crawford h. greene walt, jr.; ann m. heywood - a helmet of the sixth century b. c. from sardis

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.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-097X%28199202%290%3A285%3C1%3AAHOTSC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S

http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html

http://www.jstor.org/journals/asor.html

A Helmet of the Sixth Century B.C.

from Sardis

CRAWFORD JR.H. GREENEWALT, Department of Classics University of California

Berkeley, CA 94720

ANNM. HEYWOOD Department of Objects Conservation

Metropolitan Museum of Art 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 second 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

The helmet recovered during the 1987 excavations at Sardis appeared as a small, unglamorous heap of corrosion fragments

(Greenewalt 1990: 11, fig. 14).l Metal had been almost completely replaced by corrosion products, and the identity of the artifact was established only after two weeks of steady sorting and examination. Nevertheless the discovery yielded a considerable amount of information. The context is a secure one to which a specific date, the mid-sixth century B.c., may be confidently assigned; furthermore, the context may be identified with a famous historical event, the siege of Sardis by Cyrus the Great of Persia. The remains of the helmet preserve firm evidence for its design and construction in general aspects and in many particulars. It is one of a relatively small number of Greek and Near Eastern helmets made of iron; and it establishes the antiquity of certain helmets with multipart, radially- designed skull-pieces (Strebenhelme, Bandhelme) as older by half a millennium than previous evidence had indicated.

PROVENIENCE AND CONTEXT, DESCRIP-

TION, HISTORICAL COMMENTARY

Provenience and Context

The helmet was recovered from ruins of a large Lydian building, evidently a fortification, located at the north foot of the Acropolis of Sardis, some 400 m east of the Pactolus stream. Conspicuous landmarks from subsequent history in the same locale are the Roman Bath-Gymnasium complex ca. 50 m north, and the modern Ankara-Izmir high-way, which has destroyed one end of the building (probably at the time the highway was widened in the early 1950s; fig. 1). The relationship of the building to the topography of the Lydian city remains unclear due to uncertainties about the design and specific defensive role of the building and the size, organization, and growth pattern of the Lydian city. The design of the building, with its deep and shallow recesses, has no close match in the curtain walls and tower-gate complexes of contemporaneous Greek and Near Eastern fortifications; and since contemporaneous occupation features occur on either side and at appreciable

2 CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD BASOR 285

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 construction are consistent with those of Greek and Near Eastern fortifications (Greenewalt 1979: 21- 24; Greenewalt, Sterud, and Belknap 1982: 18-

Fig.. 2. Colossal Lydian Structure, west side: north side of recess, showing the top surface of brick destruction deposit, 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 3

Unlike the bricks in the standing part of the structure, however, which are all unfired mudbricks, the great majority of fallen bricks (something like three-quarters of them on the side where the helmet 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 ed ;~ the overwhelming majority are semibaked and have distinctive reddish 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 design, 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 distinctive; 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 diagnostic pottery recovered within it and from an occupation 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 recovered from the destruction deposit; from the occupation stratum, which represents a short period of time and includes an occupation surface (floor), two complete Attic black-figure cups (Komast cup

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 destruction 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 deposited at different times, and the deposit in the recess contained ottery of broadly but consistently B Archaic kinds. Figure 4 shows the findspots of the helmet fragments: most of them were recovered 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 deposit 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

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 -66) .~ 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 deposited at about the same time during the dumping of the brick. Since the special development of arm and neck bones could have nonmilitary explanations, however, and since no military gear was recovered in immediate association with the skeleton (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 fragments 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).11Most 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 scalloped 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 structural 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 interior 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 underneath 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 attachment place, but a nose guard could have been


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 preserved. The back plates extended at least 2.6 cm which the plates were attached. The edges of the below the hinges. two front plates are perforated by a series of small holes (ca. 0.1 cm in diameter, ca. 1.1 cm apart), for Cheek-pieces. The cheek-pieces have a trian- the attachment of a lining. Other edges are poorly gular semilunate shape (fig. 10). One is essentially


Fig. 10. Helmet, left cheek-piece, reconstructed.

complete, the other is attested by at least a few fragments, perhaps by many more among the miscellaneous fragments that have not been reconstructed (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 restored 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, including 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 fragments 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

edge is perforated by tiny holes (ca. 0.1 cm in diameter, ca. 1.0-1.4 cm apart (figs. 17, 21).

