12.

A NEW HELMET FROM MACEDONIA

In 1998, following police action to prevent the illegal trade in antiquities, a

unique helmet of Macedonian type was deposited in the Museum of Macedonia
(M!"#$ %& '&(#)*%+$&) in Skopje (inv. no. 678-IV). According to the police
report, the helmet had been illegally excavated from a known site, ‘Isar-
Marvinci’, near Valandovo, in the south of the country, some 15 km from the
Greek border (fig.11).

I. The Place of discovery

I.1. The historical context

The site ‘Isar-Marvinci’ has been subject to continuous archaeological interest

and excavations over the last 30 years. The remains of a settlement dating from
the seventh century BC to the fifth or sixth century AD have been identified at
the site (Sokolovska 1986, Archaeological Map: 55-9). The site is situated on a
small terrace lying some 40-55m. above the river Vardar (the ancient Axios)
and the Valandovo valley. Its size (9 hectares), as well as the archaeological
finds recovered from the site, suggests that the site was a significant urban
centre of the ancient region of Amphaxitis. We know from Thucydides that in
429 BC the army of the Odrysian king Sitalces entered this region at the request
of the local nobility, to liberate it from the Macedonians, whose king Perdiccas
II had seized it after the death of local prince Philip (Hammond 1972: 169, 171;
Hammond and Griffith 1979: 128, map 4; Boschnakov (1995). In the course of
his description Thucydides (2.95-101) mentions four towns located in the lower
part of the valley of the river Axios: Idomenai, Gortynia, Europos and Atalante.
The association of these ancient cities with modern archaeological sites is still
uncertain. It is still a matter of debate whether the site of ‘Isar’, near Marvinci
could be the site of ancient Idomenai or Gortynia. In the fourth century BC
Philip II firmly attached the region to the Kingdom of Macedonia.
Despite a series of setbacks, such as the Celtic invasion in 279 BC, the
Roman subjugation of Macedonia, and the Gothic invasion in AD 268, the size
of the town increased through the Classical and Hellenistic periods, and
especially through the Roman period. The architectural and archaeological data
demonstrate that the town survived into the fifth and the sixth centuries AD, but
it remains uncertain whether the level of urban activity of the site, and its
importance for the region remained the same or decreased, as does the precise
date of the abandonment of the site.
155
 HELLENISTIC WARFARE

I.2. The archaeological context

The necropolis (cemetery) of any site is the most accurate indicator of its
importance and prosperity, and likewise of its social structure. From the fourth
to the first centuries BC the most distinctive burial monuments at Isar are the
rock-cut chamber tombs of Macedonian type. Although varying in size, all have
a dromos, an antechamber and a vaulted chamber, sometimes with a kline for
the deceased. The funerary offerings differ, but are typically personally related
to the deceased. One of these tombs (no.150) was of a high-ranking soldier of
the Macedonian army. That is where our helmet, the subject of this report, is
alleged to have been found.
Tomb no. 150 is of a simplified type, without an antechamber. Cut into
the soft rock, the chamber’s floor lies some 1.80 m. below the original surface,
with the entrance (dromos) at the eastern side. Although found in a damaged
state, the roof was vaulted, constructed of precisely cut stone blocks. The
chamber measures 2.80 x 2.50 m., and two funeral beds lie along its western
and the southern walls, made of stone blocks 0.30 m. high and 0.70 m. wide.
Lime mortar was used to cover the floor, and fragments of mortar found next to
the walls indicate that the walls were also originally covered in mortar. Three
small steps, probably related to cult practice, lie in front of the north wall. The
remains of three cremated persons were found on the funeral beds, as well as
one human skull whose presence remains an unexplained mystery (Mikul!i"
and Karapetkov 1996: 67-9).
The archaeological excavation of this tomb was undertaken in 1994. It
was of a rescue nature, following police action to prevent illegal digging in the
Classical and Hellenistic necropolis of the town. As the tomb had already been
plundered, only two iron spearheads, in the NE corner of the chamber, and a
glass alabastron in the SE corner, were recovered by these excavations
(Mikul!i" and Karapetkov 1996: 68). From investigations conducted
subsequently, it appears that the tomb originally contained a number of quite
valuable and culturally significant objects, specifically the helmet which is dealt
with in this article, and a pectoral (or fragment of a cuirass). The pectoral is still
undergoing conservation, which prevents us from giving a detailed description
of it in this article. Unfortunately, we have no information about the position of
any of these items in the chamber.
! The initial dating of the tomb, to the late Hellenistic or early Roman
period, was partially arrived at on the basis of the architecture of the tomb, but
mainly from the glass alabastron found there. According to the excavators
(Mikul!i" and Karapetkov 1996: 69 - translation G. Sanev) ‘this is the second
tomb from pre-Roman times found at Marvinci. Unlike the previous one with a
chamber, antechamber and dromos with stairs (that is a tomb of the Macedonian
type), no. 150 has a simplified layout, distributed throughout all Mediterranean

156
 A New Helmet from Macedonia

countries in the late Hellenistic and Roman times. The alabastron mentioned as
being found in the tomb is typical of the II-I cent. BC.
! The fact that three cremation burials are mentioned as having been
found in the tomb, as well as the unexplained human skull, suggest, however,
that the tomb was used over time, and that the alabastron could come form a
later reuse of the tomb. M. Besios (1988: 193) has expressed the opinion that
after the battle of Pydna, ‘The Romans probably prohibited the use of the
Macedonian tomb, because it had been used by the hetairoi, supporters of the
Macedonian royal house.’ If this suggestion is correct, the tomb must have been
constructed earlier. The helmet, and perhaps the spearheads and the ‘pectoral’
too, presumably belong to an early use of the tomb, and the alabastron comes
from a later reuse.
Leaving aside the fact that the helmet was not found in situ, so we
cannot be absolutely certain that it came from Tomb no. 150, the considerations
listed above mean that it need not be dated as late as the date originally given to
the Tomb in the initial publication.

