.

MARTIN VALLS, R.; ESPARZA, A.(1992) «Genesis yevoluci6n de la cultura celtiberica». In M. Almagro, G.Ruiz (eds.) Paleoetnologia de la Peninsula lberica,Acts of the 1989 Symposium. Complutum, 2-3,259-279.

MENA MuNOZ, P.; RUIZ, A. (1985) «Elementos celtas deloppidum de Alarcos (Ciudad Real)>>. XV111 CongresoNacional de Arq/!-eologia, Islas Canarias, 635-645.

NIETO, G. (1939-40) «Noticia de las excavaciones realiza­das en la necr6polis hispanica del Cabecico del Tesoro,Verdolay (Murcia)>>. Boletin del Seminario de Estudiosde Arte)' Arqueologia de Valladolid,6, 137-160.

OLIVER, A. (1987-88) «Tres yelmos de tipo Momefortinohallados en Benicarl6 (Caste1l6n)>>. Cuadernos dePrehistoria)' Arqueologia Castellonense, 13,205-212.

PASCUAL, A.C. (1991) Carta Arqueologica. Soria. ZonaCentra. Soria.

PRESEDO, F. (1982) La necropolis de Baz-a. ExcavacionesArqueol6gicas en Espana, 119. Madrid.

PUJOL, 1.; GARCIA ROSELLO, 1. (19892-83) «El grup desitges de Can Miralles-Can Modolell». Laietania, 2-3,46-146.

QUESADA, F. (1989) Armamento, Guerra)' sociedad en lanecropolis ibirica de 'El Cabecico del Tesoro'(Murcia, Espaiia). BAR International Series, 502. I-U.Oxford.

QUESADA, F. (1992) «El casco de Almaciles (Granada) yla cueti6n de los cascos de tipo 'Montefoi"tino' en laPenfnsula Iberica». Verdolay 4, 65-73.

SANCHEZ JIMENEZ, J. (1943) «Memoria de los trabajosrealizados por la Comisarfa General de ExcavacionesArqueol6gicas de Albacete en 1941». lnformes )'Memorias de la CGEA, 3. Madrid.

SCHAAF, U. (1974) «Keltische eisenhelme ausVorrbmischer Zeit». JRGZM 21, 149-204.

SCHULE, W. (1969) Die Meseta Kulturen der lberischenHalbinsel. 1-11. Berlin.

SIRET, L. (1906) Villaricos y Herrerias. Madrid.VASCONCELOS,1. (1929) «Antigliedades do A1emtejo X.

Cabe~a de Vaiamonte». 0 Arqueologo Portugues 28,183-185.

VICENTE, 1. et alii (1991) «La Caridad (Caminreal,Teruel)>>. La casa urbana hispanorramana. Zaragoza,81-129.