Decoration. The jinial is made of bronze, except 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 conjectural). 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 section. 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 below). 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).


Fig. 11. Helmet, unreconstructed fragments.

Fig. 12. Helmet, inside surface of skull-piece (with bent Fig. 13. Helmet, segments of decorative cords, showing front plate at right, hinge remains for right cheek-piece at bead-and-reel pattern. bottom), showing ribs.

Weight. The helmet fragments weigh 1138.3 gr., armor has been recovered from graves, military or 2.5 lbs. stores, special caches, and, in the case of Greek ar-

mor, from sanctuaries.12 (The skeleton reported Historical Commentary here that may have belonged to a soldier and to the

wearer of the helmet adds suggestive but not con- Context. The context of a fortification and of a clusive evidence for a context of military action.)

destruction that evidently is the result of military action is appropriate for armor, but in the archaeo- Materials. Before Roman times, iron helmets logical record it is an uncommon one: most ancient are relatively uncommon in the archaeological


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 probably reflects the instability of iron and neglect by excavators and custodians of its visually unimpres- sive remains; iron helmets are cited in written documents 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 identified as goat skin by 0. Sari (Aegean University, Izmir; further below, p. 18). Leather linings have been identified or claimed for several ancient helmets, and goat lining for a few (for the latter, Pflug in Bottini et al. 1988: 541-42; Kendall

Fig. 16. Helmet, X-radiograph of lower right side of skull- piece, showing bead-and-reel decoration of bronze decorative cords, rivet holes in bronze decorative cords, and hinge knuckle and pintle (lower left).


Fig. 18. Helmet samples used in analysis.

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 provided 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 fragments give an alien impression of the original appearance of helmet surfaces: the. bronze would have been a dull gold, the smooth iron would have

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 reportedly 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 1 1

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 Borchhardt 1972: 63-64; Mug in Bottini et al. Cypriot examples may be leather or cloth (fig. 23).18 1988: 12, 43, 46, 71-73). To forge a helmet skull- The majority of extant Near Eastern and Greek piece from a single bloom of iron is considerably bronze helmets were hammered from single pieces more difficult. Celtic iron helmets, which began to of alloy (for exceptions, Schaaff 1973: 105-6; be made at the end of the fifth century B.c.-a

CRAWFORD H. GREENEWALT, JR., AND ANN M. HEYWOOD BASOR 285

Fig. 22. Helmet, exploded reconstruction (by C. Alex-ander, revised 1991).

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 reportedly 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 determined 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 relatively 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, however, 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 probably also in the first half of the sixth century B.c.; its excavator, J. K. Anderson, remembers that the exterior of the skull-piece had a cruciform arrangement of bands that crossed or converged at the

19apex. The skull-piece design of the helmets from Sar-

dis and Old Smyrna has no close parallel in helmets 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


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 permission 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 representations 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 headgear 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: 1 1 9 ) . ~ ~ The cultural origin of the helmets from Sar- dis and Old Smyma, although not precisely determined, 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


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 history may now be traced to western Anatolia to the sixth century B.C.

The plates and ribs of the Sardis helmet were presumably joined by either hammer welding or riveting.24 Welding is attested at Sardis in an iron tool of the early first millennium B.C. (Maddin, Muhly, and Waldbaum in Waldbaum 1983: 178- 80; cf., Moorey 1985: 95; Curtis et al. 1979); and welding was associated' with Lydia in ancient Greek tradition, if the celebrated krater stand of metallurgically-joined (kolleton) iron dedicated by King Alyattes of Lydia at Delphi--only a genera- tion before the helmet was lost at Sardis-was joined by welding (the commonly understood meaning of k o l l e s i ~ ) . ~ ~ The absence of evidence for welding in the helmet could be due to extreme corrosion of the parts; but R. Smith and C. Smith, armorers at the Tower of London who have prepared a reconstruction of the helmet, believe weld-