II. The object itself

The helmet was brought into the museum in a very bad state of preservation,
with only one of the cheek pieces surviving. The whole surface of the helmet
was already damaged by corrosion, and urgent and expert care was needed to
prevent the helmet’s total disintegration. The conservation work was carried out
by the late Dr. P. To!ev, the Head of the Conservation Department of the
National Museum of Macedonia, with the assistance of colleagues from the
Faculty of Chemistry of the University in Skopje. A chemical analysis was
carried out during the treatment of the helmet, which demonstrated that a steel
of a relatively high purity had been used for its manufacture (To!ev, Stojanov
and Zdravkovski 1999: 381). Steel of such high quality would have probably
been quite expensive in the Hellenistic period, and its use would probably have
been restricted to elite troops only. Reproduced below is a table detailing the
chemical composition of the helmet.

(To!ev, Stojanov and Zdravkovski 1999: 376, Table 2):

Element % Element %
Fe 96.0 Co 0.10
C 1.10 Cu 0.05
Si 0.30 S 0.04
Mg 0.20 Mn 0.04
Ni 0.15 Cr 0.02

157
 HELLENISTIC WARFARE

Only the right half of the helmet is preserved, and its dimensions after
conservation are as follows:

Height: 32.5cm, incl. the long cheek pieces with max. length of about 14cm.
Diameter of the body: 18cm. max.
Height of the metal crest: 8cm.

The serious state of deterioration of the helmet and the need for restoration
hampers our understanding of the technology used to construct the helmet. For
example the cheek pieces, although at present they appear to have been made in
one piece with the helmet, were almost certainly attached to it (cf. fig. 12), as
was generally the case in Hellenistic times.1 Another question that is difficult to
answer is the relation of the crest to the bowl of the helmet. In the present state
of preservation of the helmet it is difficult to decide whether the crest was
separately added on later or not. From information given by the conservators
who worked on it, however, it is clear that the crest was not added, but is an
integral part of the structure of the helmet, made from two halves, possibly
shaped in two matrices, which were joined together and fastened at the ‘rim’ of
the crest, which runs from the back to the front of the helmet. This assumption
cannot, however, be completely confirmed.

Goran Sanev
Curator-Archaeologist
M!"#$ %& '&(#)*%+$& [National Museum of Macedonia]

III. The Helmet

III. 1. The type of the helmet

This ‘Isar-Marvinci’ helmet (fig. 12 & 13) is of a type which once fell under the
very general term ‘Thracian’. In an article written early in the last century,
Schröder (1912) inaccurately gave the term ‘Thracian’, an unhelpful false
ethnic, to a wide variety of different types of helmet. One sub-group of these
‘Thracian’ helmets, to which our helmet belongs, is characterised by a high

1
On this feature found in Hellenistic helmets, cf. Ducrey 1985: 88, figs. 57, 89. The
difference with helmets of the Classical period is obvious, and it can, for example, be
noted by comparing the drawings of helmets of Greek hoplites given by Warry 1980:
44-5 with drawings of later Greek helmets, ibid. 89.
158
 A New Helmet from Macedonia

crest, manufactured in one piece with the crown, curving out in a lobe towards
the front.
Following on in the tradition of Schröder, a number of Bulgarian
scholars have advanced the hypothesis that the shape copies that of the Thracian
cap, and follows its shape because, at first, it was worn over the cap (Vassilev
1975: 61, Fol and Inkova 1998: 27-8). In fact the Thracian cap was of quite a
different shape, flat and with ear-flaps (Sekunda 1986: 9 pl.). It is doubtful
whether helmets of this type, with a projecting lobate crown, originated in
Thrace anyway. They appear on Lycian reliefs which may date back to the 380s
(Sekunda 1986: 47).
The lobate crown helmet was labelled ‘Phrygian’ in an important article
by Vokotopoulou (1982), on account of the similarity of the profile to the
‘Phrygian’ cap known from the Roman period. In this context, it needs to be
stressed, the term ‘Phrygian’ is purely used with reference to the shape, and has
no ethnic significance. Dintsis (1986: 1, 50-3), in his extensive monograph on
the Hellenistic helmet, proposed a new term for the type, ‘Tiaraartige Helm’
(‘tiara-shape helmet’). This term is less well-chosen, it seems to the author, for
tiaras came in a wide variety of shapes, not just this one. This is emphasized by
a number of studies, for example that of Young (1964 with summary in APh 25
(1964) 368). Waurick (1988: 163-9) preferred to retain the term ‘Phrygian’ for
this type of helmet, probably for this reason. In this article I will likewise
continue to use the term ‘Phrygian’ for this particular type of helmet, which
could perhaps be regarded as a sub-group of Schöder’s ‘Thracian’ helmet.

