Origins of the “St. Wenceslas Helmet”

In December 2016, an extraordinary sword of Petersen’s type S, known for its rich decoration, was found in Lázně Toušeň in Central Bohemia. Although swords of the type were found in locations ranging from Ireland to Russia, this specific piece is the very first example from the Czech Republic. Thanks to my cooperation with Jiří Košta and Jiří Hošek on mapping the analogies, I had the opportunity to examine the weapon by myself. This and other events of the past two years affected me greatly and made me rethink my approach to many topics. Foremost I felt the need to once again review the so-called St. Wenceslas helmet, the nose-guard and browband in particular.

The helmet known as “St. Wenceslas helmet” is very well known and curious item, which has been kept in Bohemia from the Early Middle Ages, with many publications covering the topic (most notably by Hejdová 1964Merhautová 1992Schránil 1934). Along with a chainmail, a mail cloak and other items, it is a part of the crown jewels, playing its symbolic role in the past millennium. The recent research confirmed that the oldest of these artefacts originated in the 10th century (Bernart – Bravermanová – Ledvina 2014). Nowadays, the helmet consists of a dome, a nose-guard and browband, showing many, often low-quality repairs, which suggest the helmet undergone a complicated development. It is obvious that in its current form, the helmet is a compilation was meant for occasional exhibits and was never meant to be used on the actual head. Let’s thoroughly summarise what facts we have about the helmet, and what is just an assumption.

svatovaclavkaCondition of the St. Wenceslas helmet in 1934. Click for higher resolution.
Source: Schránil 1934: Tab. XIII and XIV.

On the helmet’s base, the measurements of the inner oval are 24,4 cm × 20,9 cm, with a circumference of 70 cm. The single-piece conical dome might have been crafted in Czech lands, and due to being dated in 10th century, it could have been around during St. Wenceslas’s reign (†935) (Bernart – Bravermanová – Ledvina 2014: 179). It is thus possibly one of the oldest preserved single-piece conical helmets, of which the closest parallels can be found in the Czech Republic and Poland (Bernart 2010). The helmet dome has height of 16 cm, with the helmet weighing a total of 1 kilogram. A presumption that the helmet dome was of younger date was not confirmed. The material of the helmet is substantially inhomogenous – on the forehead, the thickness is between 1,6 and 1,9 mm, while being 0,6 to 1,9 mm on the sides (personal discussion with Miloš Bernart). In the place where the nose-guard is attached today, there was originally an integral nose-guard that was later cut off and the area surrounding it was adjusted by hammering to fit the now-present part. Hejdová suggested that the original helmet had ear and neck protection prior to the adjustment, leaving holes around the edge (Hejdová 196619671968), but a recent analysis considers these to be a remnant after helmet padding (Bernart – Bravermanová – Ledvina 2014). These two aspects should not be viewed as separated – as is suggested in case of Lednica helmet, the helmet padding could be the base of the ear and neck protection that was attached to it (Sankiewicz – Wyrwa 2018: 217-219). The dome bears signs of several repairs, which had though avoided a rather specific hole on the helmet rear most likely either caused by a weapon blow or was meant to suggest so. Further details on measurements and repairs are summarised by Hejdová and Schránil (Hejdová 1964; Schránil 1934). A new research done by Bravermanová et al 2019, which represents the best description of the helmet published so far, should be also mentioned.

jednokusSelection of single-piece helmets from the Czech Republic and Poland.
Source: Bernart 2010.

Some time following the death of St. Wenceslas, but possibly still in 10th century, the helmet received various modifications linked to its exaltation to a sacred relic. The adjustments were possibly initiated either by Duke Boleslav II. (†999), who supported the cult of St. Wenceslas, or his wife, the duchess Emma (Bernart – Bravermanová – Ledvina 2014: 181). The existence of the modified helmet was possibly reflected by author of the so-called “Legend of Kristián”, dated 992-994 AD. The legend speaks of Duke Wenceslas meeting Duke Radslav of Kouřim, who laid down his weapon after seeing a mark of the Holy Cross shining on Wenceslas’s forehead. It is possible that Kristián, being a potential brother of Boleslav II. and therefore well aware of the Přemyslid dynasty affairs at the end of 10th century, meant the shining cross as a reference to the decorated nose-guard, a newly installed decoration on the helmet. According to Merhautová, the helmet could had been unveiled at the occasion of founding the Archdiocese of Prague in 973 AD (Merhautová 2000: 91).