ing would have been an extremely difficult joining technique for the skull-piece parts. There is clear evidence, on the other hand, for the use of rivets (figs. 15, 16); and those rivets, which attached the decorative cords to the skull piece, evidently pene- trated both plates and ribs (see below). Since they are no smaller than rivets used in European armor, they should have sufficed, Smith and Smith maintain, to make a strong join for the structural parts of the skull-piece. Riveting would be consistent with the joining system used for earlier Near East- em helmets reportedly recovered in Urartu (Kell- ner 1976: 78, 1979: 152; Overlaet 1979: 52-54; Vanden Berghe and DeMeyer 1982: 133) and for later Strebenhelme and Bandhelme. Whatever the technique that joined the plates and ribs of the Sar- dis helmet may have been, it was effective, for breaks rarely coincide with joins.

The scalloped brow, shape and hinge type of cheek-pieces, and neck guard are common features


in helmets of Greece and the Near ~ a s t . ~ ~ Whether the metal neck guard was mechanically or metallurgically joined to the skull-piece or attached in another way, e.g., by the leather lining or a separate piece of leather,27 is unclear; but it was evidently 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 relief from the secondary metal decoration of many Greek and Near Eastern helmets, which is inlaid; but some Greek and Near Eastern helmets have appliquk relief decoration in secondary metal. In one example, an iron cheek-piece from Idalion in Cy- prus, the decoration is in bronze and includes narrow 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 helmet decoration, but it is a standard pattern in Greek metalwork of the sixth century B . C . ~ ~

The helmet finial is of unique design and unusual 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 proportionally 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 headgear 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 reasonable 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

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-covered helmets of the late 15th and early 16th centuries 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 associated with the Persians is the bronze one, taken


Fig. 25. Graeco-Persian stele: Archaeological and Ethno- Fig. 26. Graeco-Persian stele, Manisa Museum 3389, de- graphical Museum, Manisa, 3389. tail showing the helmet.

"from the Medes" and dedicated at Olympia: a Pickelhelm, of the kind used several centuries earlier 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 context of military equipment, but the headgear (karaballatu) is not qualified and need not be of metal

(and is to be associated with Mesopotamian auxiliaries 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 information. 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


Greek pattern motif, bead-and-reel, for decora-tion-may indicate Lydian origin. None of those features, however, is exclusively Greek (n. 26). The most distinctive of them, bead-and-reel pattern, also occurs in Achaemenid Persian art. Al- though the motif presumably was transmitted to Iran from Greece after the Persian conquest of Asia Minor, its origin and earliest appearance in both Iran and Greece are uncertain.36 If the design concept of the skull-piece originated in Iran and the Caucasus, as some scholars have proposed for the (much later) Strebenhelme and Bandhelme, it could have been developed either in Lydia and transmitted via Cimmerian, Scythian, or Median contacts in the seventh and early sixth centuries B.c., or in Iran. 37

Persia and Lydia are not the only cultural homes possible for the helmet, because the armies of Cyrus and Croesus must have included soldiers of other eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultural regions. Xenophon's account of more than ten non-Lydian auxiliary groups in Croesus's army (Cyropaedia 6.2. may be historically unreli- able; but Herodotus' reference to a Mardian in Cyrus' army (1.85) and references by later Greek writers to Carian and Greek contingents in the armies of Croesus' predecessors are not patently suspect. Conscription of subject peoples and en- listment of foreign mercenaries were common

their crests, which would disqualify Caria as the cultural home of the Sardis helmet.40 For other cultural regions, too little is known about native helmets and headgear to justify more than specula- tion. A Persian or Lydian association is more reasonable than any of those possibilities.

At present the cultural identity of the Sardis helmet remains obscure. Its unusual features to some extent may reflect iron properties (which promote deterioration, with consequent loss of evidence and neglect in modern times; see Kellner 1979: 151- 52) and iron technology (with respect to multipart skull-piece construction). To a large extent the unusual features probably also reflect the void in cur- rent knowledge about native helmets of Asia Minor and the Near East. The questions of identification are precisely the kinds that archaeology can and does resolve, and future excavation and re-search may well provide answers.

-C.H.G.