III. 2. A type of helmet characteristic of the time of Alexander the Great

Judging from its overwhelming presence in the iconography of the period, the
‘Phrygian’ helmet seems have been the helmet par excellence of the
Macedonian army during the reign of Alexander the Great (336-323 BC).
Perhaps the most important iconographic source for the appearance of soldiers
of the period is the so-called ‘Alexander Sarcophagus’ from Sidon (today in
Istanbul Archaeological Museum), most recently published by von Graeve
(1970). All of the Macedonian infantrymen shown on this monument wear the
‘Phrygian’ helmet.
A Macedonian soldier is shown on the reverse of a dekadrachm
celebrating the victory of the Hydaspes in 326 BC, of which one example is to
be found in the British Museum and a second in the numismatic collection of
the Nationalmuseet at Copenhagen (Mørkholm 1991: 44, pl. 3). The soldier is
without doubt Alexander himself, considering that on the obverse a mounted
Alexander is shown charging Porus on his elephant. Price (1982) describes the
helmet worn by the soldier as being ‘of the normal ‘Phrygian’ type … in

159
 HELLENISTIC WARFARE

bronze, with a peak that curls forward. A normal crest runs from the peak to the
back of the helmet, and a tall feather, fitted into a holder on the left side of the
helmet, rises high above the line of the crest.’ He further mentions that
according to Plut. Vit. Alex. 16. 7, the conqueror wore a helmet with similar
decoration at the battle on the Granicus river .
Finally the frieze of the tomb of Haghios Athanasios (Tsimbidou-
Avloniti: 2005), which depicts a symposion shows soldiers and, in the opinion
of the author, their squires wearing military equipment. A number of figures
wear the ‘Phrygian’ helmet.
Taken together these sources confirm that the ‘Phrygian’ helmet was
the type which was specified in the military regulations to be worn by some
branches of the Macedonian army. This is an implicit assumption made in the
work of N. Sekunda (1984) some twenty years ago.

IV Parallels and Comparisons

IV. 1. The form: parallels and comparisons with helmets of the second half
of the fourth century BC.

I refrain from giving a complete catalogue of all helmets of ‘Phrygian’ type

published to date. Besides the chapter in Dintsis devoted to this helmet,
Vokotopoulou (1982), apart from her description of the splendid example found
at Vitsa (Epirus), includes in her work (504-8) a catalogue of similar helmets
and related cheek pieces (Katalog ähnlicher Helme und Zugehöriger
Wangenklappen). The Phrygian helmet is also dealt with by Waurick (1988).
The appearance of a future study of V. Fol on helmets of this type is announced
in a joint article by Fol and Inkova (1998), which will presumably add the rich
Bulgarian archaeological material to the catalogue of helmets of this type. To
my knowledge this study has not yet appeared. Almost all of these helmets are
of bronze.
Although the shape of the ‘Isar-Marvinci’ helmet clearly identifies it as
a helmet of ‘Phrygian’ type, it is highly unusual in that it is manufactured in
iron, not bronze. Clearly, our helmet is quite exceptional. As we have seen, the
‘Phrygian’ helmet was at its height of popularity during the second half of the
fourth century: the age of Alexander the Great. Could the fact that our helmet is
made of iron be explained by a later date of manufacture? In the absence of a
secure archaeological date for the ‘Isar-Marvinci’ helmet we are forced to fall
back on the chronological indicators given by the helmet itself. We should first
of all note, however, that the helmet was found in a tomb of ‘Macedonian’ type,
and so cannot belong to the fifth century BC. The ‘Phrygian’ helmet is, in any

160
 A New Helmet from Macedonia

case, a type of helmet not found in the fifth century. Dintsis was unable to
identify a single example of the ‘Phrygian’ type from the fifth century, only
perhaps a prototype (Dintsis 1986: 2, ‘Beilage’ 2, no. 39 and 1, 358 refs). It
must date to the fourth century or later, and, if ‘Isar-Marvinci’ only became part
of the Macedonian Kingdom during the reign of Philip II, any date earlier than
the middle of the fourth century is unlikely.
A detailed analysis of the shape of the helmet suggests a date in the
second half of the fourth century. The characteristic profile of the neck-guard of
the ‘Isar-Marvinci’ helmet (cf. fig. 12) finds its origin in helmets of the type
Dintsis defined as ‘pseudo-Attic’ of the fifth century BC (Dintsis 1986: 2,
‘Beilage’ 9, nos. 333 to 339 and 1, 370 refs.). The same profile can also be
encountered in some ‘Phrygian’ helmets of the second half of the fourth century
BC. At least a couple of ‘Phrygian’ helmets illustrated in the ‘Beilage’ 2 of
Dintsis have a neck-guard of comparable shape to the ‘Isar-Marvinci’ helmet
(cf. our fig. 14 = nos. 59 and 89 of Dintsis’ ‘Beilage’ 2).
The profile of the neck-guard of the ‘Isar-Marvinci’ helmet corresponds
most closely to the second of these drawings (no. 89), a ‘Phrygian’ helmet
represented in the field of a coin of Ambracia dating to between 295 and 238
BC (Dintsis 1986: 1, 226, cat. no. 73 and 360 refs; Dintsis 1986: 2, pl. 14,3 and
‘Beilage’ 2 no. 89). The reproduction of the profile of this helmet can only be
approximate, however, considering the small size of the coin. Nor are the
drawings in Dintsis always completely reliable.
If, by way of comparison, we turn to examine the other drawing of a
‘Phrygian’ helmet with a neck-guard of comparable shape (our fig. 14, no. 59),
we find that the drawing in Dintsis is, in fact, not very accurate if we compare it
either with the facsimile of the original given by Mikov (1925: 182, fig. 11) or
with the photograph later published by Vokotopoulou (1982: 505, Abb. 16).
This helmet was found at Kova!evica in Bulgaria and was first published by
Mikov (1925).2
The profile of the neck-guard of the ‘Isar-Marvinci’ helmet also
compares well with some fourth-century examples of ‘Attic’ helmets, and, most
significantly, with two helmets shown on the so-called ‘Alexander
Sarcophagus’ mentioned above (cf. our fig. 14, nos. 295, 297) published by
Dintsis (Dintsis 1986: 2, ‘Beilage’ 8). Once again, a comparison of the drawings
in Dintsis and in the editio princeps demonstrate that the drawings of Dintsis