One of lesser modifications done during the 10th century affected the lower edge of helmet dome, where an aventail holder made of folded silver strip was riveted. Today, only fragments of the strip holder on inner and outer edge remain. This type of holder represents a very laborious and highly effective protection; there are grooves cut or sheared into the fold of the strip, to which rings holding the aventail are inserted, held in place by a metal wire. This sophisticated method is known from at least ten other Early Middle Ages helmets and helmet fragments, where the strip is made from iron, brass or gilded bronze (Vlasatý 2015). The St. Wenceslas treasure guarded in Prague also contains a chainmail. It is accompanied by a square-shaped mail cloak, which upper part (a sort of “standing collar” with dimensions 50 × 7,5 cm) is fringed with three lines of almost pure gold rings (Schránil 1934). The uppermost line of rings is again made of iron. A detailed analysis confirmed that the collar is made of identical rings as the chainmail but differs from the rest of the mail cloak. The researchers (Bernart – Bravermanová – Ledvina 2014: 180181) suggest the collar was originally a standing collar of the chainmail, only later to be removed and re-used as an aventail attached to the helmet with iron rings. The aventail was possibly removed from the helmet during reign of Charles IV and became a basis for the mail cloak, later to be expanded to the current shape. Because of the original length of 7,5 cm and use of a silver holder, it seems this part of the helmet was purely decorative.

vaclav-limecDetail of the collar with golden fringe. Source: Bernart 2010: pic. 37.

Another modification, possibly done simultaneously with the previously mentioned improvements, was an installation of the nose-guard and the browband. We shall take a deeper look at this particular change as the nose-guard has been greatly discussed by many Czech researchers, and as I will attempt to show, many of the opinions were completely misleading and based on ignorance of wider context. The nose-guard is cross-shaped with a total height of 14,7 cm, width of 18,5 cm and is thick up to 5 mm. On three of its ends, it is attached to the dome by large iron rivets. The brow part is lobated on the upper edge and represents eye-brows. The nasal itself copies the shape of a nose and is 6,3 cm long and 3,3 cm wide. From the side view, the nasal seems to be slightly bent, which Miloš Bernart claims to be caused by falling on its lower end. There is a small thorn of unknown function coming out of the middle of the lower end of the nose-guard. Due to typological similarity with a helmets from Olomouc and Lednica, we could argue the thorn was expanded to a small hook used for attaching face-protecting aventail (Sankiewicz – Wyrwa 2018: 217-219). Nearest analogy of the cross-shaped nose-guard is known from Bosnian Trnčina, which is dated to 10th-11th century (D’Amato 2015: 67, Pl. 5) and is a second specimen of single-piece helmet with additional nose-guard. Lower part of St. Wenceslas helmet’s dome is edged with a decorative brow band covering the silver aventail holder, ending beneath the nose-guard. It was attached to the helmet by rivets, together with two larger rivets on the nose-guard; the rivets fastening the band were secured by copper pads on the inner side of the helmet. Circa three-quarters of this brow band survived to present day, which got probably damaged in the past to a point where it had to be repaired by additional attachments. Decorative band on a helmet is an uncommon feature, known mostly from Eastern Europe (Holmquist Olausson – Petrovski 2007: 234-236). The nearest analogy of the band is possibly a decoration of helmet from Nemia, Ukraine, dated to 11th century (Kirpičnikov 1971: Tabl. IX).

Schematic reconstruction of the helmet circa 1000 AD.
Source: Taken from Czech Radio website.

The silver surface of both the nose-guard and browband is decorated by overlay. This method is based on cutting into the base material in various directions, to which a more expensive metal is then hammered (Fuglesang 1980: 125–126; Moilanen 2015: 276–277). In the case of the nose-guard, the base metal is cut in three directions; this fact is apparent on X-ray photos, on some spots even with naked eye. The browband is most likely decorated the same way. Silver wire or plate was used for overlay, and analysis also shows traces of copper, gold, lead and corroded zinc, though not used for decoration (personal discussion with Miloš Bernart). According to Vegard Vike, the material used for decoration was silver wire mechanically hammered to the cuts, while a copper-alloy wire might had been used for outlines which are now missing. Miloš Bernart, Petr Floriánek and Jeff Pringle agree that the outlines were originally filled with niello, which fell out over time. The nearest analogical helmets with masks decorated by overlay are from Lokrume, Gotland, and Kiev, Ukraine (Vlasatý 2016Vlasatý 2018). Furthermore, a fragment from Lokrume is decorated by identical motifs as the St. Wenceslas helmet’s browband. Overlay decoration is also commonly used on weapons and riding equipment from 950 AD to beginning of 12th century in England and Scandinavia, from where this method could had expanded to neighbour countries together with motifs achieved by this method. Like in the case of the sword find from Lázně Toušeň, it is extremely difficult to determine the point of origin, because spread of fashion also included manufacturing processes, not only the final product. Overlay method thus only indicates that the item most likely originated in Northern or Eastern Europe.

