A Helmet of the Sixth Century B. C.

from Sardis

Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr.; Ann M. Heywood

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 285. (Feb., 1992), pp. 1-31.

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is currently published by The American Schools of Oriental Research.
 A Helmet of the Sixth Century B.C.

from Sardis

H. GREENEWALT,
CRAWFORD JR. ANNM. HEYWOOD
Department of Classics Department of Objects Conservation
University of California Metropolitan Museum of Art
Berkeley, CA 94720 New York, NY 10028

A bronze-decorated iron helmet excavated at Sardis in 1987 may be dated to the

mid-sixth century B.C. and may be associated with the capture and partial sack of
Sardis by Cyrus the Great of Persia. The skull-piece design, unusual for helmets of
Greece and the Near East before Roman times, resembles that of helmets of the sec-
ond century A.D. and later, Strebenhelme and Bandhelme. The helmet presumably
belonged to a soldier of either Croesus or Cyrus, but it is not clearly identifiable with
Lydia, Persia, or other regions that supplied auxiliaries for Lydian and Persian
armies.

INTRODUCTION PROVENIENCE AND CONTEXT, DESCRIP-

TION, HISTORICAL COMMENTARY

he helmet recovered during the 1987 exca- Provenience and Context

T vations at Sardis appeared as a small,

unglamorous heap of corrosion fragments The helmet was recovered from ruins of a large
(Greenewalt 1990: 11, fig. 14).l Metal had been al- Lydian building, evidently a fortification, located
most completely replaced by corrosion products, at the north foot of the Acropolis of Sardis, some
and the identity of the artifact was established only 400 m east of the Pactolus stream. Conspicuous
after two weeks of steady sorting and examination. landmarks from subsequent history in the same lo-
Nevertheless the discovery yielded a considerable cale are the Roman Bath-Gymnasium complex ca.
amount of information. The context is a secure one 50 m north, and the modern Ankara-Izmir high-
to which a specific date, the mid-sixth century B.c., way, which has destroyed one end of the building
may be confidently assigned; furthermore, the con- (probably at the time the highway was widened in
text may be identified with a famous historical the early 1950s; fig. 1). The relationship of the
event, the siege of Sardis by Cyrus the Great of building to the topography of the Lydian city
Persia. The remains of the helmet preserve firm remains unclear due to uncertainties about the de-
evidence for its design and construction in general sign and specific defensive role of the building and
aspects and in many particulars. It is one of a rela- the size, organization, and growth pattern of the
tively small number of Greek and Near Eastern Lydian city. The design of the building, with its
helmets made of iron; and it establishes the antiq- deep and shallow recesses, has no close match in
uity of certain helmets with multipart, radially- the curtain walls and tower-gate complexes of
designed skull-pieces (Strebenhelme, Bandhelme) contemporaneous Greek and Near Eastern fortifi-
as older by half a millennium than previous evi- cations; and since contemporaneous occupation
dence had indicated. features occur on either side and at appreciable
2 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD
Fig. 1. Colossal Lydian Structure, schematic plan (based
on evidence recovered through 1990).
distances from the building, neither side is clearly
identifiable with center or suburb^.^ Narrow plan,
massive construction, and steep sides are compel-
ling evidence, however, that it was a defensive
barrier; and the materials and techniques of con-
struction are consistent with those of Greek and
Near Eastern fortifications (Greenewalt 1979: 21-
24; Greenewalt, Sterud, and Belknap 1982: 18-
BASOR 285
Fig.. 2. Colossal Lydian Structure, west side: north side of
recess, showing the top surface of brick destruction de-
posit, looking north (1987).
24). It may have been part of the defenses of an in-
ner city, as at Carchemish.
The building, "Colossal Lydian Structure" in
recent reports, was built in the second half of the
seventh century B.C. (Greenewalt 1979: 24-25, fig.
31; Greenewalt, Sterud, and Belknap 1982: 18-20,
figs. 18, 19). It was subsequently strengthened by
massive earthworks (fig. I), which may have been
built to protect the original structure from mining
and sapping operation^.^ About 550 B.C. the struc-
tute was partially destroyed. Dramatic evidence for
destruction is an enormous deposit of fallen brick,
which rests in heaps against the sides, standing to
heights of up to 12 m and extending out in dimin-
ishing amounts to distances of up to 15 m (figs. 2-
4). The tumbled position and irregularly broken
condition of the bricks in the deposit show that
they fell or were dumped from the upper part of
the structure; and since much of the surviving
structure is built of brick, it is logical to suppose
that the fallen bricks are remains of an upper part.
1992 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS
Unlike the bricks in the standing part of the struc-
ture, however, which are all unfired mudbricks, the
great majority of fallen bricks (something like
three-quarters of them on the side where the hel-
met was found) have been significantly affected by
strong heat: a few-in the part of the deposit
where the helmet was recovered-are partly black-
ened, blistered, and ~ i t r i f i e d ;the
~ overwhelming
majority are semibaked and have distinctive red-
dish tones. N. D. Cahill, who excavated large parts
of the brick deposit, has presented evidence that
the reddish bricks had been semibaked not as an
uncontrolled consequence of destruction but by de-
sign, for use in construction (Greenewalt, Cahill,
and Rautman 1987: 22-24). Whatever the circum-
stances of semibaking, the unique red colors and
many large brick fragments make the deposit dis-
tinctive; it is clearly distinguishable from deposits
of other kinds, and disturbances to it are obvious.
The part of the deposit from which the helmet was
recovered had not been subsequently disturbed or
intruded (figs. 4, 5).'
The date of the deposit is established by diag-
nostic pottery recovered within it and from an oc-
cupation stratum directly below it; a Carbon-14
date for organic material from the same stratum
supports the pottery evidence. Single fragments of
an East Greek Fikellura amphora, an Attic or Ion-
ian Little Master cup, and an Attic black-figure
closed vessel in the manner of Sophilos were re-
covered from the destruction deposit; from the oc-
cupation stratum, which represents a short period
of time and includes an occupation surface (floor),
two complete Attic black-figure cups (Komast cup
3
Fig. 3. Colossal Lydian Structure, west
side: recess with brick destruction deposit
partly excavated (where helmet and
skeleton had been), looking southeast
(1 989).
and Little Master skyphos) were recovered. All
ceramic items may be dated in the second quarter
or close to the middle of the sixth century B . c . ~
Carbon-14 analysis of carbonized seeds from the
occupation stratum yielded a date of 570 B.C. * 50
The mid-sixth century date and the context
of a defense work point to a famous historical event
as the cause of the destruction: the siege, capture,
and partial sack of Sardis by Cyrus the Great of
Persia, which brought to an end the Lydian Empire
and the reign of Croesus ca. 546 B.C. (see Cargill
1977; Burstein, 1984).
The helmet was recovered in fallen brick de-
struction deposit that fills a recess between two
segments of an earthwork glacis (figs. 1-4). The
chronologically diagnostic items cited above were
recovered from the other side of the structure, but
the characteristics of the deposit on all sides are
too consistent and too unusual to have been depos-
ited at different times, and the deposit in the re-
cess contained ottery of broadly but consistently
B
Archaic kinds. Figure 4 shows the findspots of
the helmet fragments: most of them were recov-
ered in a compact heap (fig. 5; Greenewalt 1990:
11, fig. 14); one small fragment (of a finial
tongue) was recovered away from the rest. Apart
from random pottery fragments, the only other
features recovered from the brick destruction de-
posit in the recess (completely excavated in 1989)
were a human skeleton in one comer of the recess
and traces of two slender wood items between the
small helmet fragment and the skeleton (fig. 4).
The skeleton may have belonged to the wearer of
the helmet. According to physical anthropologist
4 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD BASOR 285
 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS
LLLV
Fig. 5. Helmet, sketch drawing of heap and reconstructed
fragments, front side.
M. R. Domurad, the skeleton was that of a man
22-26 years old and in good physical condition at
the time of death; head wounds sustained three to
four years before death, the development of arm
bones, and the compression of neck vertebrae are
characteristic of a soldier, and a soldier who wore
a helmet; and the man died in violent circum-
stances, trying to protect himself with one arm and
clutching a stone in his right hand (Greenewalt,
RattC, and Rautman, in press). The stone might be
the projectile of a slinger or stone-thrower, or it
might have been picked up at random, in a final
act of defiance (Pritchett 1991: 1 - 6 6 ) . ~One of the
two wood items could have been a spear.10 The
alignment of the items on an incline that corre-
sponds to the incline of the fallenldumped brick
strata (fig. 4) suggests that the items were depos-
ited at about the same time during the dumping of
the brick. Since the special development of arm
and neck bones could have nonmilitary explana-
tions, however, and since no military gear was
recovered in immediate association with the skele-
ton (e.g., no shield to justify the left-arm muscle
development), a connection between helmet and
skeleton more intimate than that of being residue
from the same event cannot be certain.
Condition
The metal of all the helmet parts is completely
corroded, except for the centers of some parts and
of the cotter pin. The remains in the compact heap
were crushed and broken, but many of the frag-
ments rested in proper relationship to each other,
and their position suggests that the helmet came to
rest with much or most of the skull-piece intact; it
was resting on its back, oriented with top to the
east (fig. 5).11 Most of the breakage may have oc-
curred as a result of metal deterioration and the
weight of brick and earth debris above. In general,
the shape of the parts does not appear to have been
significantly distorted, except for one of the skull-
piece plates at the front, which is bent back on the
inside (figs. 6, 12). Broken edges were crisp
enough to permit identification of joins for the
larger fragments. Reconstruction of many small
fragments, probably from the back of the helmet
and the left cheek-piece (cf. fig. 11) may not be
possible (see below).
Description
The helmet comprises a skull-piece with scal-
loped brow, cheek-pieces attached with knuckle-
and-pintle hinges, a neck guard, and decorative
features that consist of a multipart finial and cords
articulated with bead-and-reel pattern. The struc-
tural parts of the helmet are iron, the decorative
parts mostly bronze (i.e., except for the central
cords in the skull-piece triplets, which are iron).
Skull piece. The skull-piece was flat or flattish
on top (as was the bottom plate of the finial). Its
vertical and horizontal curvatures are uncertain. It
was formed of eight triangular plates of iron,
placed in radial arrangement and fastened to an in-
terior armature of eight iron bands or ribs. Each rib
was a flat band of metal, ca. 1.5 cm wide, which
supported the sides of two adjacent plates. Plates
and ribs converged at the top, the points of the
former meeting; the latter terminated somewhat
short of center (figs. 14, 22), their ends masked un-
derneath by a thin iron disk ca. 4.3 cm in diameter.
The brow of the helmet has a pair of scallops, one
scallop in each of the two adjacent plates that form
the front. The scallops evidently met in some kind
of point, sharp or blunt, above the nose. There is no
evidence for a nose guard; the central seam be-
tween the plates would have weakened the attach-
ment place, but a nose guard could have been
6 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD BASOR 285

Fig. 6. Helmet, reconstructed fragments, front. Fig. 7. Helmet, reconstructed fragments, left side.

Fig. 8. Helmet, reconstructed fragments, back. Fig. 9. Helmet, reconstructed fragments, right side.