2
Vokotopoulou states that this helmet is in the National Museum of Sofia (inv. no.
2576). The reference for the first publication of the helmet (V. Mikov, Godi!nik na
Archeologi"estija Musej Sofia (1925) 181 Abb. 1.2) given by Vokotopoulou (505, n.
19) is, however, incorrect. The helmet was not published in the #$%&'(&)* (+
,+-$%&(. /0123 (= Annuaire du Musée National de Sofia) III-IV (1922-1925) at 181,
but in the Annuaire de la Bibliothèque Nationale à Plovdiv as given in the
Bibliography.

161
 HELLENISTIC WARFARE

extrapolate somewhat. In both cases the shape of the neck-guard can be clearly
distinguished. I have not been able to examine the sarcophagus in person, but it
seems that the black and white reproduction of Dintsis (1986: 1, 268, cat. no.
193b = Dintsis 1986: 2, pl. 46,3 and ‘Beilage’ 8, no 297) is obviously taken
from Winter (1912: pl. 13) and is not absolutely faithful to the original drawing
of the helmet neck-guard that can be distinguished on the photograph published
by von Graeve (1970: Tafel 68, 2).
Some further examples of helmets of ‘Phrygian’ type have appeared
since the publication of the catalogue of Dintsis in 1986. Of this material the
helmets published later in Juglev 1991 and then in Kitov 1996 do not offer
convincing parallels. I have been unable to consult Dimitrov (2002-2003), who
publishes two Hellenistic helmets: one well-known example from Kazanlak,
and another from Turnovo, nor Fol and Inkova (1998).
A note of caution is necessary at this juncture. The heavy restoration of
the helmet has obviously had a considerable influence on the shape of the
object. If one looks at the back view of the helmet, one notices that it has not
been possible to restore the crest in line with the axis of the main bowl of the
helmet. Therefore it is possible that the shape of the neck-guard may have
become somewhat distorted during restoration. Nevertheless, despite this
reservation and the caution with which Dintsis’ drawings need to be used, the
examples cited above are the only ones which could possibly be considered as
coming close to the ‘Isar-Marvinci’ helmet in the shape of its neck-guard. They,
therefore, suggest a date in the second half of the fourth century BC.
One other feature of the ‘Isar-Marvinci’ needs to be noted: namely the
volutes at the end of the false visor located above the cheek pieces, a feature
which can also be noted in other helmets of ‘Phrygian’ or ‘pseudo-Attic’ type.
Despite the severe damage to the object, it has been possible to restore a volute
on the right side of the helmet.

IV. 2. The material: iron helmets in early Hellenistic times

IV. 2. 1. Iron, a new material for helmets

The transition from bronze to iron as a material used in the manufacture of

defensive arms towards the end of the Classical Period suggests an
improvement in the techniques at the disposal of the iron and steel industry. The
production of defensive armour, including helmets, only became significant in
the second half of the fourth century.
Plutarch’s Life of Alexander (32) informs us that at the battle of
Gaugamela in 331 BC, Alexander himself wore an iron helmet, which gleamed

162
 A New Helmet from Macedonia

like polished silver, a work of Theophilos, and a gorget (!"#$%#&'()$*+)

likewise of iron, set with precious stones (Archibald 1985; Faklaris 1985). The
iron helmet Alexander wears is obviously a rare object, produced to a very high
technical standard, otherwise there would be little sense in the source of
Plutarch preserving the information that the helmet was the work of one
Theophilos.
Plutarch (Vit. Dem. 21. 4-6) supplies us with another important piece of
evidence on the topic. During the siege of Rhodes in 305 BC, iron cuirasses
weighing some 17kg which had been made for Demetrius ‘Poliorcetes’ were
tested to see if they could withstand bolts shot by a catapult from a distance of
20 paces:

,#-. /0 %*1%*+ %-+ !2)"µ*+ &3%4 5&6 78#&5". 95*µ:;7<;&+ 95 =>!#*?