TECHNICAL EXAMINATION AND

CONSERVATION

Technical Examination

The Sardis helmet has been examined exten-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 general vicinity of Lydia and Persia are conceiv- able. Egypt and Greece may be eliminated from consideration, because the Sardis helmet has noth- ing Egyptian in its design and differs with respect to material (iron), radial construction and design of skull-piece, and finial from contemporaneous Greek helmets. Cyprus is more plausible because there are some Cypriot parallels to the material and individual design features of the Sardis helmet (fig. 23; above, nn. 13, 18, 26), because Cyprus was sufficiently hellenized to have adopted the bead- and-reel pattern in its decorative repertory, and because Cypriot auxiliaries in Croesus' and Cyrus' armies immediately after the fall of Sardis are mentioned by Xenophon (Cyropaedia 6.2.10; 7.4.11). Nonetheless, most Cypriot helmets and headgear attested by examples and representations do not resemble the Sardis helmet. Caria, immediately south of Lydia, would probably have provided auxiliaries for Croesus, and Carian helmets and other armament were bywords among the Greeks; but Carian helmets were remembered for

siderable information has been gleaned regarding the materials used, its construction, and decorative and practical details.

Methods of Examination. X-radiographs were perhaps the most useful in uncovering information normally obscured under a thick layer of corrosion. X-radiographs of the reconstructed helmet sections were taken at hospitals and at a boiler factory in ~ u r k e ~ . ~ '

Several small fragments of the helmet that could not be joined to the reconstructed sections were sent from Turkey (with permission of the Turkish authorities) to the conservation laboratory of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York for closer examination and analysis (figs. 18, 19). The pieces included fragments of the exterior decorative cords, interior iron ribs, and skull-piece plate sections, ranging in size from 1.2 x 5 cm to 3.5 x 2.5 cm. Each of the fragments was X-radio- graphed at the museum, using 150 kV at 5 mA for 45 seconds with film placed between 0.005" lead screens. Small fragments of the finial and of the


leather pseudomorph were also brought to the museum 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 decorative 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 microscope ( 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 1 lOOT 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 analysis 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 mentioned, 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 carburized 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).

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 discovery 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 preserves some of the details of the grain structure of the leather. Hair-follicle holes were later revealed in an SEM examination, confirming its identification 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 produce different surfaces and since some grains, notably those of sheep and goat, look very similar. Positive identification usually depends on an examination of the fibers of the leather (an extremely fine structure not preserved in the pseudomorph) as seen in a cross section. The samples were examined 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 characteristic 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 archaeological copper corrosion products. In the center 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 completely 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


for "bronze disease," mixed with the cassiterite. The cords appear to have been approximately 0.3 cm in diameter, based on measurements of the cuprite corrosion layer (which often preserves the original dimensions of an object) and of the most radiopaque dimensions of the cords as seen on the X-radiographs.

The iron cords were probably formed by a method similar to that used to make the bronze cords, although the iron would have been worked hot. The iron cords are more deformed by corrosion than the bronze cords and therefore it is difficult to confirm that they were also decorated with a bead-and-reel pattern. The cross sections and the X-radiographs indicate that the iron cords are hollow in some areas, although that does not necessarily mean that they were originally hollow, since hollowing can occur as the result of interior corrosion in a forged structure (D. Scott, personal communication 1989).

The finial appears to have been made from cut and worked bronze sheets mechanically held to-gether with a central iron cotter pin against an interior disk (above). The copper is as thoroughly mineralized as the iron, once again limiting a metallographic examination.

Results of Examination: Construction. X-radio-graphs and cross sections show that the helmet is constructed of eight plates attached to an interior armature of eight radiating iron ribs. The ribs over- lap the seams of the plates on the interior and the decorative cords hide the seams on the exterior. The decorative cords end 4.0 cm from the top of the skull-piece, allowing an unobstructed radio-graph view (with the finial removed) of the iron ribs and the plate sections (fig. 14). The seams, which are corroded over and not visible in an opti- cal examination, are seen in the X-radiograph as thin radiotransparent (dark) lines running through the centers of the iron ribs. A cross section of the largest fragment examined at the museum illus-trates this construction more clearly (fig. 19); it shows the edges of the two sections, the gap between them, the iron rib overlapping both edges of the interior seam, and the three decorative cords arranged on the exterior hiding the seam.