formed or supported by an extension of the rib to
which the plates were attached. The edges of the
two front plates are perforated by a series of small
holes (ca. 0.1 cm in diameter, ca. 1.1 cm apart), for
the attachment of a lining. Other edges are poorly
preserved. The back plates extended at least 2.6 cm
below the hinges.
Cheek-pieces. The cheek-pieces have a trian-
gular semilunate shape (fig. 10). One is essentially
1992 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS
Fig. 10. Helmet, left cheek-piece, reconstructed.
complete, the other is attested by at least a few
fragments, perhaps by many more among the mis-
cellaneous fragments that have not been recon-
structed (fig. 11). Of the complete cheek-piece, all
edges are perforated by tiny holes (ca. 0.1 cm in
diameter, ca. 1 cm apart) for the attachment of a
lining (figs. 15, 17). Near the tip is a larger hole
(ca. 0.25 cm in diameter; fig. 17) to secure a chin
strap.
Cheek-piece hinges. The hinges are knuckle-
and-pintle type. In each hinge the cheek-piece had
three knuckles; the skull-piece had four. The
knuckles of the skull-piece turned in, those of the
cheek-pieces turned out. The pintles were iron;
only segments of their shafts survive (the head re-
stored in figs. 21, 22 is conjectural).
Neck guard. The neck guard is a narrow strip of
iron sheet (3.5 cm widelhigh, at least 28 cm long, in-
cluding joining fragments 20 cm long and nonjoin-
ing fragments), with an everted lip (0.3 cm wide) at
the bottom. The vertical edges do not survive, or
have not been recognized in the miscellaneous frag-
ments that have not been reconstructed, and the
profile restored in figs. 21 and 22 is conjectural. The
top edge was evidently contiguous to the bottom
edge of the skull-piece because the former preserves
patches of bronze corrosion that must be residue
from the decorative cords on the latter. The method
of attachment to the skull-piece is unclear. The lower
7
edge is perforated by tiny holes (ca. 0.1 cm in diam-
eter, ca. 1.0-1.4 cm apart (figs. 17, 21).
Decoration. The jinial is made of bronze, ex-
cept for an iron cotter pin that secured it to the
skull-piece; it had four parts, from bottom to top,
as follows. The bottom plate had an everted lip and
central hole framed by a "curb," the upper edge of
which is broken. Above was a bell-shaped part
with an outflaring lip. The next part had the form
of an inverted bowl with an outer edge cut to create
a series of radiating petals or tongues. There were
probably eight tongues (their alignment with the
radial cords on the skull-piece [figs. 21, 271 is con-
jectural). Each tongue had a central groove and
flanged edges. The method by which the tongues
were attached to the bottom plate is unclear. The
fourth part of the finial, the cap, has a shallow,
conical top and straight lip. The iron cotter pin has
a spherical head and a shaft that is square in sec-
tion. It penetrates through the centers of the first
three parts, between the points, and through the
disk on the underside of the skull-piece, thus secur-
ing the component parts of the finial together and
to the skull-piece; its two ends are splayed out
against the under surface of the disk.
The cords decorate skull-piece and cheek-
pieces, contouring the edges of all and on the
skull-piece radiating from the rim of the finial
plate to the contour cords. Although the position
of some segments has shifted, the original posi-
tioning is clear. On the skull-piece the cords occur
in groups of three; on each cheek-piece the top
edge is contoured by two cords, the side edges by
one.
The cords are bronze except for the central
cords of the skull-piece triplets, which are iron.
The bronze cords are solid rods, the iron cords
may be either solid rods or folded sheet (see be-
low). All bronze cords are articulated with a bead-
and-reel pattern (fig. 13); whether the iron cords
had the same pattern is unclear (it is assumed for
them in the reconstruction, figs. 21, 22). The cords
were attached to the skull-piece with small rivets,
0.1 cm in diameter, as the X-radiographs reveal
(figs. 15, 16; also, see below).
Lining. Perforations along the edges of the
skull-piece (fig. 15), cheek-piece, and neck guard
secured a lining (restored in fig. 27). Adhering to
the inside of the neck guard were pseudomorphs of
leather (fig. 20), tentatively identified as goat
leather, in three small patches (see below).
8 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD
Fig. 11. Helmet, unreconstructed
fragments.
Fig. 12. Helmet, inside surface of skull-piece (with bent
front plate at right, hinge remains for right cheek-piece at
bottom), showing ribs.
Weight. The helmet fragments weigh 1138.3 gr.,
or 2.5 lbs.
Historical Commentary
Context. The context of a fortification and of a
destruction that evidently is the result of military
action is appropriate for armor, but in the archaeo-
logical record it is an uncommon one: most ancient
BASOR 285
Fig. 13. Helmet, segments of decorative cords, showing
bead-and-reel pattern.
armor has been recovered from graves, military
stores, special caches, and, in the case of Greek ar-
mor, from sanctuaries.12 (The skeleton reported
here that may have belonged to a soldier and to the
wearer of the helmet adds suggestive but not con-
clusive evidence for a context of military action.)
Materials. Before Roman times, iron helmets
are relatively uncommon in the archaeological
1992 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS 9

Fig. 15. Helmet, X-radiograph of front of skull-piece,

showing rivet holes (far left, bottom center) and the tops
of holes for attachment of a lining (lower left, just below
bottom decorative cord).

Fig. 14. Helmet, X-radiograph of top of skull-piece.

record of Greece and the Near East (the majority of

surviving Greek and Near Eastern helmets are
bronze). That uncommonness to some extent prob-
ably reflects the instability of iron and neglect by
excavators and custodians of its visually unimpres-
sive remains; iron helmets are cited in written doc-
uments of Greece and the Near East, and the
approximately 20 examples that have been reported
were recovered from almost as many sites in
Greece, the Near East, and North ~ f r i c a Celtic
.~~
and Roman iron helmets are common (Schaaff
1974; Schaaff in Bottini et al. 1988: 293-309). Iron
was a common material for artifacts of the seventh
and sixth centuries B.C. at Sardis (Waldbaum 1983:
8-9, 23-26; Greenewalt 1978: 17-18).
The use of a separate material for decoration
occurs in many Greek and Near Eastern helmets,
and several of the Near Eastern iron helmets have
decoration in bronze, like the Sardis helmet.14
The leather lining of the neck guard, attested by
pseudomorphs (fig. 20), has been tentatively iden-
tified as goat skin by 0. Sari (Aegean University,
Izmir; further below, p. 18). Leather linings have
been identified or claimed for several ancient hel- Fig. 16. Helmet, X-radiograph of lower right side of skull-
piece, showing bead-and-reel decoration of bronze deco-
mets, and goat lining for a few (for the latter, rative cords, rivet holes in bronze decorative cords, and
Pflug in Bottini et al. 1988: 541-42; Kendall hinge knuckle and pintle (lower left).
10 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD
Fig. 17. Helmet, X-radiograph of lower end of cheek-
piece (above) and lower edge of neck guard (below; up-
side down), showing holes for attachment of a lining in
both parts and hole at tip of cheek-piece for attachment of
a chin strap.
1981: 207, 21 1).15 That the skull-piece and cheek-
pieces of this helmet also were lined is indicated
by the perforations along their edges (see Pflug in
Bottini et al. 1988: 104-5 for similar perforations
in Greek helmets). On those helmet parts no
pseudomorphs have been recognized. Their linings
might have been made of another material, such as
felt, which would have provided more cushioning
against the interior ribs, disk, and cotter pin of the
skull-piece (and which is specified for the linings
of some helmets at Nuzi; Kendall 1981: 210-1 1).
Alternatively, cushioning could have been pro-
vided by a separate cap, like the pilos worn with
some Greek helmets (Anderson 1970: 29-30,
nn. 86, 87).
The roughness and corrosion of the helmet frag-
ments give an alien impression of the original ap-
pearance of helmet surfaces: the. bronze would
have been a dull gold, the smooth iron would have
BASOR 285
Fig. 18. Helmet samples used in analysis.
Fig. 19. Helmet, largest sample used in analysis, section
through joining plates, rib, decorative cords.
"gleamed like polished silver" (Plutarch, Alex-
ander 32.9, on Alexander the Great's iron helmet;
cf. Curtius 3.3.26).16 Figure 21 does not show the
thongs that attached the lining to the metal parts or
the chin strap.''
Design and construction. The flat top of the
skull-piece is unusual in ancient helmet design. Ex-
tra padding would have been required to stabilize
the helmet on the wearer's head. A helmet report-
edly from Meslek-i-Shar in Azerbaijan, now in the
British Museum, has a similarly flattish top (Bar-
nett 1973: 123-24; Gamber 1978: 195; C. B. F.
Walker, personal communication).
Before Roman times, the construction of a metal
helmet skull-piece from a series of triangular plates
attached to a frame of cruciform or radiating bands
is almost unknown. A few representations of Near
Eastern and Cypriot helmets and headgear show
radial construction, but the Near Eastern examples
(mostly second millennium B.c.) feature very narrow
plates that probably would have been attached to
1992 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS 11

Fig. 20. Helmet, leather pseudomorphs on inside surface of neck guard.

Fig. 21. Helmet reconstruction: front; left side; top; section (looking to the back; by C. Alexander, revised 1991).

each other or to a continuous backing, and the
Cypriot examples may be leather or cloth (fig. 23).18
The majority of extant Near Eastern and Greek
bronze helmets were hammered from single pieces
of alloy (for exceptions, Schaaff 1973: 105-6;
Borchhardt 1972: 63-64; M u g in Bottini et al.
1988: 12, 43, 46, 71-73). To forge a helmet skull-
piece from a single bloom of iron is considerably
more difficult. Celtic iron helmets, which began to
be made at the end of the fifth century B.c.-a
 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD
Fig. 22. Helmet, exploded reconstruction (by C. Alex-
ander, revised 1991).
BASOR 285
century-and-a-half after the Sardis helmet-were so
made (Schaaff 1974: 150; Schaaff in Bottini et al.
1988: 293), but the skull-pieces of Greek and Near
Eastern iron helmets for which the construction has
been determined were made in sections. The Near
Eastern iron helmets-unprovenienced examples re-
portedly from Urartu-were made in two halves,
which join on the lateral axis (Kellner 1976: 78,
nos. 137-38; Kellner 1979: 152, figs. B, 1; Overlaet
1979: 52-54; Vanden Berghe and DeMeyer 1982:
133, figs. 25, 26); the specific articulation of Greek
iron helmet parts remains to be reported (Androni-
cos 1984: 144; Waurick in Bottini et al. 1988: 176-
78). The creation of the Sardis helmet skull-piece
from as many as eight sheets might have been deter-
mined by special production factors, such as time
limitations and shortage of skilled labor, and need
not necessarily reflect technological limitations in
the culture that produced it. Craddock observes that
raising "a single sheet of metal could result in weak
areas unless great care was taken, and so for rela-
tively mass-produced helmets it might be safer (and
stronger) to produce smaller components. . . . "
(P. T. Craddock, personal communication, Septem-
ber 1989).
In almost all the Greek and Near Eastern iron
helmets, the seams between joining parts were
made inconspicuous. In the Sardis helmet, how-
ever, the articulation of parts is emphasized by the
radial cords on the exterior. The cords are purely
decorative; they mask the seams, to be sure, but
they also demark the lines of construction. The
only other helmet known to us that has a skull-
piece of similar design and that antedates the
Roman period is from Old Smyrna, some 90 km
west of Sardis, on the Asia Minor coast. The Old
Smyrna helmet also was made of iron, and proba-
bly also in the first half of the sixth century B.c.; its
excavator, J. K. Anderson, remembers that the ex-
terior of the skull-piece had a cruciform arrange-
ment of bands that crossed or converged at the
apex. 19
The skull-piece design of the helmets from Sar-
dis and Old Smyrna has no close parallel in hel-
mets of Greece and the Near East before Roman
times, but it is strikingly like that of two closely-
related Roman-to-early-medieval helmet types: the
Strebenhelm or radial helmet (in which four or
more structural bands radiate, like those of the Sar-
dis helmet, from the apex of the skull-piece) and
the Bandhelm (in which either two structural bands
extend from front to back and from side to side,
crossing at the apex, or two short side bands meet
1992 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS 13

Fig. 23. Cypriot limestone statue from Golgoi, Cyprus, details showing head and headgear. Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York, 74.51.2466, the Cesnola Collection; Purchased by Subscription, 1874-1876. Reproduced with permis-
sion of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

at the apex a longer band that extends from front to
back). The earliest of those two types is attested in
the beginning of the second century A.D. (in repre-
sentations on Trajan's Column in Rome, A.D. 113;
commemorating events of A.D. 101-102, 105-106).
A splendid Strebenhelm variant, whose name
sometimes does duty for both types, is the Span-
genhelm, which was created in the sixth century
A.D. and has been associated with workshops of Os-
trogothic Italy (fig. 24; Gamber 1982; James 1986:
113-20; Werner 1988; cf. Gamber 1964: 17, n. 27;
Hejdovl 1967: 51, n. 35).20 Strebenhelm and
Bandhelm types differ from the Sardis helmet-but
evidently resemble the . Old Smyrna helmet-in
having structural bands on the exterior of the skull-
piece instead of on the interior. Similarly, the disk
at the apex of the Spangenhelm is on the exterior,
in contrast to the iron disk of the Sardis helmet,
which is on the interior (fig. 22); and many Streben-
helme had a strengthening band around the base of
the skull-piece, which the Sardis helmet did not.21
For both Strebenhelm and Bandhelm types and for
the Sardis helmet, however, the general principle
of construction is the same. Stebenhelme and Band-
helme are commonly understood to have originated
in Iran or the Caucasus: one or both types are rep-
resented on Trajan's Column in Rome, where they
are associated with Parthians and Sarmatians
(Gamber 1964; 1982: 81; James 1986: 128-30).
The Bandhelm was an established type in Sassa-
nian Persia, as examples demonstrate; and head-
gear of Bandhelm design appears on late Parthian
coins of the second and third centuries A.D. (Wroth
1903: pl. 36; cf. Werner 1949-1950: 188; Hejdovl
1967: 141; Overlaet 1982: 191-92; James 1986:
119).~ The
~ cultural origin of the helmets from Sar-
dis and Old Smyma, although not precisely deter-
mined, may be broadly localized in Anatolia and
the Near East. The helmets therefore may be seen
as prototypes of Strebenhelme and Bandhelme:
similarities of design and construction cannot be
simply the result of independent response to con-
straints of iron technology, and "missing links" of
the intermediate centuries may be explained as part
of the greater lacuna in our knowledge of Anato-
lian and Near Eastern helmets (below). Streben-
helme and Bandhelme have a far-flung, living
legacy that today includes Central Asian nomad
14 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD BASOR 285

Fig. 24. Early medieval Spangenhelm from Baldenheim in Alsace: Musws de la Ville de Strasbourg, Chateau de
Rohan. Reproduced with permission of the Musbs de la Ville de Strasbourg.