Wenceslas_noseguard-ChristDetail of the St. Wenceslas helmet’s nose-guard. Source: Vegard Vike.

I believe that motifs achieved by this method on the nose-guard can help us narrow down the place of manufacturing. To displeasure of all Czech researchers who would love to deem the character depicted on the nose-guard as Norse god Oðinn (eg. Merhautová 1992Merhautová 2000Sommer 2001: 32), it is necessary to reject this theory once and for all. In fact, it is an early depiction of crucified Jesus Christ (as was suggested by Benda, Hejdová and Schránil), that has many parallels in European area up to 12th century (Fuglesang 1981Staecker 1999). Its function on the nose-guard is clear – to represent a Christian owner, depicts a formula of Christ’s redemption and his second coming, to induce fear and awe in the enemy. If Merhautová (2000: 91) writes that „cruficied Christ neither was, nor as a winner over death could not be depicted hairless, with shouting mouth and untreated moustache (…)“, it is only a proof of ignoring archaeological material, which we need to present on the example of finds of crosses, wood carvings and militaria.

jellingEarly Scandinavian depictions of Christ. Click for higher resolution.
A stone from Jelling, cast figure from Haithabu, wooden figure from Jelling mound, pendant from Birka grave Bj 660.

krizkyDepiction of Christ from Northern and Western Europe. 9th-12th century. Click for higher resolution.
Source: Staecker 1999: Abb. 59, 61, 68, 79; Kat. Nr. 14, 43, 46, 49, 51a, 53a, 54, 60, 65, 74, 81, 86, 100, 116a.

jezis_meceFigures on sword pommels interpreted as Jesus, 11th century.
Swords from Pada, Estonia and Ålu, Norway. Source: Ebert 1914: 121 and catalogue.

Let us take a closer look at separate parts of the nose-guard’s decoration. Most attention was paid to head of the figure which – although not being entirely preserved – has two staring eyes, open mouth with bared teeth, untreated moustache forked in many directions and a crown of unspecifiable shape. Such features were in the past perceived as a reason why this character can not be considered crucified Jesus Christ. All of them can be though found on early Christian art of Western, Central, Northern and Eastern Europe in 9th-12th century. The closest similarity can be seen on the face of Crucified on a cross found in Stora Uppakrå, Sweden (11th century; Staecker 1999: Kat. Nr. 51). Also from 11th century, a sword found in Ålu, Norway (C36640) has pommel depicting Christ with bared teeth, moustache, stare and tri-tipped crown on head (discussion with Vegard Vike). If we attempted to specify shape of the crown, we can then point out to analogies, in which crosses, rhombuses with cross motif, Hand of God, halos or hats are depicted above head of the Crucified, with the rhombus and Hand of God seem to be the closest. Depicted features belong to angry God, which one should be afraid of – this is common for era up to 1000 AD, when Christian Europe was under constant attacks. In newly Christianised lands, Jesus Christ was just one god of the local pantheon at first (Bednaříková 2009: 94), and had to achieve his preference by force, not by gestures of friendship and humility.

hlavaHeads of the Crucified in European art, 9th-12th century.
Click for higher resolution. Source: Staecker 1999.

Also, arms wound with two pair of bracelets similar with rings were in the past considered a reason why a figure cannot be considered crucified Jesus Christ. But the period iconography is in direct contradiction – on the contrary, it seems that early depictions of Jesus Christ often show Jesus bound, not only nailed to cross (Fuglesang 1981). The rings therefore represent loops binding arms, or pleated sleeve of tunic that the figure is wearing. Position of thumbs pointing upwards is then a feature undoubtedly pointing to Jesus on cross. An X-ray screening and detailed photos also seem to show a stigma or nails. Arms appear to be broken, to which we also find analogies on a crucifix from Hungarian Peceszentmárton (12th century; Jakab 2006).

rukaHands of the Cruficied in European and Turkish art, 9th-12th century.
Click for higher resolution. Source: Staecker 1999 and the Jelling stone.