The method used to attach the exterior plate sections to the armature of iron ribs and, thereby, to each other, was not satisfactorily determined. The two most probable attachment methods are riveting and welding (for the possibility of attachment by wire and other mechanical means see

,n. 24); evidence for them, however, is mostly obscured by extensive corrosion.

If rivets had been used and if the helmet was in- tended for practical use, the rivets should have been numerous and strong enough to provide joins able to withstand a blow. The outer ends of the rivets would have to be flush with the surface of the plates to allow the cords to lie flat against that surface. Rivets are not recognizable; but most surface detail is obscured by "warty" corrosion, and the decorative cords hide the seams. Rivets also did not show up in the small fragments mounted for cross sections and, most important, structural rivets are not clearly recognizable in the X-radiographs of the helmet fragments, although they should appear in X-radiographs despite the corrosion and the decorative bands, which obscure the seams. There are, however, three radiotransparent spots, approximately 0.7 cm apart, visible in a radiograph of the top of the skull-piece where an iron rib is joined to the plates and where there are no exterior cords to confuse the image (fig. 14). They could be evidence of corroded rivets or rivet holes, although they could as easily represent po- rous lumps of corrosion; the spots do not show up clearly on the other ribs and similar radiotransparent and some radiopaque spots are visible in areas where rivets should not appear.

The only clear evidence for the use of mechanical riveting on the helmet (apart from the cotter pin used to attach the finial to the skull-piece) is found on the decorative cording in the X-radiographs. Radiotransparent spots (approximately 0.2 cm in diameter) that are distinct on some bronze cords (figs. 15, 16) can only be small rivet holes. On the iron cords, the spots are primarily radiopaque and less distinct, suggesting that corroded rivets are present. This difference in appearance on the two metals could be because the rivets were iron, which preferentially corroded in contact with the more noble metal of the copper cords, and which has equally corroded with the metal of the iron cords. Corrosion and breaks make it difficult to determine how many rivets were used, although they appear to be most numerous in the lower corners of the skull-piece, where the vertical cords join the horizontal cords. In two in- stances, rivets in that area are spaced only 1.5 cm apart. There were also a set of rivets at the top ends of the cords and at least two other sets in the central sections. The size of the rivet holes corre- sponds exactly to the size of the holes along the edges of the helmet that were apparently used to


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 primarily 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, however, 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 removed 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 corrosion 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 fragments 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

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 inhibitor 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 evidence for leather on the inside of the skull-piece (on plates and ribs) and for a leather washer between 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 2 1

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-

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 gratefully 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 examination of fragments illustrated in fig. 18.

The contributions of individuals are gratefully acknowledged 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 examination: Hld~r Ciftci (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,

cause the cord expands and receives a crude, un- R. Smith (Royal Armouries, H. M. Tower of London). even impression of the pattern, and also tends to For special efforts in connection with excavation, record- stick in the swage. ing, and conservation: C. Alexander, M. Bennett, N. D.

C . H . G . 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.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Hancock, D. Harvey, S. James, T. Kendall, A. D. Kilmer, D. LaRocca, F. G. Maier, H. Nickel, E. dzgen, R. Smith,

Excavations at Sardis have been conducted since A. M. Snodgrass, D. B. Stronach, A. Tiire, E. T. Ver- 1958 by the project Archaeological Exploration of Sar- meule, J. C. Waldbaum.


NOTES

'The compact heap of helmet fragments was recovered 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 written by Heywood in consultation with Greenewalt.

2 ~ o rproblems 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 (personal 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 e extremely 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 rpottery evidence for the date of the brick deposit, 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 pottery 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 illustrated 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 complete cups and two Corinthian aryballoi in Greenewalt, Rautman, and Cahill 1987: 68-70; see also Ramage 1986.

7 ~ h ecarbonized 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

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 ~ fthe man regularly carried a shield and wore a helmet, 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 containing 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 identification 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 identified three other fragments, F, H, and J. F appears to be the bottom tip of the cheek-piece, underside out. The reconstructed 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 underneath those visible sections.