caps and European arched crowns;23 and their his- ing would have been an extremely difficult joining
tory may now be traced to western Anatolia to the technique for the skull-piece parts. There is clear
sixth century B.C. evidence, on the other hand, for the use of rivets
The plates and ribs of the Sardis helmet were (figs. 15, 16); and those rivets, which attached the
presumably joined by either hammer welding or decorative cords to the skull piece, evidently pene-
riveting.24Welding is attested at Sardis in an iron trated both plates and ribs (see below). Since they
tool of the early first millennium B.C. (Maddin, are no smaller than rivets used in European armor,
Muhly, and Waldbaum in Waldbaum 1983: 178- they should have sufficed, Smith and Smith main-
80; cf., Moorey 1985: 95; Curtis et al. 1979); and tain, to make a strong join for the structural parts
welding was associated' with Lydia in ancient of the skull-piece. Riveting would be consistent
Greek tradition, if the celebrated krater stand of with the joining system used for earlier Near East-
metallurgically-joined (kolleton) iron dedicated by em helmets reportedly recovered in Urartu (Kell-
King Alyattes of Lydia at Delphi--only a genera- ner 1976: 78, 1979: 152; Overlaet 1979: 52-54;
tion before the helmet was lost at Sardis-was Vanden Berghe and DeMeyer 1982: 133) and for
joined by welding (the commonly understood later Strebenhelme and Bandhelme. Whatever the
meaning of k o l l e s i ~ ) .The
~ ~ absence of evidence technique that joined the plates and ribs of the Sar-
for welding in the helmet could be due to extreme dis helmet may have been, it was effective, for
corrosion of the parts; but R. Smith and C. Smith, breaks rarely coincide with joins.
armorers at the Tower of London who have pre- The scalloped brow, shape and hinge type of
pared a reconstruction of the helmet, believe weld- cheek-pieces, and neck guard are common features
1992 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS
in helmets of Greece and the Near ~ a s tWhether
. ~ ~
the metal neck guard was mechanically or metal-
lurgically joined to the skull-piece or attached in
another way, e.g., by the leather lining or a sepa-
rate piece of leather,27 is unclear; but it was evi-
dently in contact with the skull-piece (above).
The bronze and iron decorative cords of the Sar-
dis helmet differ in the nature of their appliquk re-
lief from the secondary metal decoration of many
Greek and Near Eastern helmets, which is inlaid;
but some Greek and Near Eastern helmets have ap-
pliquk relief decoration in secondary metal. In one
example, an iron cheek-piece from Idalion in Cy-
prus, the decoration is in bronze and includes nar-
row bands arranged almost exactly like those on
the cheek-piece(s) of the Sardis helmet (Gjerstad
et al. 1935: 559, pl. 178, no. 1071; Gjerstad 1948:
132, fig. 20.8). The bead-and-reel pattern of the
Sardis helmet cords has no parallel in ancient hel-
met decoration, but it is a standard pattern in
Greek metalwork of the sixth century B . C . ~ ~
The helmet finial is of unique design and un-
usual construction. The closest parallels occur on
Celtic iron helmets-perhaps not fortuitously, if
some of the earliest Celtic helmet types were in-
spired by Near Eastern forms, as some scholars
have supposed (Schaaff 1973: 105-6; 1974: 197;
Schaaff in Bottini et al. 1988: 293). Like the Sardis
finial, iron finials of Celtic helmets have several
parts and are secured by a central rivet. The design
of their individual parts and ensemble is different,
however, and their rivets are proportionally thicker
than the cotter pin of the Sardis helmet (Hencken
1971: 32-54; Schaaff 1974; Schaaff in Bottini
et al. 1988: 293-317; Borchhardt 1972: 120-29).
The iron helmet from Old Smyrna also had a
bronze crowning ornament; but it was proportion-
ally smaller and of much simpler design than the
Sardis finial, and it served as a crest support (Cook
1952: 106; n. 19 here). The finials of Cypriot head-
gear and of Mycenaean helmets are only generi-
cally related (Gjerstad 1948: 378-79; Schmidt
1968: 99; Pflug in Bottini et al. 1988: 27-33, 377-
78; Borchhardt 1972: 18-60).
The original weight of the helmet is impossible
to determine because the thickness of the parts is
unknown. A thickness of 0.1-0.15 cm seems rea-
sonable for the iron "flat" parts. If so, the helmet
metal, i.e., without the lining, may have weighed
ca. 4-5 Ibs., more or less double the weight of the
surviving corroded fragments (2.5 lbs.). If all iron
flat parts were 0.1 cm thick, and the bronze finial
sheet 0.075-0.1 cm thick, the helmet might have
15
weighed 3.9 Ibs.; if the iron flat parts were 0.15 cm
thick and the bronze finial sheet 0.1-0.2 cm thick,
the helmet metal might have weighed 5.4 ~ b s . ~ ~
The following helmet weights may be compared:
Greek and Italic bronze helmets, 2 1bs.-2 Ibs. 14
oz.; Assyrian iron helmet from Nineveh in the
British Museum, 5 Ibs. 10 oz.; Sassanian bronze
and iron helmet in the Metropolitan Museum of
Art, 3 Ibs. 8 oz.; European helmets of the 15th and
16th centuries A.D. (kinds supported entirely on the
head), 3 Ibs. 2 oz.-9 Ibs. 10 oz. Bronze scale-cov-
ered helmets of the late 15th and early 16th centu-
ries B.C. at Nuzi are estimated by Kendall (1981:
201-31) to have weighed between 6 Ibs. and 7 Ibs.
12 oz., including their felt padding. The Sutton
Hoo iron helmet is estimated to have weighed
2.5 kg, or 5.5 ~ b s . ~ '
Practicality. Practical design, sturdy form, the
relatively modest materials and design of decorated
parts, and the subordination of the parts to general
design suggest that the Sardis helmet was meant
for use in combat. If the destruction deposit in
which it was buried was created as the result of a
siege and partial sack, as seems reasonable, the
context also would imply the functional nature of
the helmet. The finial, with its multiple and thin-
walled parts, must have been a fragile feature that
could easily have been damaged; but it will not
have been significantly less stable than the crests
that were standard features of Greek helmets used
in warfare. There is no indication that functional
parts of the helmet were insecurely joined.
Cultural identity. With what culture is the
Sardis helmet to be associated? If the destruction
layer that contained the helmet was deposited as a
result of the siege of Sardis by Cyrus the Great, the
helmet should belong to a soldier of either Cyrus or
Croesus.
The evidence for both Achaemenid Persian and
Lydian helmets is slight. The headgear of Persian
warriors of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. was
commonly soft and made of cloth or leather, as
Herodotus reported (5.49; 7.61-62) and as many
representations, Persian and Greek, indicate (see
Bovon 1963: 594-95; von Graeve 1970: 95-96;
Bittner 1985: 193-98). Like the evidence for Per-
sian headgear in general, the evidence for Persian
helmets is more than half a century later than the
Sardis helmet, and most of it later by more than a
century. The only actual example of a helmet asso-
ciated with the Persians is the bronze one, taken
16 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD
Fig. 25. Graeco-Persian stele: Archaeological and Ethno-
graphical Museum, Manisa, 3389.
"from the Medes" and dedicated at Olympia: a
Pickelhelm, of the kind used several centuries ear-
lier in Assyria (Kunze 1961a; Borchhardt 1972:
97-98, 100). A rare illustration of a helmet in
Graeco-Persian art occurs on a stele of unknown
provenience in western Asia Minor (figs. 25, 26);
the helmet in the stele, unlike the Sardis helmet,
has a horizontal brow and a crest.31 Greek writers
of the second half of the fifth century B.c., Hero-
dotus and Xenophon, reported helmets worn by
Persian cavalry of the fifth century ("on the heads"
of some of the cavalry in Xerxes's army of 480
B.c., "creations [poiemata] of hammered bronze
and iron," Herodotus 7.84; helmets [kranea] for the
cavalry of Cyrus the Younger, Xenophon, Anaba-
sis 1.8.6); and Xenophon specified bronze helmets
(kranea) with white crests for the staff of Cyrus the
Great (Cyropaedia 7 . 1 . 2 ) . ~An
~ Akkadian text of
422 B.C. from Nippur refers to headgear in the con-
text of military equipment, but the headgear (kara-
ballatu) is not qualified and need not be of metal
BASOR 285
Fig. 26. Graeco-Persian stele, Manisa Museum 3389, de-
tail showing the helmet.
(and is to be associated with Mesopotamian auxil-
iaries of the Achaemenid army (Lutz 1928; Ebeling
1952: 206, 208; see also below).33
For Lydian helmets there is almost no evidence.
The only Lydian helmet in ancient literature is the
famous one in Herodotus' story (1.84) about the
capture of the Acropolis of Sardis by Cyrus, and
for that helmet Herodotus gives no descriptive in-
formation. The Archaic arts of Lydia provide only
two illustrations of helmets, both from Sardis. The
helmets have prominent crests, one with features
of the Corinthian helmet type, and could as well
represent Greek helmets as native ones.34
In view of the Hellenized character of much of
Lydian material culture, and Herodotus' statement
(7.74) that the armament of the Lydian contingent
in Xerxes' army of 480 B.C. was closest to the
reek,^^ the design features of the Sardis helmet
that are shared with some Greek helmets-the
scalloped brow, shape and hinge type of cheek-
pieces, and neck guard, and the use of a standard
1992 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS 17

Greek pattern motif, bead-and-reel, for decora- their crests, which would disqualify Caria as the
tion-may indicate Lydian origin. None of those cultural home of the Sardis helmet.40 For other
features, however, is exclusively Greek (n. 26). cultural regions, too little is known about native
The most distinctive of them, bead-and-reel pat- helmets and headgear to justify more than specula-
tern, also occurs in Achaemenid Persian art. Al- tion. A Persian or Lydian association is more rea-
though the motif presumably was transmitted to sonable than any of those possibilities.
Iran from Greece after the Persian conquest of At present the cultural identity of the Sardis hel-
Asia Minor, its origin and earliest appearance in met remains obscure. Its unusual features to some
both Iran and Greece are uncertain.36 If the design extent may reflect iron properties (which promote
concept of the skull-piece originated in Iran and deterioration, with consequent loss of evidence and
the Caucasus, as some scholars have proposed for neglect in modern times; see Kellner 1979: 151-
the (much later) Strebenhelme and Bandhelme, it 52) and iron technology (with respect to multipart
could have been developed either in Lydia and skull-piece construction). To a large extent the un-
transmitted via Cimmerian, Scythian, or Median usual features probably also reflect the void in cur-
contacts in the seventh and early sixth centuries rent knowledge about native helmets of Asia
B.c., or in Iran.37 Minor and the Near East. The questions of identifi-
Persia and Lydia are not the only cultural homes cation are precisely the kinds that archaeology can
possible for the helmet, because the armies of and does resolve, and future excavation and re-
Cyrus and Croesus must have included soldiers of search may well provide answers.
other eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern cul- -C.H.G.
tural regions. Xenophon's account of more than ten
non-Lydian auxiliary groups in Croesus's army
(Cyropaedia 6.2. may be historically unreli- TECHNICAL EXAMINATION AND