Body of the figure seems to be dressed in a tunic or coat, which is tied in the waistline area with a massive belt or rope. The coat is also decorated with opposite lines creating a herringbone motif. It is also possible to find many parallels to these details in period iconography, with a bound belt being widely used in Scandinavian art. As for the legs, their decoration is mostly fallen out, which makes any reconstruction near to impossible; it is though obvious that the figure stands with legs apart. That might seem as an uncommon feature, but still we know some analogies.

hrud-pasBody of the Crucified in European art, 9th-12th century.
Click for higher resolution. Source: Staecker 1999 and Jelling finds.

Legs of the Crucified in European art, 9th-12th century.
Click for higher resolution. Source: Staecker 1999.

Above the crown of the crucified character, there is a non-completely preserved plaited ornament, filling the area where the nose-guard narrows. This motif closely resembles a filling plait found on hilts of Petersen type L, R, S and T swords (Petersen 1919) and on spear sockets (eg. Fuglesang 1980). The plaits on the swords originating in 2nd half of 10th century are the nearest analogy, while the spear decorations evolving into more complicated forms categorised as Ringerike style can be dated between the end of 10th century and third quarter of 11th century (Fuglesang 1980: 18; Wilson – Klindt-Jensen 1966: 146).

strelka Plaited ornament on Scandinavian and Estonian weapons, 10th-11th century.
Source: Jets 2012: Fig. 1 and catalogue.

Above the arms and next to them are simple tri-tipped ornaments and intertwined loops. Their position on the nose-guard is symmetrical. It seems that this decoration was meant to fill in empty space that would otherwise remain there. As an analogy to tri-tipped decoration, one can mention triquetras on Jelling stone, located above arms and next to face of the Crucified. But there are more parallels: tri-tipped ornaments can also be found above arms of figure depicted on pommel of Pada sword and on Ålu sword pommel where there are two crosses next to a face of the character. Loops depicted between hands and large rivets have an analogy in a loop on sword guard from Telšiai, Latvia (Tomsons 2008: 94, 5. att), in wavy lines located beneath arms of the Cruficied on cross from Gullunge, Sweden (turn of 12th century) and Finnish Halikko (12th century). In the case of Halikko cross, the wavy lines possibly represent clouds or wind currents, as the area above the head is also filled with heavenly bodies (Moon and Sun). The whole composition might therefore depict Jesus as the lord of heavens. Some crosses in Byzantium tradition depict winged angels next to hands of the Crucified. In other cases, the area below arms is filled with text or heads of figures, and so one cannot rule out that the ornament might have a similar apotropaic meaning.

vlnovka A simple ornament: St. Wenceslas helmet, Gullunge, Halikko.
Source: Staecker 1999: Kat. Nr. 112, Abb. 96.

We can evaluate the decoration on helmet’s browband as a typical plaited ornament of Borre style, which has rich analogies in lands under Scandinavian influence – circa from Great Britain to Russia. In Scandinavia, the Borre style is dated between 1st half of 9th century and 2nd half of 10th century. In Poland, the Borre style found a wide use and became favoured and was still used during 11th century (Jaworski et al. 2013: 302). Ornaments of this kind can also be found on Lokrume helmet fragment, on several Petersen type R and type S swords, and we could possibly find it on other militaria as well. Although of different shape, intertwined loops are also present on decorative band on helmet from Nemia, Ukraine.

Emblems_1-5 Plaited ornaments used on Petersen type R and type S swords from Northern, Central and Eastern Europe.
Created by Tomáš Cajthaml.

obrouckaDecorative bands on St. Wenceslas helmet and on helmet from Nemia, Ukraine.
Source: Schránil 1934: Tab. XIII; Kirpičnikov 1971: Tab. IX.