/>* ;$/<#*@, µ+A+ B)5C. D5E%"#*. %";;&#E5*+%&. F?;!E7"$&+ /0 5&6
G8µ<+ &3%A+ 9!$/"$5+>µ"+*. B %"'+:%<. HIJ)*. 95K)"?;"+ 9L "M5*;$
N<µE%I+ OP"@+&$ 5&%&!")%$5-+ NK)*., *Q !#*;!";2+%*. O##&RS.
/$Kµ"$+"+ B ;:/<#*., Oµ?'S+ /0 µ2)$. T;'"+ OµN)"@&+, *U*+ O!-
R#&P":*?. V*1%*+ &3%-. 9P2#"$˙ %-+ /’ W%"#*+ X)5$µ*. B Y!"$#8%<.,
O+C# !*)"µ$58%&%*. %A+ ;Z+ &3%4 5&6 GIµ&)"8%&%*., [. µ2+*. 9'#C%*
/$%&)E+%\ !&+*!):], %A+ ^))I+ '#IµK+I+ %&)&+%$&:]

‘For his use in this war there were brought to Demetrius from Cyprus two
iron cuirasses,3 each of which weighed only forty pounds. Wishing to
show their strength and power of resistance, Zoilos their maker gave
orders that a catapult’s missile should be shot at one of them from a
distance of twenty paces, and in the place where it struck the iron
remained intact, although it did get a faint scratch, such as might be made
by a graver. This cuirass Demetrius wore himself; the other was worn by
Alkimos the Epirot, the sturdiest and most warlike of all the men under
him, and the only one whose suit of armour weighed a hundred pound
(the rest used suits of fifty pounds weight).’

The anecdote implies that the manufacture of iron armour continued to be a

skilled technical accomplishment down to the end of the fourth century BC. The
items of iron armour mentioned above were produced on a one-off basis, by
masters in iron-working, and were not series produced weapons. Such items of
armour were reserved for the military elite.

IV. 2. 2. Catalogue of contemporary iron helmets

3
For ‘78#&5". (…) />* ;$/<#*@’ the French translation of R. Flacelière, É. Chambry
(Plutarque, Vies. Tome 13. Démétrios — Antoine, texte établi et traduit R. Flacelière, É.
Chambry (Paris 1977) 41) ‘deux cuirasses de fer’ (two iron cuirasses) has been supplied
as being more accurate.

163
 HELLENISTIC WARFARE

A list of all iron helmets known at the time of publication is supplied by

Waurick (1988: 178-9). The following list confines itself to helmets dated to the
second half of the fourth century, or the beginning of the third.

IV.2.1.a. The helmet of the ‘Royal’ tomb at Vergina (figs. 15 and 16)

The well known helmet from tomb II of the Great Tumulus at Vergina, the so-
called ‘Royal Tomb’, closely resembles the ‘Isar-Marvinci’ in both shape and
material.
The monograph dedicated to the weapons from this tomb, prepared by
P.V. Faklaris, has not yet been published. The manuscript had already been
prepared for publication in 1994, but no date for the appearance of the
publication was foreseen during my last meeting with the author in February
2003. We are at least, however, able to refer to the chapter on ‘The weapons’,
published by the same scholar in the guidebook written together with Drougou,
Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Kottaridou and Tsigarida (Faklaris: 1994a, 105-112).
Nevertheless, fortunately for our purposes, some splendid photographs
of the helmet have been published in a number of places. Without attempting an
exhaustive list, the helmet has been published by Andronicos (1979: pl. XLIII;
1984: 140-1, figs. 97-8) and in Hatzopoulos and Loukopoulos (1980: 227, fig.
129). The helmet is also listed in Dintsis (Dintsis 1986: 2, ‘Beilage’ 2, no. 104
and 1, 361 refs). These illustrations allow the helmet to be studied in
considerable detail.
In some respects the Vergina helmet could perhaps be classed as
‘pseudo-Attic’, as helmets of this type have a pseudo-visor fixed above the
temples, running from cheek-piece to cheek-piece, whereas with the ‘Attic’
helmet this frontal is absent, or reduced to an ornament (often an embossed
design) on the front of the helmet. For Waurick (1988: 177) the Vergina helmet
was more of ‘Attic’ type than ‘Phrygian’, although he admitted that because of
the flat comb the general shape was similar in outline to a ‘Phrygian’ helmet. It
is, indeed, this feature which distinguishes the ‘Phrygian’ helmet from the Attic,
for in most other features the two helmet types are identical. We are surely
correct, therefore, in classifying the Vergina helmet as ‘Phrygian’.
The date of the ‘Royal Tomb’ is still disputed. The traditional view has
always been that the tomb was built in 336 BC to accommodate the remains of
Philip II, whereas the latest date which has been given to the tomb is 316 BC,
by those who would see the tomb as being built for Philip III Arrhidaios. To my
knowledge the precise date is still an open question (cf. Carney 2001: 234-42).

164
 A New Helmet from Macedonia

IV.2.b. The helmet of Pletena (Bulgaria) (figs. 17 and 18)

The burial of a Thracian warrior (Stojanova-Serafimova 1975), dating to the

third century BC rather than the end of the fourth, has been excavated at
Pletena, near the town of Blagoevgrad, on the river Struma: the ancient
Strymon. The burial contained a number of weapons, including a rhomphaia
and greaves, and an iron helmet, all the more interesting because it too was of
‘Phrygian’ type. The method in which the helmet was constructed has been
thoroughly investigated, and has provided us with important information
(Vassilev 1975). The helmet has not been made from one sheet of metal, like
the majority of bronze helmets, but from a number of plates more or less 1.5mm
thick. This method of construction probably testifies to the difficulty these early
iron-workers experienced in working out the shape of the bowl of the helmet,
and especially the complicated shape of the ‘Phrygian’ helmet. The cheek
pieces and the nose guard were added in bronze.