able; but Herodotus' reference to a Mardian in CONSERVATION

Cyrus' army (1.85) and references by later Greek

writers to Carian and Greek contingents in the Technical Examination
armies of Croesus' predecessors are not patently
suspect. Conscription of subject peoples and en- The Sardis helmet has been examined exten-
listment of foreign mercenaries were common sively at facilities in both Turkey and the United
practice by the middle of the sixth century B . c . ~ States.
~ Although it is extremely corroded, con-
Auxiliaries from almost any cultural region in the siderable information has been gleaned regarding
general vicinity of Lydia and Persia are conceiv- the materials used, its construction, and decorative
able. Egypt and Greece may be eliminated from and practical details.
consideration, because the Sardis helmet has noth-
ing Egyptian in its design and differs with respect Methods of Examination. X-radiographs were
to material (iron), radial construction and design of perhaps the most useful in uncovering information
skull-piece, and finial from contemporaneous normally obscured under a thick layer of corrosion.
Greek helmets. Cyprus is more plausible because X-radiographs of the reconstructed helmet sections
there are some Cypriot parallels to the material and were taken at hospitals and at a boiler factory in
individual design features of the Sardis helmet (fig. ~ u r k e ~ . ~ '
23; above, nn. 13, 18, 26), because Cyprus was Several small fragments of the helmet that
sufficiently hellenized to have adopted the bead- could not be joined to the reconstructed sections
and-reel pattern in its decorative repertory, and be- were sent from Turkey (with permission of the
cause Cypriot auxiliaries in Croesus' and Cyrus' Turkish authorities) to the conservation laboratory
armies immediately after the fall of Sardis are of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York
mentioned by Xenophon (Cyropaedia 6.2.10; for closer examination and analysis (figs. 18, 19).
7.4.11). Nonetheless, most Cypriot helmets and The pieces included fragments of the exterior dec-
headgear attested by examples and representations orative cords, interior iron ribs, and skull-piece
do not resemble the Sardis helmet. Caria, immedi- plate sections, ranging in size from 1.2 x 5 cm to
ately south of Lydia, would probably have pro- 3.5 x 2.5 cm. Each of the fragments was X-radio-
vided auxiliaries for Croesus, and Carian helmets graphed at the museum, using 150 kV at 5 mA for
and other armament were bywords among the 45 seconds with film placed between 0.005" lead
Greeks; but Carian helmets were remembered for screens. Small fragments of the finial and of the
18 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD
leather pseudomorph were also brought to the mu-
seum for examination.
Cross sections of four fragments were prepared
for microscopic examination at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art. The fragments were mounted in
Ablebond 342-1 epoxy, ground on silicon carbide
papers, and polished with consecutively finer
grades of diamond pastes. The cross sections clar-
ified the relationship between structural and deco-
rative elements; but a metallographic examination
of the sections, which normally reveals metal
working techniques, was unfortunately severely
limited because the iron fragments were almost
completely m i n e r a l i ~ e d . ~ ~
Initial qualitative analysis of the elemental com-
positions of the corroded metals was performed in
Turkey with a Philip's energy dispersive X-ray
fluorescence unit.43 Further quantitative analysis
was performed at the Metropolitan Museum with a
Kevex 7000 dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS)
unit of an Amray llOOT scanning electron micro-
scope ( s E M ) . ~Corrosion
~ products were analyzed
by X-ray diffraction (XRD) using a Debye-
Schemer powder camera. The topography of the
pseudomorph fragments was examined and photo-
graphed using the Amray 1lOOT scanning electron
microscope.
Results of Examination: Materials. The iron
helmet is decorated with a copper alloy finial and
eight bands radiating from the finial to the lower
rim. The bands are composed of a central iron
cord and two flanking copper alloy cords. EDS
analysis of a cord section and a finial fragment
showed that those decorative elements were of
bronze, a copper-tin alloy. The amount of tin was
between 7 and 10% by weight, although the analy-
sis here of the remaining corrosion products only
roughly represents the amount of tin that would
have been in the original alloy. Tin was apparently
the major copper alloying ingredient in use during
the Lydian-Persian period at Sardis (Waldbaum,
1983: 167).
Due to the extremely corroded state of the iron,
the carbon content was not analyzed and, as men-
tioned, the lack of metal made it impossible to ex-
amine the distribution of carbon in a cross section.
Whether or not the helmet was made from a car-
burized iron, i.e., steel, is therefore not known. Re-
search has shown, however, that iron was
apparently being intentionally carburized by 1000
B.C. in the Mediterranean region (Wheeler and
Maddin 1980: 121).
BASOR 285
Examination of helmet fragments under a binoc-
ular microscope revealed three small areas of
raised corrosion (8 x 9 mm; 11 x 11 mm; 5.5 x 7.5
mm) with a dimpled texture (fig. 20). The discov-
ery of those areas on the interior surfaces of two
neckband fragments prompted their identification
as leather pseudomorphs from a protective leather
lining, in which the original organic matter of the
leather has been fully replaced by iron corrosion
products. The surface of the pseudomorphs pre-
serves some of the details of the grain structure of
the leather. Hair-follicle holes were later revealed
in an SEM examination, confirming its identifica-
tion as a leather pseudomorph. Determining the
animal from which a particular sample comes can
be difficult even in well-preserved leather, espe-
cially since different preparation techniques pro-
duce different surfaces and since some grains,
notably those of sheep and goat, look very similar.
Positive identification usually depends on an ex-
amination of the fibers of the leather (an extremely
fine structure not preserved in the pseudomorph) as
seen in a cross section. The samples were exam-
ined by 0 . Sari, a leather specialist at the Aegean
University, in Turkey, who tentatively identified
them as goatskin attached with the hair side out.
The fairly large, triangular shape of the grains and
the apparent distribution of the hair follicles in lin-
ear groups surrounding the grains are all character-
istic of goatskin.45
Results of Examination: Decorative Elements.
The decorative bronze cords were made from solid
metal, most likely by hammering and shaping thin
strips cut from bronze sheet; they are decorated
with a bead-and-reel pattern (figs. 13, 16). The
bead-and-reel decoration may have been produced
by swaging-a technique that involves hammering
the metal between two shaped dies (Ogden 1982:
48). A cross section of a bronze cord reveals thick
outer layers of malachite and cuprite, typical ar-
chaeological copper corrosion products. In the cen-
ter is a core of a powdery pale green, almost white,
corrosion product, which contained 70% tin by
weight. An X-ray diffraction analysis identified the
corrosion as cassiterite, a tin oxide. The concentra-
tion of tin in the center is characteristic of com-
pletely mineralized bronzes and occurs as the
result of an initial selective oxidation of copper,
which forms the thick copper corrosion layers on
the surface and leaves a tin-rich core that only later
corrodes to form tin oxide. X-ray diffraction also
identified atacamite, a copper chloride responsible
 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS

for "bronze disease," mixed with the cassiterite. ,n. 24); evidence for them, however, is mostly ob-
The cords appear to have been approximately scured by extensive corrosion.
0.3 cm in diameter, based on measurements of the If rivets had been used and if the helmet was in-
cuprite corrosion layer (which often preserves the tended for practical use, the rivets should have
original dimensions of an object) and of the most been numerous and strong enough to provide joins
radiopaque dimensions of the cords as seen on the able to withstand a blow. The outer ends of the riv-
X-radiographs. ets would have to be flush with the surface of the
The iron cords were probably formed by a plates to allow the cords to lie flat against that sur-
method similar to that used to make the bronze face. Rivets are not recognizable; but most surface
cords, although the iron would have been worked detail is obscured by "warty" corrosion, and the
hot. The iron cords are more deformed by corro- decorative cords hide the seams. Rivets also did
sion than the bronze cords and therefore it is diffi- not show up in the small fragments mounted for
cult to confirm that they were also decorated with a cross sections and, most important, structural riv-
bead-and-reel pattern. The cross sections and the ets are not clearly recognizable in the X-radio-
X-radiographs indicate that the iron cords are hol- graphs of the helmet fragments, although they
low in some areas, although that does not necessar- should appear in X-radiographs despite the corro-
ily mean that they were originally hollow, since sion and the decorative bands, which obscure the
hollowing can occur as the result of interior corro- seams. There are, however, three radiotransparent
sion in a forged structure (D. Scott, personal com- spots, approximately 0.7 cm apart, visible in a ra-
munication 1989). diograph of the top of the skull-piece where an
The finial appears to have been made from cut iron rib is joined to the plates and where there are
and worked bronze sheets mechanically held to- no exterior cords to confuse the image (fig. 14).
gether with a central iron cotter pin against an inte- They could be evidence of corroded rivets or rivet
rior disk (above). The copper is as thoroughly holes, although they could as easily represent po-
mineralized as the iron, once again limiting a metal- rous lumps of corrosion; the spots do not show up
lographic examination. clearly on the other ribs and similar radiotranspar-
ent and some radiopaque spots are visible in areas
Results of Examination: Construction. X-radio- where rivets should not appear.
graphs and cross sections show that the helmet is The only clear evidence for the use of mechani-
constructed of eight plates attached to an interior cal riveting on the helmet (apart from the cotter
armature of eight radiating iron ribs. The ribs over- pin used to attach the finial to the skull-piece) is
lap the seams of the plates on the interior and the found on the decorative cording in the X-radio-
decorative cords hide the seams on the exterior. graphs. Radiotransparent spots (approximately
The decorative cords end 4.0 cm from the top of 0.2 cm in diameter) that are distinct on some
the skull-piece, allowing an unobstructed radio- bronze cords (figs. 15, 16) can only be small rivet
graph view (with the finial removed) of the iron holes. On the iron cords, the spots are primarily
ribs and the plate sections (fig. 14). The seams, radiopaque and less distinct, suggesting that
which are corroded over and not visible in an opti- corroded rivets are present. This difference in
cal examination, are seen in the X-radiograph as appearance on the two metals could be because the
thin radiotransparent (dark) lines running through rivets were iron, which preferentially corroded in
the centers of the iron ribs. A cross section of the contact with the more noble metal of the copper
largest fragment examined at the museum illus- cords, and which has equally corroded with the
trates this construction more clearly (fig. 19); it metal of the iron cords. Corrosion and breaks make
shows the edges of the two sections, the gap be- it difficult to determine how many rivets were
tween them, the iron rib overlapping both edges of used, although they appear to be most numerous in
the interior seam, and the three decorative cords ar- the lower corners of the skull-piece, where the ver-
ranged on the exterior hiding the seam. tical cords join the horizontal cords. In two in-
The method used to attach the exterior plate stances, rivets in that area are spaced only 1.5 cm
sections to the armature of iron ribs and, thereby, apart. There were also a set of rivets at the top
to each other, was not satisfactorily determined. ends of the cords and at least two other sets in the
The two most probable attachment methods are central sections. The size of the rivet holes corre-
riveting and welding (for the possibility of attach- sponds exactly to the size of the holes along the
ment by wire and other mechanical means see edges of the helmet that were apparently used to
20 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD
attach a lining, suggesting that the same tool was
used for both.
The small size and scarcity of rivets and rivet
holes suggest that they may have been used pri-
marily to attach the thin decorative cords to the
skull-piece. The rivets, however, must have pene-
trated both plates and ribs since the cords, which
cover the joins between plates, cannot have been
fastened before the ribs were attached to the plates.
Therefore, the rivets would have at least added to
the strength of the join between plates and ribs,
and could conceivably have been the primary
means of attachment. Whether the use of such
small rivets for primary attachment would have
made the helmet strong enough for combat, how-
ever, is questionable.
The inconclusive evidence for structural rivets
forces consideration of the possibility that the
eight skull-piece plates were hammer-welded over
the iron frame. The welding of iron was certainly
practiced at that time and it could have provided a
stronger join, although one that would be much
more difficult to achieve. Welding separate sec-
tions together over an armature may have been
seen as a desirable alternative to hammering out a
single piece of iron (above, and n. 34). Once again,
a metallographic examination of the mineralized
fragments provides further evidence for Or
against and a secure for
the helmet sections were joined eludes us.
Conservation
The helmet fragments were excavated and re-
moved from the field (before they had been se-
curely identified as a helmet) with every effort to
maintain their original orientation to one another.
The section later identified as the finial was espe-
cially fragile and crushed, and was therefore lifted
with its surrounding dirt. The surface of the iron
fragments was severely distorted with thick brown
and black corrosion products. Some of the iron
fragments had a powdery orange or yellow corro-
sion on the surface as well. The bronze fragments
were similarly distorted, with heavy dark green
corrosion layers. Some of the bronze fragments,
however, were completely reduced to a pale green,
powdery material. In the field laboratory the frag-
ments were cleaned of loose corrosion and dirt by
using wooden picks and soft brushes. The finial
was consolidated with 5% Acryloid B-72 (an
acrylic resin, soluble in acetone) before removing
the surrounding dirt. Other fragile fragments were
BASOR 285
consolidated as necessary. The fragments were
then joined with a 50% solution of Acryloid B-
48N (also an acrylic resin) and many joins, espe-
cially those with corroded edges from ancient
breaks, were reinforced from the back with thin
fiberglass impregnated with B-72. As joins were
made, it became clear that the object was a helmet.
Understanding the basic shape and construction of
the helmet was in turn a help in finding further
joins. Nevertheless, hundreds of small fragments
remain unattached despite hours of searching for
joins by both conservators and archaeologists.
The iron and bronze fragments were treated to
prevent further corrosion during winter storage in
unpredictable environmental conditions. The iron
was impregnated with B-72 and the bronze was
brushed with 3% benzotriazole (a corrosion inhibi-
tor for copper and copper alloys) in isopropanol
and coated with Incralac (a commercially prepared
acrylic resin with corrosion inhibitor, soluble in
acetone).
-A.M.H.
ADDENDUM
The following identifications and observations
have been made by R. Smith and C. Smith, censer-
at the ~~~~l ~~~~~~i~~ in H. M. Tower of
London, who examined the helmet fragments in
June, 1991 and made a reconstruction of the helmet
(fig. 27). The facts that in several places ribs and
plates have become separated through corrosion
and damage, and that a plate and rib (on the front)
have become dislocated, are evidence against the
use of welding to join those parts: the strong bond
that welding makes would have resisted such sepa-
ration and dislocation. The neck guard probably
had a vertical profile, and did not angle out (as
shown in fig. 21). The surface of perforated edges
on the scalloped brow of the skull-piece and on the
cheek-piece are exceptionally smooth; a possible
explanation for that could be that the helmet lining
had been folded over those edges. There is evi-
dence for leather on the inside of the skull-piece
(on plates and ribs) and for a leather washer be-
tween the top of the skull piece and the bottom
plate of the finial. A possible explanation for the
bell-shaped part of the finial could be that it was
made to replace the dome in the bottom plate,
which had become damaged during manufacture.
The bell-shaped part may have been secured by a
pair of iron rivets to the bottom plate (and possibly
also to the skull-piece). The lower ends of the
1992 A HELMET O F THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS
Fig. 27. Reconstruction of Sardis helmet by C., R. Smith,
Royal Armouries, H. M. Tower of London.
tongues almost certainly did not curve (as shown in
fig. 22; their central grooves would have frustrated
the making of such curves), and could have been
straight. A small segment of iron cord appears to
show vestiges of bead-and-reel pattern and of a
rivet. The bead-and-reel pattern can be effectively
created by hammering plain cords into a swage cut
for a single bead and reel; a swage cut for a longer
bead-and-reel sequence would not be effective be-
cause the cord expands and receives a crude, un-
even impression of the pattern, and also tends to
stick in the swage.
C . H . G .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Excavations at Sardis have been conducted since
1958 by the project Archaeological Exploration of Sar-
21
dis, jointly sponsored by the Harvard University Art
Museums, Cornell University, the American Schools of
Oriental Research, and the Coming Museum of Glass.
The project is supported by many private individuals and
corporate groups; conservation in the field is supported
by a grant from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation. Annual
season reports, have appeared in this journal and its Sup-
plement since 1958. (For a comprehensive account on
Sardis and bibliographical references, see Hanfmann
1983).
contributions of the following institutions are grate-
fully acknowledged: The General Directorate of Antiqui-
ties and Museums (a division of the Ministry of Culture
of the Republic of Turkey), Ankara, for permission to
export four helmet fragments (fig. 18) to the United
States for analysis and examination; State Hospital,
Salihli, and Aegean University Hospital, Bornova, for
X-radiographs; Faculty of Geology of the Aegean Uni-
versity, Bornova, for X-ray fluorescence analyses (of
one skull-piece fragment, four neck guard fragments, ten
decorative cord fragments); Metag 1zmir Metalurji Fabri-
kas~,T. A. 8. (Izmir Metallurgical Factory), Izmir, for
metallographic analysis (of one skull-piece fragment);
Desa Demir Kazan ve Makina Sanayii, A. 9. (Iron Boiler
and Machine Industries), Izmir, for X-radiographs (of
skull-piece and cheek-piece fragments); Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, Department of Objects Con-
servation, for the use of facilities and equipment in ex-
amination of fragments illustrated in fig. 18.
The contributions of individuals are gratefully ac-
knowledged as follows: For permissions and arrange-
ments in connection with analyses: Teoman Yal~inkaya,
Guven Baku, Fethi Buyukaksoy (kaymakum of Salihli),
Kizim Akbiyikoglu, Ilhami Bilgin, and Emir Capraz
(Turkish Government Representatives respectively in
1987, 1988, and 1989). For technical expertise and exam-
ination: Hld~rCiftci (director, State Hospital, Salihli), Ali
Akar, bzcan Dora, Yilmaz Giiltekin, Ayse Nurmemig,
Hadi bzer, Nalan bzyigit Y~lmazer,dzcan San, Y~lmax
Savag~in,Nedim Tatan, Nezih Tuzcu (all Aegean and
Ninth of September Universities, Bornova), Ismail M.
Bacak, Muammer Kabar (Desa Demir Kazan ve Makina
Sanayii, Izm~r),Erden Karaesmen (Metas Metalurji Fab-
rikas~,T.A.S., Izmir), D. Scott (J. Paul Getty Museum,
Malibu), R. Stone, and M. Wypyski (both Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York). C. Smith, E. M. Smith,
R. Smith (Royal Armouries, H. M. Tower of London).
For special efforts in connection with excavation, record-
ing, and conservation: C. Alexander, M. Bennett, N. D.
Cahill, S. Hickey, J.-F. deLap6rouse, K. Severson,
J. Sherman, C. Snow. For historical and technological
scholarship: J. K. Anderson, 0. Bingol, P. Craddock,
K. DeVries, M. Dietler, 0. Gamber, M. E. Hall, C. R.
Hancock, D. Harvey, S. James, T. Kendall, A. D. Kilmer,
D. LaRocca, F. G. Maier, H. Nickel, E. dzgen, R. Smith,
A. M. Snodgrass, D. B. Stronach, A. Tiire, E. T. Ver-
meule, J. C. Waldbaum.
 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD
NOTES
'The compact heap of helmet fragments was recov-
ered in 1987, in excavations supervised by D. A. Braden,
who immediately identified the fragments as belonging
to a helmet. Those fragments were excavated, treated,
and reconstructed by A. M. Heywood and under her
guidance by Braden and M. LiCalsi. One small helmet
fragment was recovered in excavations of 1988, by N. D.
Cahill.
The first part of the article was written by Greenewalt
in consultation with Heywood; the second part was writ-
ten by Heywood in consultation with Greenewalt.
2 ~ o pr roblems and interpretations of Lydian urban
topography at Sardis, see Cahill in Greenewalt, Cahill,
and Rautman 1987: 30-3 1, and references therein.
3 ~ h i sexplanation for the earthworks was indepen-
dently suggested by L. E. Stager and N. D. Cahill (per-
sonal communications). For sapping and mining in
Assyrian and Achaemenid Persian siege warfare, see
Horwitz 1932; Andrae 1913: 142; Herodotus 4.200,
5.115, 6.18; Maier 1967; for defense earthworks and
sapping at Dura Europos in the third century A.D., see
von Gerkan 1939: 40-48, 61; du Mesnil du Buisson
1936: 188; Hopkins 1936: 208-9, n. 4.
4 ~ h o s eextremely overheated bricks, together with
masonry of one side of Colossal Lydian Structure (partly
excavated in 1989 and 1990) that had been shattered by
heat, a 10 cm-thick layer of burnt timber on ancient
ground surface underneath destruction debris in the same
locale, and contemporaneous burning of a domestic
complex near the structure (buried under its destruction
debris) are evidence that the destruction was a catastro-
phe, not merely "Haussmannizing" urban renewal (see
Cahill in Greenewalt, Cahill, and Rautman 1987: 26;
Cahill in Greenewalt, Rautman, and Cahill 1987: 63-64;
Cahill in Greenewalt et al. 1990: 146).
5 ~ o pottery
r evidence for the date of the brick de-
posit, see above, and nn. 6, 8. The deposit was overlaid
by two other strata that had evidently been deposited in
the sixth century B.C. (as several hundred diagnostic pot-
tery fragments in each stratum indicated) and stayed, un-
disturbed, over that part of the brick deposit in which the
helmet remains rested. The context makes a medieval
date for the helmet impossible; such a date has been
claimed by some scholars on the basis of features illus-
trated in photographs and in preliminary reconstruction
drawings (see below, n. 20).
6 ~ h efragments are presented in Greenewalt et al.
1983: 6; Greenewalt et al. 1985: 73, 76 fig. 22; Schaus
1986: 255 no. 34, 261, 285. Cahill discusses the com-
plete cups and two Corinthian aryballoi in Greenewalt,
Rautman, and Cahill 1987: 68-70; see also Ramage
1986.
7 ~ h carbonized
e seeds were analyzed by Beta Ana-
lytic Inc. (Coral Gables, FL) in October, 1984 (Beta-
10749: 2520 * B.P.).
*Twenty pottery fragments recovered in 1987 from the
debris quite close to the heap of helmet fragments included
BASOR 285
parts of a wave-line amphorahydria, parts of five gray-
ware vessels, four skyphos fragments, and one stemmed
dish fragment. Pottery recovered in 1988 and 1989 from
the debris elsewhere in the recess included similar Archaic
types; another wave-line amphoraJhydria fragment is
P89.6919716.
9 ~ the
f man regularly carried a shield and wore a hel-
met, he would have been more heavily armed than the
typical Greek slinger; but Assyrian slingers wore helmets
and some Roman slingers carried shields (Korfmann
1973: 36). The stone, about the size of an apricot (and in
1991 still in situ between the finger bones), is not too
large for sling shot (Pritchett 1991: 21, 31) but may be
small for manually-thrown shot. For Greek vase pictures
that show fallen warriors grasping stones, evidently in a
last-resort struggle, see Pritchett 1991: 65 and references.
''The item that might have been a spear was attested
by gray ash in a deposit 0.01-0.02 m thick and traced in
a straight line for 1.14 m; the deposit could have been
longer. A spear would have been nearly twice that long
(cf. the evidence for a spear 2.22 m long from Vergina in
Macedonia [Snodgrass 1967: 381). The other item, ca.
0.30 m below the first, was attested by a hollow contain-
ing ashy material, 0.05 m. wide (too wide for a spear?;
thickness not determined), traced in a straight line for
0.50 m.
' 'This conclusion is based on independent identifica-
tion by Heywood and excavator D. A. Braden after the
fragments had been reconstructed. They both identified
five fragments from the front of the helmet and the
finial: A-E and G, fig. 5. Heywood also tentatively iden-
tified three other fragments, F, H, and J. F appears to be
the bottom tip of the cheek-piece, underside out. The re-
constructed section H is probably above A. J is a guess
based on its position and surface corrosion features. Sec-
tion I and the fragmented back of the helmet must be un-
derneath those visible sections.
12~xamplesof ancient armor recovered in the con-
text of military engagements are reported by Borchhardt
1972: 98, 100; Ussishkin 1982: 55, 57 (helmet from La-
chish); Snodgrass 1985; Maier and Karageorghis 1984
(two helmets from Old Paphos); Napoleon I11 1866: 317
n. 1; Carcopino 1958: 81-82 (helmet and armament
from Alesia); James 1986: 120-27 (armor from Dura
Europos). For armor dedicated in Greek sanctuaries, see
Rouse 1902: 103-13; Pritchett 1979: 240-76; Simon
1986: 240-62.
l 3 ~ o s of
t the iron helmets reported in ancient writ-
ten documents are Near Eastern: Herodotus 7.84 (hel-
mets of Persian cavalry in Xerxes' army of 480 B.c.); an
Akkadian text of the second millennium B.C. from Nuzi,
cited in Kendall 1981: 205 n. 24 (two iron helmets); a
sanctuary inventory of 279 B.C. from Delos (iron covered
with silver), IG XI.2; 161.B.77; Pritchett 1979: 265.
At least 15 iron helmets have been recovered or re-
ported from sites in the Near East, Cyprus, and western
Asia Minor, and range in date from the eighth to the
 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS
early fifth century B.C. For these, see Layard 1849,
vol. 1: 340-41; vol. 2: 339, 418 (from Nimrud; some are
British Museum 48-11-4, 115; J. E. Curtis, personal
communication); Barnett 1953; Pleiner and Bjorkman
1974: 291 (from Nineveh); von Luschan and Andrae
1943: 76 and fig. 88 (from Zincirli); Kellner 1976: 78,
nos. 137, 138; Kellner 1979: 152, figs. B, 1; 156, n. 6;
Overlaet 1979: 52-54; Vanden Berghe and DeMeyer
1982: 133, figs. 25, 26; Gjerstad et al. 1935: 559,
pl. 178, no. 1071; Gjerstad 1948: 132, fig. 20.8 (from
Idalion); Maier and Karageorghis 1984: 198 (from Old
Paphos, helmet of Corinthian or possibly Apulo-
Corinthian type, F. G. Maier personal communication);
Cook 1952: 106 and fig. 12 (from Old Smyrna).
For eight iron helmets of the fourth century B.C.and
the Hellenistic period from northern Greece, Thrace,
south Russia, and North Africa, see Waurick in Bottini
et al. 1988: 176-78.
Waurick has suggested that the use of iron for hel-
mets may have been introduced to Greece by the Mace-
donians (Bottini et al. 1988: 178). The substantial
evidence of surviving Greek helmets and contemporane-
ous Greek representations of helmets indicates that
bronze was virtually the exclusive metallic material of
helmets in the Greek world before Alexander the Great.
The fragmentary iron helmet from Old Paphos would be
an exception if it is a Greek type (above). The design of
the iron helmet from Old Smyrna suggests that it was
not Greek (below and n. 19). Nonmetallic helmets were
probably much more common than the archaeological
record suggests; see Schroder 1922; Pflug in Bottini
et al. 1988: 541-42 (Late Roman helmets of turtle and
crocodile hide from Egypt); Kendall 1981: 206 (leather
helmets of the second millennium B.C. at Nuzi); Hero-
dotus 7.70-79 (helmets of rawhide and wood in Xerxes'
army of 480 B.c.).
1 4 ~ oNear
r Eastern helmets, see n. 13 and Muscarella
1988: 223-29 (bronze helmet with decoration in gold
and silver). For Greek helmets, see Alcaeus fr. 329
(Campbell ed.); Pflug in Bottini et al. 1988: 70, 82-83,
104-5, 390, 404-6 (bronze helmets decorated with gold,
silver, ivory); Waurick in Bottini et al. 1988: 170 (sil-
vered iron helmet). For Celtic helmets, see Schaaff in
Bottini et al. 1988: 297-99, 516-18 (iron decorated with
bronze; bronze and iron decorated with gold, enamel,
cOr:?. . . .
For ~dentlfications,see Grancsay 1963: 253, 259;
Arendt 1932: 49. Robinson (1975: 144) presents objec-
tions to invariable use of leather for helmet lining (cf.
Bruce-Mitford 1978: 203-4 n. 2).
161n the Alexander Mosaic, the "Boeotian" helmet
worn by the cavalryman to the left of Alexander illus-
trates the "silver" color of iron armor (Andreae 1977:
pl. 5; Fuhrmann 1931: 138). A. M. Snodgrass (personal
communication) believes, apparently with Winter (1912:
11; cf. pls. 7, 14, 18), that the blue color of helmets on
the marble Alexander Sarcophagus probably stands for a
silvery color, rather than the peacock blue of some iron
and steel (the possibility that the Sardis helmet iron
might have had a blue finish, like some European armor,
was raised by C. Smith, Royal Armouries, Tower of
London).
17chin strap holes occur in some Greek helmets
(Kunze 1958: 133, 135, 142; 1961b: 89 n. 30) but are
absent in many. For a helmet chin strap in Greek vase
painting, see Schroder 1912: 324; see also Beazley,
ARV 1052:29).
1 8 ~ o rNear Eastern examples, see Kendall 1981:
222-25; Gamber 1978: 126-28, 155; Borchhardt 1972:
99 and n. 439, Suppl. F (with reference to Barnett 1975:
193 no. S. 27, pl. 23). For the Cypriot example in fig. 23,
see di Cesnola 1877: 132; Myres 1934: 214-17.
1 9 ~ h ehelmet was recovered in 1951. Cook (1952:
106; fig. 12) provides information about the context and
a picture showing the helmet and other items of the same
deposit in situ (iron weapons, mostly spear heads). Ac-
cording to Anderson, helmet and weapons were not part
of a votive deposit; the bronze plume-knob was of bi-
conical form, hollow with fairly thick walls, and not
much above 3 cm high. The helmet was transferred to
the Archaeological Museum in Izmir with the skull-
piece containing the earthy debris that filled it at the
time of discovery; and a drawing of the helmet, by
A. Petty, was transferred to the Izmir Museum together
with the helmet (J. K. Anderson, personal communica-
tions, 1987-1989). Cook has no record of the helmet
(personal communication, October 1987), and excava-
tion codirector E. Akurgal did not see the helmet after
195 1 (personal communication, May 1988).
20~arallelsof construction between the Sardis helmet
and Strebenhelme/Bandhelme were first pointed out to
us, in September 1988, by H. Nickel, then Curator of
Arms and Armor at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in
New York; they presumably explain the identification by
H. W. Bohme, Director of the Romisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum in Mainz, a year earlier, of the Sardis
helmet as medieval (personal communication, November
1977 .
21D. LaRocca and S. James called our attention to
these features.
2 2 ~ h eevidence from Iran and south Russian-
Danubian regions is hardly earlier, if at all, than the
earliest evidence from Roman contexts; but the types ap-
pear to be established in the former regions when they
are new in the Roman world; cf. Alfoldi 1934: 121-22;
Werner 1949-1950: 188; Hejdov6 1967: 41-44. James
1986: 113-20, 128-3 1, has proposed a Danubian origin
for Spangenhelme (the term used in a general sense that
would include Strebenhelme) and an Iranian origin for
Kammhelme, ridge helmets; some of the Sassanian ex-
amples (not the one from Dura Europos that James has
published), however, have a flat front-to-back band (and
side bands) that could justify their classification as
Bandhelme rather than as Kammhelme.
On Trajan's Column, some soldiers of the Roman
army who are depicted with cuirasses and shields of
standard Roman types and who have no other adjuncts
that would identify them as auxiliaries, are wearing
24 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD BASOR 285