If we were to suggest a place of manufacture of these decorated components, Scandinavia, or rather the island of Gotland definitely is the most probable (Schránil 1934Benda 1972Merhautová 2000Bravermannová 2012Bernart – Bravermanová – Ledvina 2014), although there are more possibilities. Potential candidates can also be Poland, Baltic lands, Finland, Russia or Ukraine, but definitely not Rhineland, as some suggested (Hejdová 1964196619671968). The components could have gotten to Central Europe via the Polish route, which was widely open up to 70s of 10th century thanks to a marriage of Mieszko I of Poland and Czech princess Doubrava, sister of Boleslav II. But we cannot either rule out even a later import, because as proven by Ethelred’s denarii, which were copied in Bohemia and transported back to Baltic sea, the route was also open in 80s and 90s of 10th century as well (Lutovský – Petráň 2004: 95; Petráň 2006: 168).

The St. Wenceslas helmet is a compilation of several, originally unrelated components, which was most likely put together of the initiative of Boleslav II. in order to support the growing cult of St. Wenceslas and therefore his own position. The helmet was modified and repeatedly repaired throughout the ages. Historical and cultural value of this item is incalculable. Currently, the helmet is on exhibition at Prague castle, where it receives a major attention both local and foreign visitors.

St. Wenceslas helmet with shining nose-guard.
Source: Jan Gloc, Prague castle administration.

I hope you liked reading this article. If you have any question or remark, please contact me or leave a comment below. If you want to learn more and support my work, please, fund my project on Patreon or Paypal.


Bednaříková, Jarmila (2009). Ansgar a problémy misií na evropském severu. In: Křesťanstvo v časoch sv. Vojtěcha, Kraków, 85–103.

Benda, Klement (1972). Svatováclavská přilba ve výtvarném vývoji přemyslovských Čech. In: Umění 20, no. 2, 114–148.

Bernart, Miloš (2010). Raně středověké přílby, zbroje a štíty z Českých zemí, Praha: Univerzita Karlova.

Bernart, Miloš  Bravermanová, Milena  Ledvina, Petr (2014). Arma sancti Venceslai: nová zjištění o přilbě, zbroji a meči zv. Svatováclavské. In: Časopis Společnosti přátel starožitností, Roč. 122, no. 3, 179182.

Bravermanová, Milena (2012). The so-called armour of St. Wenceslaus – a historical introduction. In: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia, VIII, Kraków – Rzeszów – Sanok 2011, 213–220.

Bravermanová, M. – Havlínová, A. – Ledvina, P. – Perlík, D. (2019). Nová zjištění o přilbě a zbroji zv. svatováclavské. In: Archeologie ve středních Čechách 23, s. 235–310.

D’Amato, Raffaele (2015). Old and new evidence on the East-Roman helmets from the 9th to the 12th centuries. In: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia, tom XI, red. Piotr N. Kotowicz, Kraków – Wrocław – Sanok, 27–157.

Ebert, Max (1914). Zu den Beziehungen der Ostseeprovinzen mit Skandinavien in der ersten Hälfte des 11. Jahrhunderts. In: Baltische Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte : Arbeiten der Baltischen vorbereitenden Komitees für den XVI. Archäologischen Kongress in Pleskau 1914, Berlin, 117–139.

Fuglesang, Signe Horn (1980). Some Aspects of the Ringerike Style : A phase of 11th century Scandinavian art, Odense.

Fuglesang, Signe Horn (1981). Crucifixion iconography in Viking Scandinavia. In: Hans Bekker-Nielsen – Peter Foote – Olaf Olsen (eds.). Proceedings of the Eighth Viking Congress. Århus 24-31 August 1977, Odense, 73–94.

Hejdová, Dagmar (1964). Přilba zvaná „svatováclavská“.In: Sborník Národního muzea v Praze, A 18, no. 1–2, 1–106.

Hejdová Dagmar (1966). Der sogenannte St.-Wenzels-Helm (1. Teil). In: Waffen und Kostümkunde 8/2, 95–110.

Hejdová Dagmar (1967). Der sogenannte St.-Wenzels-Helm (Fortsetzung). In: Waffen und Kostümkunde 9/1, 28–54.

Hejdová Dagmar (1968). Der sogenannte St.-Wenzels-Helm (Fortsetzung und Schluß). In: Waffen und Kostümkunde 10/1, 15–30.

Holmquist Olausson, Lena – Petrovski, Slavica (2007). Curious birds – two helmet (?) mounts with a christian motif from Birka’s Garrison. In: FRANSSON, Ulf (ed). Cultural interaction between east and west, Stockholm, 231-238.