IV.2.c. The helmets of Prodromi (Epirus)

Choremis (1980) has published a magnificent find of weapons from Prodromi, a

place which lies within the boundaries of ancient Thresprotia, an area which
formed part of the ancient kingdom of Epirus, as a reference to the index entries
under that name in Hammond & Walbank (1988: 653) confirms. Thesprotia was
always united with Epirus right down until the Roman conquest, for instance
against Perseus in 170 BC (Hammond & Walbank 1988: 520; Cabanes 1976:
114-15). The first news of this discovery came in a report in BCH (103/2 (1979)
568), and two photographs were later published by G. Touchais (1982: 555,
figs. 47, 48). Among these weapons, which undoubtedly belonged to some high
ranking officer, or even a local hero, were two iron helmets. The excavator
dated all this material to the third quarter of the fourth century BC, but the
nature and shapes of these weapons, and in particular the fact that they included
a muscled cuirass, also made of iron, suggest a later date. Dintsis would date the
burial to around 300 BC but D. Rakatsanis (1980, 57) stated that ‘Die Funde aus
dem Schachtgrab bei Prodromi, besonders aber Art und Ausstatung der
Schutzwaffen, sprechen dafür, daß ihr Träger zur gehobenen Schicht der
epirotischen Gesellschaft gehörte und in der Zeit des Pyrrhos lebte und starb.’
In the opinion of the current writer a date in the later years of the reign of
Pyrrhus would be even more convincing.
The Prodromi helmet which is not silvered (Dintsis 1986: 1, 276, cat.
no 214 = 2, ‘Beilage’ 9 no. 355) looks extremely similar to two other helmets of
the first half of the third century BC. One is an iron helmet from Kertch (Dintsis
1986: 1, 276, cat. no 215 = 2, pl. 55,3 and ‘Beilage’ 9 no. 366) which Dintsis

165
 HELLENISTIC WARFARE

dates to the first part of the third century BC, and the other is a bronze helmet
from the island of Melos, no. 217 in Dintsis’ catalogue (Dintsis 1986: 2, pl.
55,5-6 = ‘Beilage’ 9, no 362) which he would also date to the same period.
The difference between the dates proposed for the iron helmets from
Prodromi is not, in any case, significant for the purposes of this paper.

IV.2.d. Iron hinged cheek piece from Aiani (Aenea - Ancient Elimea) (Fig.
19)

A hinged iron cheek piece found at the site of Aiani and published by G.
Karamitrou-Mendessidi (1989: 49 fig. 8) probably belonged to an iron helmet.
No date has been proposed for this object. The shape has a remarkable
resemblance to the cheek-pieces of the (silvered) iron helmet from Prodromi,
and to a bronze cheek-piece from Gavani in Romania (Museum of Braila, inv.
no. 12565 = Dintsis 1986: 1, cat. no. 222; 2, pl. 56,6 = ‘Beilage’ 9 no. 347). In
the opinion of Dintsis (Dintsis 1986: 1, 280) the two pieces are contemporary
and date to the first half of the third century BC, above all because of the line
surrounding the eye-hole, which ends at an almost horizontal angle. The main
difference between the two pieces is that the cheek pieces of the helmet found
in Romania are smaller, and are held in place by a single hinge, not three.

Conclusion
Despite the lack of a certain archaeological context, the date of the helmet from
Isar-Marvinci can, nevertheless, be clarified thanks to the following clues:

(1) Our helmet is obviously of the ‘Phrygian’ type, which was the helmet type
par excellence of the reign of Alexander the Great (336-323 BC).

(2) There is an obvious similarity in the shape of the neck guard to other
examples of neck guards on helmets of the second part of the fourth century
BC.

(3) There are other similarities, as regards the general shape, the material used,
and especially for the structure with the flat comb crest riveted together, with
the iron helmet from tomb II of the Great Tumulus of Vergina (336 or 316 BC).

When taken together, these three considerations support a date in the last third
of the fourth century BC for the ‘Isar Marvinci’ helmet. As with the helmet
from Vergina, the ‘Isar Marvinci’ helmet shares many features in common with
the ‘Attic’ type, and may lie at the beginning of the series of ‘Phrygian’ type
helmets. The metal workers of the period were insufficiently skilled to give

166
 A New Helmet from Macedonia

these helmets the same subtle outlines of the type when manufactured in bronze.
This is why the comb-crest is flat in these two iron helmets, and not fully lobate
as with the bronze examples. The alternative was to manufacture the helmet, as
was the case with the helmet from Pletena, from several superposed metallic
sheets.
The discovery of the new helmet from ‘Isar Marvinci’ demonstrates that
the iron helmet from Vergina is not unique, but of a very special type, reserved
for the highest ranking officers of the Macedonian army. Perhaps in the future
the study of the other material recovered from Tomb no. 150 at ‘Isar-Marvinci’,
notably the so-called ‘pectoral’, will later shed further light on the dating of the
helmet, and will supply us with more information on the weaponry used by a
high-ranking officer of the Macedonian army in early Hellenistic times.

Pierre Juhel
Secrétaire scientifique de l’IVECO
Instituto Valenciano de Estudios Clásicos y Orientales
www.fiveco.org

167
 HELLENISTIC WARFARE

Bibliography

The authors follow the abbreviations in laid out in L'Année philologique. For
the Classical texts, the authors have used the French CUF edition for the Greek
and the apparatus criticus, and the Loeb Classical Library when an English
translation has been given.