Strebenhelme (Waurick in Bottini et al. 1988: 357, fig. 2 8 ~ o er xample, bronze mirror handles, shield bands,
15; = Cichorius 1896: pl. 10). According to Gamber volute craters from Vix and in Munich, cauldron from
(1964: 17, n. 26) those representations would illustrate Hochdorf, small gold items from the "basis" of the
the rapid adoption of Strebenhelm/Bandhelm construc- Temple of Artemis at Ephesos (for the latter, see Ho-
tion and design by the Roman army. garth 1908: 109, 113; cf. Waldbaum 1983: 142, no. 948).
2 3 ~ o rthe StrebenhelmlBandhelm legacy in Central 2 9 ~ e i g h tfigures are based on measured and esti-
Asia and the Far East, see KirpiEnikov 1973; Hejdov6 mated surface dimensions of individual parts, prepared
1967: 49-51; Grancsay 1963: 256; Heissig and Miiller by C. S. Alexander (1990). Her measurements and esti-
1989: 51, 98-101. For the metamorphosis of Streben- mates are summarized as follows:
helme and Bandhelme to arched crowns, see Zaloscer Iron flat parts
1928; Schramm 1955: 382-84, 389-401; Twining 1960: Eight skull-piece ribs, 1.4 cm wide and
xxxvi-xxxviii; cf. Manojlvic-Marijanski 1973: 16-21 ; ranging in length between 18.5 and
Tomas 1973: 42-50; Alfoldi 1934: 139-44; Schramm 21.5 cm 216 cm2
1935; Klumbach 1973: 10-11. Eight skull-piece plates, ranging be-
240ther mechanical joining techniques have seemed tween 106.5 and 135.5 cm2 and includ-
unlikely. Gamber suggested that the parts might have ing hinge knuckles 982 cm2
been sewn together by wire, as in the case of an iron hel- Two cheek-pieces, 121.5 cm2 each 243 cm2
met of the fifth century A.D. from Kertch (Arendt 1932: Neck guard 131.5 cm2
49, fig. 2; 0 . Gamber, personal communication, August Total surface area of above parts 1,572.5 cm2
1989). Wire lacing would have crossed from hole to hole Ca. 0.05 cm-thick "washer" disk at top
over the rib surfaces on the interior of the skull-piece and underside of skull-piece 15 ~ m . ~
over the plates or the cords on the exterior. There is no
trace of wire on any of the ribs; and in the exterior of the Two hinge pintles, each 8.5 cm long, 0.22 cm in
skull-piece wire lacings would have interfered with the diameter
decoration (whether they passed over or under the cords). Cotter pin, 6.2 cm long, 0.5 cm in diameter, with knob
No interlock arrangement seems possible or plausible. 0.7-0.8 cm in diameter
I. M. Bacak (chief engineer of Desa Iron Boiler and Ma- 191.8 cm of iron cord, 0.3 cm in diameter
chine Industries, Izmir) suggested that each central (iron) 476.6 cm of bronze cord, 0.3 cm in diameter
cord in the radial cord triplets on the exterior of the skull- Finial bronze sheet 169 cm2
piece might have been linked by a "stem" to each rib on Minimum and maximum helmet weights are calculated
the underside, forming an "I-beam," the bracket-like as follows:
sides of which would have gripped and held in place the (A) Minimum weight
plate edges. The absence of evidence for a "stem" in the 1572.5 cm2 of iron flat parts, 0.1 cm
X-radiographs, where such a stem should show up as a thick, at 0.775 grll cm2 1218.69 gr
very light strip between plate edges, and in the section 191.8 cm of iron cord, at 0.55 grll cm 105.49 gr
(fig. 19), and the absence of space for a stem between 476.6 cm of bronze cord, at 0.63 grl
plates at the top of the skull-piece rule out that possibility.
1 cm. 300.26 gr
2 5 ~ o the
r silver krater and iron stand dedicated by 169 cm2 bronze finial sheet, 0.075-0.1
Alyattes, see Herodotus 1.25-"'worth seeing' (thees
cm. thick, at 0.4425 grll cm2 133.20 gr
axion) of all dedications at Delphi"; Pausanias 10.16. Iron washer disk (at top underside of
1-2; Hegesander ap. Athenaeus 5 . 2 1 0 ~ ;Plutarch, De skull-piece), 0.05 cm thick, 15 cm2 at
Defectu Oraculorum 47IMoralia 436a. Herodotus and
0.775 grll cm2 5.81 gr
others credited the stand to Glaukos of Chios, the dis- Estimated weight of two hinge pintles
coverer of iron kollcsis ("welding"), who according to
and iron cotter pin 13.8 gr
Eusebius (contra Marcellum, ed. Migne, XXIV, p. 746)
lived in the 22nd Olympiad, 692-689 B.C. For the date Total weight 1777.25 gr,
of Glaukos, see Pernice 1901 and references; for the or 3.91 lbs.
meaning of kollcsis, Waldbaum 1983: 25. (B) Maximum weight
2 6 ~ h escalloped brow is a feature of several Greek 1572.5 cm2 of iron flat parts, 0.15 cm
and Cypriot helmet types, and of the "Kuban" type hel- thick, at 1.1625 grll cm2 1828.03 gr
met (Gold der Skythen 1984: 21). For cheek pieces with 191.8 cm of iron cord, at 0.55 grll cm 105.49 gr
knuckle and pintle hinges on Greek and Cypriot helmets 476.6 cm of bronze cord, at 0.63 grl
and on representations of helmets in phryiian art, see 1 cm 300.26 gr
Snodgrass 1964: 31-32; Anderson 1970: 28-29; Pflug 169 cm2 bronze finial sheet, 0.1-0.2 cm
in Bottini et al. 1988: 29, 377-78; Schmidt 1968: thick, at 0.4425 grll cm2 166.38 gr
pl. 44; Koaay 1941: 6, 16-17, pl. 4. Iron washer disk (at top underside of
2 7 ~ suggested
s by 0 . Gamber, personal communica- skull-piece), 0.05 cm thick, 15 cm2 at
tion, February 1989. 0.775 grll cm2 5.81 gr
 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS
Estimated weight of two hinge pintles
and iron cotter pins 13.8 gr
Total weight 2419.76 gr
or 5.38 lbs.
3 0 ~ o rthese weights, see Kendall 1981: 213-14,
n. 45; cf. Donlan and Thompson 1975; 1979 (Greek hel-
mets); Barnett 1953; Grancsay 1963: 254 (Assyrian and
Sassanian helmets); Nickel, Pyhrr, and Tarassuk 1982:
22-23, 25-29, nos. 1, 3, 4; Kendall 1981: 214, n. 46; cf.
Dean 1930: 235-40 (European helmets); Kendall 1981:
211-14 (Nuzi helmets); Bruce-Mitford 1978: 185 (Sut-
ton Hoo helmet).
31~rchaeologicalMuseum in Manisa, no. 3389; on
loan (1989) to the Directorate of Culture, Salihli. Fig-
ures 25, 26 are published by permission of the Director
of the Manisa Museum, Hasan Dedeoglu.
3 2 ~ nthe Alexander Mosaic from Pompeii, such hel-
mets are worn by soldiers on the Persian side, who, how-
ever, may be Greek mercenaries; note the figure directly
in front of Bucephalus, and no. 4 in Nylander 1983: 21,
fig. 2. For the problem of the identity of those figures,
see Nylander 1983: 21-22, n. 12.
3 3 ~ h ec ap (karaballatu) is listed together with an
iron coat of armor. In some translations and references
the cap has been called a helmet; but karaballatu is not
necessarily of metal (CAD 8, 1971, s.v. karaballatu;
CAD 15, 1984, s.v. suhattu). The neck protector (kiira-
pdnu) that is also listed is not necessarily part of the
karaballatu, as one reference seems to suggest ("helmet
with felt neck guard," Cook 1983: 102). A. D. Kilmer
provided explanations of this text.
340ne illustration appears on the rim fragment of a
white-ground pottery cup (inventoried P63.52/5026), the
other in a bone inlay (Greenewalt 1990: 19, fig. 23).
Of the several ancient accounts of the siege of the
Acropolis by Cyrus, that of Herodotus is the only one in
which a helmet is mentioned; cf. Ktesias, Persika fr. 4
(Jacoby, FGrHist 688), Xenophon, Cyropaedia 7.2.2-3;
Parthenius 22; Polyaenus 7.6.2-3; Zonaras 8.23b.
3 5 ~ o hellenized
r features of Lydian material culture,
see Greenewalt 1970; 1971a: 42-43; 1971b: esp. 162-
65; 1973a: esp. 121-22; 1978: 39, 44; Hanfmann in
Hanfmann and Ramage 1978: 14-1 8.
Greek sources that have been proposed for Herodot-
us's account of the armament in Xerxes's army include
Hekataios (Lewis 1985: 116-17), Hellanikos, and others
e. ., Drews 1973: 28-29, 158, n. 42).
( q6Bead-and-reel astragals occur at Persepolis, on
buildings begun by Darius I or attributed to him
(Schmidt 1953: 96, fig. 40, pl. 128; 112, fig. 54, 114, fig.
56). The motif is absent at Pasargadae. The relevant gold
items from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos "basis"
need not be appreciably earlier than the middle of the
sixth century B.c., if Bammer's conclusions (1990:
137-38) about the context are correct.
37~oC r immerians and Scythians at Sardis, Hero-
dotus 1.15-16, 73-74; see also Greenewalt et al.
1990: 166-67, fig. 34; for Lydian relations with the
Medes, Herodotus 1.73-74.
38~enophon'slist gives Thrace, Egypt, Cyprus, Ci-
licia, Phrygia, Lycaonia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia,
Arabia, Phoenicia, Assyria, Ionia, and Aeolis. Cf. also
Cyropaedia 6.3.19-20; 7.1.30-45 (Egyptians in Croe-
sus' army); 6.2.9, 11; 7.2.2-8 (Indians and Chaldaeans
in Cyrus' army). Herodotus reported that Croesus in-
vited Egyptians and Babylonians, but not whether they
came (1.77, 81-82).
3 9 ~ o trhe Mardians, Weissbach 1930. For Carians
in Gyges's army, Plutarch, Quaestiones Graecae 451
302a; for Colophonians in Alyattes's army, Polyaenus
7.2.2. For mercenaries in eastern Mediterranean
armies, see Braun 1982: 21-23, 36-37; for foreign
auxiliaries in Assyrian armies, see Saggs 1963; Oded
1979: 48-54, 108-9.
4 0 ~ o rCarians in Gyges's army, see Weissbach
1939. Croesus had a Carian mother, Herodotus 1.92;
for Carian mercenaries, Herodotus 2.152; Masson
1969: 30-31; 1978: 6-7. For Carian helmets, Hero-
dotus 1.171, Strabo 14.2.271661; Snodgrass 1964.
41~-radiographswere taken in Turkey at the State
Hospital in Salihli, courtesy of the director, H. Ciftci;
at the Aegean University Hospital at Bornova, cour-
tesy of H. Ozer; and at Desa Iron Boiler and Machine
Industries, Izmir, courtesy of the director, A. N. Okan,
chief engineer I. M. Bacak, and his assistant M. Kabar.
4 2 ~ r o s s ections prepared at the Metropolitan Mu-
seum were examined by D. Scott, Head of Museum
Services, The J. Paul Getty Conservation Institute:
only a few tiny spots of metal remained in the sample;
examination was also limited due to the lack of
pseudomorphic placement of corrosion products and
to the secondary growth of iron corrosion. A fifth
sample was prepared and examined by E. Karaesmen
of Metag Izmir Metallurgical Factory, again with lim-
ited results because of corrosion.
4 3 ~ - r a yfluorescence analysis was performed in
Turkey at the Faculty of Geology of the Aegean Uni-
versity at Bornova by Y. Giiltekin, through special ar-
ran ements made by 0 . Dora and Y. Sava~gin.
84M. Wypyski, microscopist, Metropolitan Mu-
seum of Art, performed the EDS and SEM analyses.
Those analyses in no way represent the view or en-
dorsement of the Museum.
4 5 ~ o rcomparisons, see The Fibre Structure of
Leather 1981: 10; Tancous 1986: 345.
 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbreviations
ABV = Beazeley, J . D.
1956 Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford:
Clarendon.
ARV2 = Beazley, J . D.
1963 Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford:
Clarendon.
CAD = The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Insti-
tute of the University of Chicago. Chicago:
Oriental Institute.
The Fibre Structure of Leather. London: Leather Con-
1981 servation Center.
Gold der Skythen aus der Leningrader Eremitage. Mu-
1984 nich: Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek.
Alfoldi, A.
1934 Eine Spatromische Helmform und ihre
Schicksale im Germanisch-Romanischen Mit-
telalter, mit einem Exkurs uber den Fund von
Brangstrup, Funen. Acta Archaeologica 5:
99-144.
Anderson, J. K.
1970 Military Theory and Practice in the Age of
Xenophon. Berkeley: University of California.
Andrae, W.
1913 Die Festungswerke von Assur. Ausgrabung der
Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Assur A:
Baudenkrnaler aus Assyrischer Zeit 11. Die
Festungswerke. Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft
Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung 23.
Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Andreae, B.
1977 Das Alexandermosaic aus Pompeji. Reckling-
hausen: Bongers.
Andronicos, M.
1984 Vergina; the royal tombs and the ancient city.
Athens: Ekdotike Athenon.
Arendt, W.
1932 Beitrage zur Entstehung des Spangenharnis-
ches; ein altturkischer Waffenfund aus
Kertsch. Zeitschrift fiir Historische Waffen-
und Kostum- kunde 4(13): 49-55.
Bammer, A.
1990 A Peripteros of the Geometric Period in the
Artemision of Ephesos. Anatolian Studies 40:
137-60.
Barnett, R. D.
1953 An Assyrian Helmet. British Museum Quar-
terly 18: 101-2.
1973 A Review of Acquisitions 1963-70 of West-
ern Asiatic Antiquities (2). British Museum
Quarterly 37: 119-37.
BASOR 285
1975 A Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories with Other
Examples of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories in
the British Museum. London: British Museum.
Beazley, J. D.
1932 Little Master Cups. Journal of Hellenic
Studies 52: 167-204.
Bittner, S.
1985 Tracht und Bewaffnung des persischen
Heeres zur Zeit der Achaimeniden. Munich:
Friedrich.
Borchhardt, J.
1972 Homerische Helme; Helmformen der Agais in
ihren Beziehungen zu orientalischen und eu-
ropaischen Helmen in der Bronze- und friihen
Eisenzeit. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Bottini, A.; Egg, M.; von Hase, F.-W.; Pflug, H.;
Schaaff, U.; Schauer, P.; and Waurick, G.
1988 Antike Helme; Sammlung Lipperheide und
andere Bestande des Antikenmuseums Berlin.
Romisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum For-
schungsinstitut fur Vor- und Friihgeschichte,
Monographien 14. Mainz: Romisch-Germa-
nisches Zentralmuseum.
Bovon
1963 La ReprCsentation des Guerriers Perses et la
Notion de Barbare dans la Ire MoitiC du Ve
Siecle. Bulletin de Correspondence Helle'n-
ique 87: 579-602.
Braun, T. F. R. G.
1982 The Greeks in the Near East; The Greeks in
Egypt. Pp. 1-56 in The Cambridge Ancient
History, 2nd ed, 111.3; The Expansion of the
Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B. C.,
eds. J . Boardman, N. G. L. Hammond. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University.
Bruce-Mitford, R.
1978 The Sutton-Hoo Ship Burial, 11. Arms, Ar-
mour and Regalia. London: British Museum.
Burstein, S. M.
1984 A New Tabula Iliaca: The Vasek Polak
Chronicle. J. Paul Getty Museum Journal
12: 153-62.
Carcopino
1958 Ale'sia et les Ruses de Ce'sar. Paris: Flarnmarion.
Cargill, J.
1977 The Nabonidus Chronicle and the Fall of
Lydia. American Journal of Ancient History
2: 97-1 16.
di Cesnola, L. P.
1877 Cyprus: Its Ancient Cities, Tombs, and Tem-
ples: A Narrative of Researches and Exca-
vations during Ten Years' Residence as
American Consul in That Land. London: John
Murray.
1992 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS 27
Cichorius, C.
1896 Die Reliefs der Traianssaulle. Berlin: Reimer.
Cook, J. M.
1952 Archaeology in Greece, 195 1. Journal of Hel-
lenic Studies 72: 92-1 12.
1983 The Persian Empire. London: Dent.
Curtis, J. E.; Wheeler, T. S.; Muhly, J. D.; and Maddin, R.
1979 Neo-Assyrian Ironworking Technology. Pro-
ceedings of the American Philosophical Soci-
ety 123: 369-90.
Dean
1930 The Metropolitan Museum of Art Handbook
of Arms and Armor, European and Oriental.
New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Deer, J.
1950 Der Ursprung der Kaiserkrone. Schweizer Bei-
trage zur Allgemeinen Geschichte 8: 5 1-87.
Dinsmoor, W. B.
1913 Studies of the Delphian Treasuries 11. The
Four Ionic Treasuries. Bulletin de Correspon-
dence Hellknique 37: 57-83.
Domurad, M. R.
1986 The Populations of Ancient Cyprus. Unpub-
lished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Cincinnati.
Donlan, W., and Thompson, J.
1975 The Charge at Marathon: Herodotus 6.112.
Classical Journal 71: 339-43.
1979 The Charge at Marathon Again. Classical
World 72: 419-20.
Drews, R.
1973 The Greek Accounts of Eastern History. Pub-
lications of the Center for Hellenic Studies,
ed. B. M. W. Knox. Washington, DC: Center
for Hellenic Studies.
Ebeling, E.
1952 Die Rustung eines babylonischen Panzerreit-
ers nach einem Vertrag aus der Zeit Darius 11.
Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 50: 203-1 3.
Ebert, M.
1909a Die fruhmittelalterlichen Spangenhelme von