12~xamples of ancient armor recovered in the context 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 tof the iron helmets reported in ancient written documents are Near Eastern: Herodotus 7.84 (helmets 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 reported from sites in the Near East, Cyprus, and western Asia Minor, and range in date from the eighth to the


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 helmets may have been introduced to Greece by the Mace- donians (Bottini et al. 1988: 178). The substantial evidence of surviving Greek helmets and contemporaneous 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 ~ o rNear 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 r Near 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 communications, 1987-1989). Cook has no record of the helmet (personal communication, October 1987), and excavation codirector E. Akurgal did not see the helmet after 195 1 (personal communication, May 1988).

20~aral le lsof 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 e evidence from Iran and south Russian-Danubian regions is hardly earlier, if at all, than the earliest evidence from Roman contexts; but the types appear 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 examples (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


Strebenhelme (Waurick in Bottini et al. 1988: 357, fig. 15; = Cichorius 1896: pl. 10). According to Gamber (1964: 17, n. 26) those representations would illustrate the rapid adoption of Strebenhelm/Bandhelm construc-tion and design by the Roman army.

2 3 ~ o r the StrebenhelmlBandhelm legacy in Central Asia and the Far East, see KirpiEnikov 1973; Hejdov6 1967: 49-51; Grancsay 1963: 256; Heissig and Miiller 1989: 51, 98-101. For the metamorphosis of Streben- helme and Bandhelme to arched crowns, see Zaloscer 1928; Schramm 1955: 382-84, 389-401; Twining 1960: xxxvi-xxxviii; cf. Manojlvic-Marijanski 1973: 16-21 ; Tomas 1973: 42-50; Alfoldi 1934: 139-44; Schramm 1935; Klumbach 1973: 10-11.

240ther mechanical joining techniques have seemed unlikely. Gamber suggested that the parts might have been sewn together by wire, as in the case of an iron helmet of the fifth century A.D. from Kertch (Arendt 1932: 49, fig. 2; 0 . Gamber, personal communication, August 1989). Wire lacing would have crossed from hole to hole over the rib surfaces on the interior of the skull-piece and 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 skull-piece wire lacings would have interfered with the decoration (whether they passed over or under the cords).

No interlock arrangement seems possible or plausible. I. M. Bacak (chief engineer of Desa Iron Boiler and Ma- chine Industries, Izmir) suggested that each central (iron) cord in the radial cord triplets on the exterior of the skull- piece might have been linked by a "stem" to each rib on the underside, forming an "I-beam," the bracket-like sides of which would have gripped and held in place the plate edges. The absence of evidence for a "stem" in the X-radiographs, where such a stem should show up as a very light strip between plate edges, and in the section (fig. 19), and the absence of space for a stem between plates at the top of the skull-piece rule out that possibility.

2 5 ~ o rthe silver krater and iron stand dedicated by Alyattes, see Herodotus 1.25-"'worth seeing' (thees axion) of all dedications at Delphi"; Pausanias 10.16. 1-2; Hegesander ap. Athenaeus 5 . 2 1 0 ~ ; Plutarch, De Defectu Oraculorum 47IMoralia 436a. Herodotus and others credited the stand to Glaukos of Chios, the dis- coverer of iron kollcsis ("welding"), who according to Eusebius (contra Marcellum, ed. Migne, XXIV, p. 746) lived in the 22nd Olympiad, 692-689 B.C. For the date of Glaukos, see Pernice 1901 and references; for the meaning of kollcsis, Waldbaum 1983: 25.

2 6 ~ h escalloped brow is a feature of several Greek and Cypriot helmet types, and of the "Kuban" type helmet (Gold der Skythen 1984: 21). For cheek pieces with knuckle and pintle hinges on Greek and Cypriot helmets and on representations of helmets in phryiian art, see Snodgrass 1964: 31-32; Anderson 1970: 28-29; Pflug in Bottini et al. 1988: 29, 377-78; Schmidt 1968: pl. 44; Koaay 1941: 6, 16-17, pl. 4.

2 7 ~ ssuggested by 0 . Gamber, personal communication, February 1989.