M. Andronicos, ‘The Finds from the Royal Tombs at Vergina’ PBA 65 (1979) 355-67.
M. Andronicos, Vergina : The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City (Athens 1984,
repr. 1992) .
M. Andronicos, ‘Les «Tombes macédoniennes»’ in ed. R. Ginouvès, La
Macédoine. De Philippe II à la conquête romaine (Paris 1993) .
Archaeological Map of the Republic of Macedonia II (Skopje 1996) in
Macedonian.
Z. H. Archibald, ‘The Gold Pectoral from Vergina and its Connections’ OxfJA
4/2 (1985) 165-85.
M. Besios, ‘Excavations at Pydna’ !" #$%#&"'"(&)* +$(" ,-. /#)01"23# )#&
4$5). 2 (1988) 181-93 in Greek; summary in English.
K. Boschnakov, ‘Der Feldzug der Odrysensbasileus Sitalkes in dem
Thukydidischen Codex Palat. GR 252(E)’ in Studia in honorem Alexandri Fol
(=Thracia 11, Sofia 1995) 277-88.
P. Cabanes, L’Épire de la mort de Pyrrhus à la conquête romaine (272-167 av.
J.-C.) (Besançon, Paris 1976) .
E.D. Carney, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia (Norman, 2001).
A. Choremis, ‘Metallic armour from a tomb at Prodromoi in Thesprotia’ AAA
13 (1980) 3-20 in Greek, summary in English.
S. Dimitrov, ‘Helmets from Ancient Thracia’, 6789:;<=>?@ ? A=B:C?=9? DB
VI AE7:F?>? G:B:>?@, HD8<:B:>? >= 70 ID;?J>?@ KL?9:F >= ;DM. ;-C N>O=
P?OD9D<= 17-18 A=F 2002 I., Q:9?OD RSC>D<D. Studia in Honorem Janko
Nikolova (= 67<:8B?@. Bulletin of the Regional Museum of History of Veliko
Turnovo 17-18, 2002-2003) 179-88 in Bulgarian, summary in English.
P. Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme (=Archaeologica 43, Rome 1986).
P. Ducrey, Guerre et guerriers dans la Grèce antique (Paris 1985).
P.V. Faklaris, T0$(32#. !# *U'# -V2 µ#)01"2&)W2 -5XV2 -.Y /. !"ZµU#Y
(Vergina. The weapons of the Macedonian Burials of the Great Tomb)
unpublished manuscript.
168
 A New Helmet from Macedonia

P.V. Faklaris, ‘Gorget (Peritrachelion)’ AD 40 (1985) A´, 1-16, abstract 283-4

in Greek, summary in English.
P.V. Faklaris, ‘The weapons’, in S. Drougou, Ch. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, P.
Faklaris, A. Kottaridou and E.-B. Tsigarida, Vergina. The Great Tumulus.
Archeological Guide (Thessaloniki 1994) text in Greek and in English.
P.V. Faklaris, ‘Aegae: Determining the Site of the First Capital of the
Macedonians’ AJA 98 (1994) 609-16.
P.V. Faklaris, V. Stamatopoulou, ‘Vergina: excavations of the citadel 1997:
textile mills and dye works’ !" #$%#&"'"(&)* +$(" ,-. /#)01"23# )#& 4$5). 11
(1997) 121-8 in Greek; summary in English.
V. Fol, V. Inkova, ‘Thracian helmet from the village of Pletena, Western
Rhodope’ Orpheus 8 = Memorial Volume of Vladimir I. Georgiev (1998) 21-34.
V. von Graeve, Der Alexandersarkophag und seine Werkstatt, Aufn. von D.
Johannes (=Istanbuler Forsch. Dt. Archäol. Inst. Abt. Istanbul 27, Berlin 1970).
O. Hamdy Bey, Th. Reinach, Une Nécropole Royale à Sidon (Paris 1892).
N.G.L. Hammond, A History of Macedonia, Vol. I. Historical Geography and
Prehistory (Oxford 1972) .
N.G.L. Hammond, G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, Vol. II. 550-336 BC
(Oxford 1979) .
N.G.L. Hammond, G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, Vol. III : 336-167 BC
(Oxford 1988) .
M.B. Hatzopoulos, L.D. Loukopoulos (eds.), Philip of Macedon (Athens 1980) .
K.I. Juglev, ‘Inhumation d’un soldat thrace près du village Satov!a, région de
Goce Del!ev’ Arch (Sofia), 33/2 (1991) 21-3 in Bulgarian; summary in French.
G. Karamitrou-Mendessidi, ‘The Excavation Research at Aiani’ !"
#$%#&"'"(&)* +$(" ,-. /#)01"23# )#& 4$5). 3 (1989) 45-57 in Greek;
summary in English.
G. Kitov, ‘Sa"ova Mogila: une tombe monumentale thrace non pillée entre #ipka
et Jasenovo’ Arch (Sofia) 38/2-3 (1996) 9-22 in Bulgarian; summary in French.
V. Mikov, ‘Un casque de [la] tombe du village Kovatchovitza’ Annuaire de la
Bibliothèque Nationale à Plovdiv (Bulgarie). 6789:;9<= ;> ?>@78;>A>
B9CD97AE<> F= GD7F89F= (1925) Mélanges P. Diakovitch 182-6 in Bulgarian;
summary in French.
G. Mikul!i$ and G. Karapetkov, ‘Marvinci 1994 – Necropolis’ Macedoniae
Acta Archaeologica 14 (1996) 67-75 in Macedonian; summary in English.