Baldenheimer Typus. Praehistorische Zeit-
schrift 1: 65-77.
1909b Ein Spangenhelm aus Agypten. Praehis-
torische Zeitschrift 1: 163-70.
Fuhrmann, H.
19-71 Philoxenos von Eretria; Archaologische Un-
tersuchungen iiber zwei Alexandermosaike.
Gottingen: W. Fr. Kaestner.
Gamber, 0 .
1964 Dakische und sarmatische Waffen auf den
Reliefs der Trajansaule. Jahrbuch der Kunst-
historischen Sammlungen in Wien 60: 7-34.
1978 Waffe und Riistung Eurasiens, Friihzeit und
Antike. Bibliothek fur Kunst- und Antiq-
uitatenfreunde, 5 1. Brunswick: Klinkhard
and Biermann.
1982 Die fruhmittelalterlichen Spangenhelme.
Waffen- und Kostiimkunde; Zeitschrift der
Gesellschaft fur historische Waffen- und
Kostiimkunde 24: 8 1-86.
Garbsch, J.
1978 Romische Paraderustungen; Katalog der
Austellung. Munich: C. H. Beck.
von Gerkan, A.
1939 The Fortifications. Pp. 4-61 in The Excava-
tions at Dura-Europos Conducted by Yale
University and the French Academy of In-
scriptions and Letters: Preliminary Report of
the Seventh and Eighth Seasons of Work
1933-1934 and 1934-1935, eds. M. I. Ros-
tovtzeff, F. E. Brown, C. B. Welles. New
Haven: Yale.
Gjerstad, E.
1948 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, IV.2. The
Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic, and Cypro-
Classical Periods. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus
Expedition.
Gjerstad, E.; Lindros, J.; Sjoqvist, E.; and Westholm, A.
1935 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Re-
sults of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927-1931,
11. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
von Graeve
1970 Der Alexandersarkophag und seine Werk-
statt. Istanbuler Forschungen 28. Berlin:
Mann.
Grancsay, S. V.
1963 A Sasanian Chieftain's Helmet. Metropolitan
Museum of Art Bulletin 21: 253-62.
Greenewalt, C. H., Jr.
1970 Orientalizing Pottery from Sardis: The Wild
Goat Style. California Studies in Classical
Antiquity 1: 55-89.
1971a An Exhibitionist from Sardis. Pp. 29-46 in
Studies Presented to George M. A. Hanf-
mann, eds. D. G. Mitten, J. G. Pedley, J. A.
Scott. Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University
Monographs in Art and Archaeology, 11.
Cambridge, MA: Fogg Art Museum.
197 1b Fikellura and "Early Fikellura" Pottery from
Sardis. California Studies in Classical Antiq-
uity 4: 153-80.
1973a "Ephesian Ware." California Studies in Clas-
sical Antiquity 6: 91-122.
1973b Lydian Elements in the Material Culture of
Sardis. Pp. 37-45 in The Proceedings of the
Xth International Congress of Classical Ar-
chaeology, ed. E. Akurgal. Ankara: Turk
Tarih Kurumu.
1978 Ritual Dinners in Early Historic Sardis. Uni-
versity of California Publications: Classical
Studies 17. Berkeley: University of California.
1979 The Sardis Campaign of 1977. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 233:
1-32.
28 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD
1990 The Sardis Campaign of 1987. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research Sup-
plement 27: 1-28.
Greenewalt, C. H., Jr.; Cahill, N. D.; Dedeoglu, H.; and
Herrmann, P.
1990 The Sardis Campaign of 1986. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research Sup-
plement 26: 137-77.
Greenewalt, C. H., Jr.; Cahill, N. D.; and Rautman, M. L.
1987 The Sardis Campaign of 1984. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research Sup-
plement 25: 13-54.
Greenewalt, C. H., Jr.; Ramage, A.; Sullivan, D. G.;
Nayir, K.; and Tulga, A.
1983 The Sardis Campaigns of 1979 and 1980.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 249: 1-44.
Greenewalt, C. H., Jr.; RattC, C.; and Rautman, M. L.
In Press The Sardis Campaigns of 1988 and 1989.
Annual of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 5 1.
Greenewalt, C. H., Jr.; Rautman, M. L.; and Cahill, N. D.
1987 The Sardis Campaign of 1985. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research Sup-
plement 25: 55-92.
Greenewalt, C. H., Jr.; Sterud, E. L.; and Belknap, D. F.
1982 The Sardis Campaign of 1978. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 245:
1-34.
Greenewalt, C. H., Jr.; Sullivan, D. G.; RattC, C.; and
Howe, T. N.
1985 The Sardis Campaigns of 1981 and 1982.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research Supplement 23: 53-92.
Hanfmann, G. M. A.
1983 Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times; Re-
sults of the Archaeological Exploration of
Sardis, 1958-1975. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Hanfmann, G. M. A., and Ramage, N. H.
1978 Sculpture from Sardis: The Finds through
1975. Sardis Report 2. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University.
Heissig, W., and Muller, C. C., eds.
1989 Die Mongolen. Innsbruck: Pinguin.
HejdovB, D.
1967 Der sogenannte St.-Wenzels-Helm. Zeitschrift
der Gesellschaft fiir historische Waffen- und
Kostiimkunde 9: 28-54.
Hencken, H. O'N.
1971 The Earliest Europaean Helmets; Bronze Age
and Early Iron Age. American School of Pre-
historic Research Bulletin 28. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University, Peabody Museum
of Archaeology and Ethnology.
Hogarth, D. G.
1908 Excavations at Ephesos: The Archaic Artemi-
sia. London: British Museum.
BASOR 285
Hopkins, C.
1936 Excavations Outside the Palmyrene Gate.
Pp. 206-1 1 in The Excavations at Dura-
Europos Conducted by Yale University and
the French Academy of Inscriptions and Let-
ters: Preliminary Report of the Sixth Season of
Work October 1932-March 1933, eds. M. I.
Rostovtzeff, A. R. Bellinger, C. Hopkins,
C. B. Welles. New Haven: Yale University.
Horwitz, H. T.
1932 Uber altagyptische und assyrische Be-
lagerungsgerate. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft
fiir historische Waffen- und Kostiimkunde 13,
N. F. 4: 3-8, 31-38.
Jacobsthal, P.
1951 The Date of the Ephesian Foundation De-
posit. Journal of Hellenic Studies 71: 85-95.
James, S.
1986 Evidence from Dura Europos for the Origins
of Late Roman Helmets. Syria 63: 107-34.
Kellner, H. J., ed.
1976 Urartu; ein wiederentdeckter Rivale Assyr-
iens. Katalog der Ausstellung. Munich:
Prahistorische Staatsammlung Munchen,
Museum fur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte.
Keller, H. J.
1979 Eisen in Urartu. Pp. 151-56 in Akten des VII.
Internationalen Kongresses fur Iranische
Kunst und Archaologie Miinchen 7.-10. Sep-
tember 1976. Archaologische Mitteilungen
aus Iran Erganzungsband 6. Berlin: Dietrich
Reimer.
Kendall, T.
1981 gurpisu Sa awdi: The Helmets of the War-
riors at Nuzi. Pp. 201-31 in Studies on the
Civilization and Culture at Nuzi and the Hur-
rians in Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman, eds.
M. A. Morrison and D. I. Owen. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
KirpiEnikov, A. N.
1973 Russische Helme aus dem fruhen Mittelalter.
Waffen- und Kostiimkunde; Zeitschrift der
Gesellschaft fiir historische Waffen und Kos-
tiimkunde 15: 89-98.
Klumbach, H., ed.
1973 Spatromische Gardehelme. Munchner Bei-
trage zur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte 15.
Korfmann, M.
1973 The Sling as a Weapon. Scientijc American
229: 34-42.
, Z.
K o ~ a y H.
1941 Turk Tarih Kurumu tarafindan yapllan Paz-
arll Hafriyatl Raporu / Les Fouilles de Paz-
arll enterprises par la Socibtb &Histoire
Turque. Turk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlari V.4.
Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu.
 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS
Kunze, E.
1958 Helme. Pp. 118-51 in VI. Bericht iiber die
Ausgrabungen in Olympia, ed. E. Kunze.
Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
1961a Ein Bronzehelm aus der Perserbeute. Pp. 129-
37 in VII. Bericht iiber die Ausgrabungen in
Olympia, ed. E. Kunze. Berlin: Walter De
Gruyter.
1961b Korinthische Helme. Pp. 56-128 in VII. Ber-
icht iiber die Ausgrabungen in Olympia, ed.
E. Kunze. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Layard, A. H.
1849 Nineveh and Its Remains, 3rd ed. London:
John Murray.
1851 A Popular Account of Discoveries at Nin-
eveh. London: John Murray.
Lewis, D. M.
1985 Persians in Herodotus. Pp. 101-17 in The
Greek Historians: Literature and History: Pa-
pers Presented to A. E. Raubitschek, ed. M. H.
Jameson. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
von Luschan, F., and Andrae, W.
1943 Die Kleinfunde von Sendschirli. Sendschirli,
V. Mitteilungen aus den Orientalischen
Sammlungen, 15. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lutz, H. F.
1928 An Agreement between a Babylonian Feudal
Lord and His Retainer in the Reign of Darius
11. University of California Publications in
Semitic Philology 9: 269-77.
Maier, F. G.
1967 Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos: Stadtmauer und
Belagerungswerke; vorlaufiger Bericht uber
die Grabungskampagnen 1952-1955 und
1966. Archaologische Anzeiger 303-30.
Maier, F. G., and Karageorghis, V.
1984 Paphos, History and Archaeology. Nicosia:
A. G. Leventis.
ManojloviC-Marijanski, M.
1973 Der Fund von Berkasovo, Jugoslawien. Pp.
15-38 in Spatromische Gardehelme, ed.
H. Klumbach. Munchner Beitrage zur Vor-
und Fruhgeschichte, 15. Munich: Beck.
Masson, 0 .
1969 Les Cariens en ggypte. Bulletin de la Socie'te'
Fran~aised'Egyptologie 56: 25-36.
1978 Carian Inscriptions from North Saqqara and
Buhen. Excavations at North Saqqara, Docu-
mentary Series 3. Texts from Excavations,
Fifth Memoir. London: Egypt Exploration
Society.
Mattusch, C. C.
1988 Greek Bronze Statuary from the Beginnings
through the Fifth Century B.C. Ithaca: Cor-
nell University.
du Mesnil du Buisson, R.
1936 The Persian Mines. Pp. 188-205 in The Ex-
cavations at Dura Europos Conducted by
Yale University and the French Academy of
Inscriptions and Letters: Preliminary Report
of the Sixth Season of Work October 1932-
March 1933, eds. M. I. Rostovtzeff, A. R.
Bellinger, C. Hopkins, C. B. Welles. New
Haven, CT: Yale University.
Moorey, P. R. S.
1985 Materials and Manufacture in Ancient Meso-
potamia: The Evidence of Archaeology and
Art. Metals and Metalwork, Glazed Materials
and Glass. BAR International Series 237. Ox-
ford: British Archaeological Reports.
Muhly, J. D.; Wheeler, T. S.; and Maddin, R.
1977 An Iron Adze of the Fifth-Fourth Centuries
B.C. from A1 Mina. Levant 9: 156-61.
Muscarella, 0 .
1988 Bronze and Iron; Ancient Near Eastern Arti-
facts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Myres, J. L.
1934 The Metropolitan Museum of Art Handbook
of the Cesnola Collection of Antiquities from
Cyprus. New York: Metropolitan Museum of
Art.
Napoleon 111
1866 Histoire de Jules Ce'sar, 11. Guerre des
Gaules. Paris: Henri Plon.
Nickel, H.; Pyhrr, S. W.; and Tarassuk, L.
1982 The Art of Chivalry; European Arms and Ar-
mor from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
New York: American Federation of Arts.
Nylander, C.
1983 The Standard of the Great King-a Problem
in the Alexander Mosaic. Opuscula Romana
14: 19-37.
Oded, B.
1979 Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-
Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.
Ogden, J.
1982 Jewellery of the Ancient World. New York:
Rizzoli.
Overlaet, B. J.
1979 Pointed Helmets of the Iron Age from Iran.
Iranica Antigua 14: 5 1-63.
1982 Contribution to Sassanian Armament in Con-
nection with a Decorated Helmet. Iranica An-
tiqua 17: 189-206.
Ozgen, E.
1979 The Urartian Bronze Collection at the Uni-
versity Museum: The Urartian Armor. Un-
published Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania.
Parr, P. J.
1968 The Origin of the Rampart Fortifications of
Middle Bronze Age Palestine and Syria. Zeit-
schrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 84:
18-45.
 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD
Pernice, E.
1901 Glaukos von Chios. Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich
Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts 16: 62-
68.
Pirling, R.
1974 Ein Spangenhelm des Typs Baldenheim aus
Leptis Magna in Libyen. Pp. 471-82 in Stu-
dien zur Vor- und Fruhgeschichtlichen
Archaologie; Festschrift fur Joachim Werner
zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. G. Kossack and
G. Ulbert. Munich: C. H. Beck.
Pleiner, R., and Bjorkman, J. K.
1974 The Assyrian Iron Age: The History of Iron
in the Assyrian Civilization. Proceedings of
the American Philosophical Society 118:
283-313.
Pritchett, W. K.
1979 The Greek State at War Part 111: Religion.
Berkeley: University of California.
1991 The Greek State at War, Part V. Berkeley:
University of California.
Rahe, P. A.
1980 The Military Situation in Western Asia on the
Eve of Cunaxa. American Journal of Phi-
lology 101: 79-96.
Ramage, N. H.
1986 Two New Attic Cups and the Siege of Sardis.
American Journal of Archaeology 90: 4 19-24.
Rawlinson, G.
1880 The History of Herodotus. New York: P.
Appleton.
Robinson, H. R.
1975 The Armour of Imperial Rome. London: Arms
and Armour Press.
Rouse, W. H. D.
1902 Greek Votive Offerings; An essay on the His-
tory of Greek Religion. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University.
Saggs, H. W. F.
1963 Assyrian Warfare in the Sargonid Period.
Iraq 25: 145-54.
Schaaff, U.
1973 Friihlatknzeitliche Grabfunde mit Helmen
von Typ Berru. Jahrbuch des Romisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 20:
81-106.
1974 Keltische Eisenhelme aus vorromischer Zeit.
Jahrbuch des Romisch-Germanischen Zentral-
museums Mainz 21 : 149-204.
Schaus, G. P.
1986 Two Fikellura Vase Painters. The Annual of
the British School of Archaeology at Athens
81: 251-95.
Schmidt, E.
1953 Persepolis I. The University of Chicago, Ori-
ental Institute Publications 68. Chicago, IL:
Oriental Institute.
BASOR 285
Schmidt, G.
1968 Kyprische Bildwerke aus dem Heraion von
Samos. Samos VII. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
Schramm, P. E.
1935 (in Notizien und Nachrichten) Historische
Zeitschrift 152: 409-12.
1955 Die Kronen des fruhen Mittelalters. Pp. 377-
417 in Herrschaftszeichen und Staats-symbo-
lik; Beitrage zu ihrer Geschichte vom dritten
bis zum sechszehnten Jahrhundert, 11. ed. P. E.
Schramm. Schriften der Monumenta Germa-
niae Historica 13. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann.
Schroder, B.
1912 Thrakische Helme. Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich
Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts 47:
317-44.
1922 Helme und Panzer aus Krokodilhaut. Berliner
Museen. Berichte aus den Preussischen
Kunstsammlungen 43: 73-75.
Simon, C. G.
1986 The Archaic Votive Offerings and Cults of
Ionia. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Uni-
versity of California at Berkeley.
Snodgrass, A.
1964 Early Greek Armor and Weapons from the
End of the Bronze Age to 600 B.C. Edin-
burgh: University Press.
Snodgrass, A. M.
1964 Carian Armourers-the Growth of a Tradi-
tion. Journal of Hellenic Studies 84: 107-18.
1967 Arms and Armour of the Greeks. Aspects of
Greek and Roman Life. London: Thames and
Hudson.
1985 A Corinthian Helmet from the Persian Siege
Ramp at Palae-Paphos. Pp. 45-49 in Alt-
Paphos auf Cypern; Ausgrabungen zur Ge-
schichte von Stadt und Heiligtum 1966-1984,
ed. F. G. Maier. Trierer Winckelmannspro-
gramme 6. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Tancous, J.
1986 Skin, Hide and Leather Defects. Cincinnati,
OH: Western Hills.
Tomas, E. G.
1973 Der Helm von Budapest, Ungarn. Pp. 39-50
in Spatromische Gardehelme, ed. H. Klum-
bach. Miinchner Beitrage zur Vor- und
Fruhgeschichte 15. Munich: Beck.
Toynbee, J. M. C.
1962 Art in Roman Britain. London: Phaidon.
Twining, E. F.
1960 A History of the Crown Jewels of Europe.
London: Batsford.
Ussishkin, D.
1982 The Conquest of Luchisch by Sennacherib.
Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, the Institute
of Archaeology.
1992 A HELMET OF THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C. FROM SARDIS 31