2 8 ~ o rexample, bronze mirror handles, shield bands, volute craters from Vix and in Munich, cauldron from Hochdorf, small gold items from the "basis" of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos (for the latter, see Ho- garth 1908: 109, 113; cf. Waldbaum 1983: 142, no. 948).

2 9 ~ e i g h t figures are based on measured and estimated surface dimensions of individual parts, prepared by C. S. Alexander (1990). Her measurements and esti- mates are summarized as follows:

Iron flat parts Eight skull-piece ribs, 1.4 cm wide and ranging in length between 18.5 and 21.5 cm 216 cm2 Eight skull-piece plates, ranging between 106.5 and 135.5 cm2 and including hinge knuckles 982 cm2 Two cheek-pieces, 121.5 cm2 each 243 cm2 Neck guard 131.5 cm2 Total surface area of above parts 1,572.5 cm2 Ca. 0.05 cm-thick "washer" disk at top underside of skull-piece 15 ~ m . ~

Two hinge pintles, each 8.5 cm long, 0.22 cm in diameter Cotter pin, 6.2 cm long, 0.5 cm in diameter, with knob 0.7-0.8 cm in diameter 191.8 cm of iron cord, 0.3 cm in diameter 476.6 cm of bronze cord, 0.3 cm in diameter Finial bronze sheet 169 cm2

Minimum and maximum helmet weights are calculated as follows:

(A) Minimum weight 1572.5 cm2 of iron flat parts, 0.1 cm thick, at 0.775 grll cm2 1218.69 gr 191.8 cm of iron cord, at 0.55 grll cm 105.49 gr 476.6 cm of bronze cord, at 0.63 grl 1 cm. 300.26 gr 169 cm2 bronze finial sheet, 0.075-0.1 cm. thick, at 0.4425 grll cm2 133.20 gr Iron washer disk (at top underside of skull-piece), 0.05 cm thick, 15 cm2 at 0.775 grll cm2 5.81 gr Estimated weight of two hinge pintles and iron cotter pin 13.8 gr

Total weight 1777.25 gr, or 3.91 lbs.

(B) Maximum weight 1572.5 cm2 of iron flat parts, 0.15 cm thick, at 1.1625 grll cm2 1828.03 gr 191.8 cm of iron cord, at 0.55 grll cm 105.49 gr 476.6 cm of bronze cord, at 0.63 grl 1 cm 300.26 gr 169 cm2 bronze finial sheet, 0.1-0.2 cm thick, at 0.4425 grll cm2 166.38 gr Iron washer disk (at top underside of skull-piece), 0.05 cm thick, 15 cm2 at 0.775 grll cm2 5.81 gr


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 r these weights, see Kendall 1981: 213-14, n. 45; cf. Donlan and Thompson 1975; 1979 (Greek helmets); 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 198 1 : 211-14 (Nuzi helmets); Bruce-Mitford 1978: 185 (Sut- ton Hoo helmet).

31~rchaeological Museum 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 ~ n the Alexander Mosaic from Pompeii, such helmets are worn by soldiers on the Persian side, who, however, 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 ecap (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 rhellenized 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.

3 7 ~ o rCimmerians 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's list 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 rthe 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 r Carians 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, courtesy 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 ssections 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 limited results because of corrosion.

4 3 ~ - r a y fluorescence 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 r comparisons, see The Fibre Structure of Leather 1981: 10; Tancous 1986: 345.


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- 198 1 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.

19 13 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.

1972

Bottini,

1988

Bovon 1963

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. Homerische Helme; Helmformen der Agais in ihren Beziehungen zu orientalischen und eu- ropaischen Helmen in der Bronze- und friihen Eisenzeit. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

A.; Egg, M.; von Hase, F.-W.; Pflug, H.; Schaaff, U.; Schauer, P.; and Waurick, G. 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.

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.


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. 19-7 1 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.


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.

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.

K o ~ a y , H. Z. 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.


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~aise d'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.


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.

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.


Vanden Berghe, L., and DeMeyer, L. 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.

Wesenberg, B. 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. 19 12 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

crawford h. greene walt, jr.; ann m. heywood - a helmet of the sixth century b. c. from sardis

Documents