169
 HELLENISTIC WARFARE

O. Mørkholm, Early Hellenistic coinage, from the accession of Alexander to the

Peace of Apamea (336-188 BC) (Cambridge 1991).
A.M. Prestianni Giallombardo, ‘Riflessioni storiografiche sulla cronologia del
grande tumulo e delle tombe reali di Vergina (campagne di scavo 1976-1977)’
!"#$%&$' %() XII *&+,-(./ 0)-+1"2() $3#44&$'/ #"5#&(3(62#/. A,7-#, 4-10
0+8%+µ9"2() 1983 Vol.1 (Athens 1985) 237-42.
M.J. Price, ‘The ‘Porus’ Coinage of Alexander the Great: A Symbol of Concord
and Community’ in S. Scheers (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata I:
Numismatica Antiqua (Louvain 1982) 75-85.
D. Rakatsanis, ‘Das Grab von Prodromi’ AW 11/4 (1980) 55-7.
K. Schefold and M. Seidel, Der Alexandersarkophag (Berlin 1968).
B. Schröder, ‘Thrakische Helme’ JDAI 27 (1912) 317-44.
N.V. Sekunda, colour plates by A. McBride, The Army of Alexander the Great
(Osprey Men-at-Arms Series 148, London 1984).
N.V. Sekunda, colour plates by A. McBride, The Ancient Greeks. Armies of
Classical Greece 5th and 4th Centuries BC (Osprey Elite Series 7, London
1986).
V. Sokolovska, Isar-Marvinci and the Vardar Valley in Ancient Times (Skopje
1986) in Macedonian; summary in English.
D. Stojanova-Serafimova, ‘Armement d'un guerrier thrace du village Pletena,
dép. de Blagoevgrad’ Arch(Sofia) 17/4 (1975) 41-50 in Bulgarian; summary in
French.
P. To!ev, R. Stojanov and Z. Zdravkovski, ‘Physico-chemical investigation and
conservation of some archaeological finds in Macedonia; in Macedonian;
abstract in English; Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 15 (1999) 373-83 in
Macedonian; summary in English.
G. Touchais, ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en
1981’ BCH, 106/2, (1982), 529-635.
M. Tsimbidou-Avloniti, The Macedonian Tombs at Phinikas and Ayios
Athanasios in the Area of Thessaloniki. Contribution of the Funerary
Monuments of Macedonia ("#µ$%&'(µ)*) *$+ ,-.)&$/$0&1$( "'/*2$+ 91]
Athens 2005) in Greek; summaries in English and in Italian.
V.P. Vassilev, ‘Étude technologique de l’armement thrace du village Pletena’
Arch (Sofia) 17/4 (1975) 51-61 in Bulgarian; summary in French.
J. Vokotopoulou, ‘Phrygische Helme’ AA (1982) 497-520.

170
 A New Helmet from Macedonia

J. Warry, Warfare in the Classical World (London 1980).

G. Waurick, ‘Helme der Hellenistischen Zeit und Ihre Vorläufer’, in Antike
Helme Sammlung Lipperheide und andere Bestande des Antikenmuseums Berlin
(RGZM monograph 14, Mainz 1988) 151-80.
F. Winter, Der Alexandersarkophag aus Sidon (Straßburg 1912).
J.H. Young, ‘Commagenian Tiaras. Royal and divine’ AJA 68 (1964) 279-92.

171
 HELLENISTIC WARFARE

FIGURES

Fig. 11: Maps of the Republic of Macedonia. The helmet was found at ‘Isar-
Marvinci’, near Valandovo, in the south region of the country, 15 km from the
Greek border.

172
 A New Helmet from Macedonia

Fig. 2 : fa csimile
of the iron
he lme t inv. n°
678 -IV kept at
the Museum of
Macedonia of
Skopje. Dra wing
of V esna
Ja nkosk a (©).

Fig. 3 : va rious
pr ofile s of
He llenistic he lmets
from the monogra ph
of Pe tros D INTS IS,
Hellenistische
Helme, I I : Taffeln,
Rome , 1986,
‘B eila ge’ nn° 2 and
9 (se e the te xt of the
arti cle fo r al l de tai ls
and references ).

Fig. 12: Facsimile of the right profil of the iron

helmet found at ‘Isar-Marvinci’.

Fig. 13: Facsimile of the face view of the iron

helmet found at ‘Isar-Marvinci’.

173
 HELLENISTIC WARFARE

Fig. 14: Right view of the rear of the iron helmet found at ‘Isar-Marvinci’

174
 A New Helmet from Macedonia

Fig. 15: The helmet found in the ‘Royal’ tomb at Vergina. From M.
Andronicos, T! "#$%&'( )*+ ,-#./%0+ (Athens 1997).

175
 HELLENISTIC WARFARE

Fig. 16: Right profil of the iron helmet found in the ‘Royal’
tomb at Vergina. From Andronicos 1979: pl. 43.

176
 A New Helmet from Macedonia

Fig. 17: Face view of the helmet of Pletena (Bulgaria).

From Stojanova-Serafimova 1975: 42 fig. 2.

177
 HELLENISTIC WARFARE

Fig. 18: Right and left views of the helmet of Pletena (Bulgaria).
From Stojanova-Serafimova 1975: 43 fig. 3-4.

Fig. 19: Undated iron hinged cheek piece from Aiani

(Aenea — Ancient Elimea).
From Karamitrou-Mendessidi 1989: 49 fig. 8.
178