Vanden Berghe, L., and DeMeyer, L. Wesenberg, B.

1982 Urartu; een vergeten cultuur vit het bergland
Armenie. Ghent: Centrum voor Kunst en
Cultuur.
Verdelis, N. M.
1963 Neue Geometrische Graber in Tiryns. Mittei-
lungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Insti-
ruts, Athenische Abteilung 78: 1-62.
Waldbaum, J. C.
1983 Metalwork from Sardis: The Finds through
1974. Sardis Monograph 8. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Waurick, G.
1979 Die Schutzwaffen im numidischen Grab von Es
Soumla. Pp. 305-32 in Die Numider; Reiter
und Konige nordlich der Sahara, eds. H. G.
Horn, C. B. Ruger. Cologne: Rheinland.
Werner, J.
1949- Zur Herkunft der fruhmittelalterlichen Span-
1950 genhelme. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 34/35:
178-93.
1988 Fruhmittelalterliche Spangenhelme von Bal-
denheimer Typus. Germania 66: 521-28.
197 1 Kapitelle und Basen; Beobachtungen zur
Entstehung der Griechischen Saulenformen.
Bonner Jahrbiicher Beiheft 32. Dusseldorf:
Rheinland.
Wheeler, T. S., and Maddin, R.
1980 Metallurgy and Ancient Man. Pp. 97-127 in
The Coming of the Age of Iron, ed. A. Wertime,
J. D. Muhly. New Haven: Yale University.
Winter, F.
1912 Der Alexandersarkophag aus Sidon. Schriften
der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in
Strassburg 15. Strassburg: Karl J. Trubner.
Wroth, W.
1903 Catalogue of the Coins of Parthia. A Cata-
logue of the Greek Coins in the British Mu-
seum. London: British Museum.
Zaloscer, H.
1928 Der Ursprung der Bugelkrone. Belvedere 13:
99-105.

Announcement
BASOR will consider for publication articles consistent with the areas of
research and scholarship supported by the American Schools of Oriental
Research. Requirements are listed in the Instructions for Contributors
(BASOR 262: 1). Send manuscripts to:
Professor James Flanagan, Editor
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
c/o Department of Religion

Mather House

Case Western Reserve University

Cleveland, OH 44106

Telephone: 216-368-4129