Jakab, Attila (2006). Bronzkorpuszok a nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum gyűjteményében (Bronze crucifixes in the collection of the Jósa András Musem). In: JAMÉ 48, 261–280.

Jaworski, Krzysztof et al. (2013). Artefacts of Scandinavian origin from the Cathedral Island (Ostrow Tumski) in Wroclaw. In: Scandinavian culture in medieval Poland, Wroclaw, 279–314.

Jets, Indrek (2012). Scandinavian late Viking Age art styles as a part of the visual display of warriors in 11th century Estonia. In: Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 2012, 16/2, 118–139.

Kirpičnikov 1971 = Кирпичников А. Н.(1971). Древнерусское оружие: Вып. 3. Доспех, комплекс боевых средств IX—XIII вв., АН СССР, Москва.

Lutovský, Michal – Petráň, Zdeněk (2004). Slavníkovci, Praha.

Moilanen, Mikko (2015). Marks of Fire, Value and Faith : Swords with Ferrous Inlays in Finland During the Late Iron Age (ca. 700–1200 AD), Turku.

Merhautová, Anežka. (1992) Der St. Wenzelshelm. In: Umění 40, no. 3, 169–179.

Merhautová, Anežka (2000). Vznik a význam svatováclavské přilby. In: Přemyslovský stát kolem roku 1000 : na paměť knížete Boleslava II. (+ 7. února 999), Praha, 85–92.

Petersen, Jan (1919). De Norske Vikingesverd: En Typologisk-Kronologisk Studie Over Vikingetidens Vaaben, Kristiania.

Petráň, Zdeněk (2006). České mincovnictví 10. století. In: České země v raném středověku, Praha, 161–174.

Sankiewicz, Paweł – Wyrwa, Andrzej M. (2018). Broń drzewcowa i uzbrojenie ochronne z Ostrowa Lednickiego, Giecza i Grzybowa, Lednica.

Schránil, Josef (1934). O zbroji sv. Václava. In: Svatováclavský sborník na památku 1000. výročí smrti knížete Václava svatého. I – Kníže Václav svatý a jeho doba, Praha, 159172.

Sommer, Petr (2001). Začátky křesťanství v Čechách: kapitoly z dějin raně středověké duchovní kultury, Praha.

Staecker, Jörn (1999). Rex regum et dominus dominorum. Die wikingerzeitlichen Kreuz- und Kruzifixanhänger als Ausdruck der Mission in Altdänemark und Schweden, Stockholm.

Tomsons, Artūrs (2008). Kuršu (T1 tipa) zobeny rokturu ornaments 11. – 13. gs. In: Latvijas Nacionālā Vēstures muzeja raksti, No. 14, 85104.

Vlasatý, Tomáš (2015). Další fragment přilby z Birky. In: Projekt Forlǫg: Reenactment a věda [online]. [quoted 2019-06-05]. Available from:

Vlasatý, Tomáš (2016). The helmet from Lokrume, Gotland. In: Projekt Forlǫg: Reenactment a věda [online]. [quoted 2019-06-05]. Available from:

Vlasatý, Tomáš (2018). Přilba z Kyjeva. In: Projekt Forlǫg: Reenactment a věda [online]. [quoted 2019-06-05]. Available from:

Wilson, David M. – Klindt-Jensen, Ole (1966). Viking Art, London.

O Elmo de Gjermundbu

Esta é uma tradução autorizada de um artigo publicado por Tomáš Vlasatý, colega historiador e recriacionista histórico da República Tcheca, mentor do projeto Forlǫg e membro do grupo Marobud. Você pode apoiar o autor através de seu perfil no site Patreon.

Em 30 de março de 1943, a Universidade de Oldsaksamling, em Oslo, obteve informações de que um fazendeiro chamado Lars Gjermundbu havia encontrado e escavado um grande monte de terra perto de sua fazenda Gjermundbu na comuna de Ringerike, no condado de Buskerud, sul da Noruega. No mês seguinte o lugar foi examinado por arqueólogos (Sverre Marstrander e Charlotte Blindheim) e o resultado foi realmente fascinante.

Planta do monte. Retirada de Grieg 1947: Pl. I.

O monte tinha 25 metros de comprimento, 8 metros de largura no ponto mais largo, 1,8 metros de altura na parte central e era predominantemente formado por solo pedregoso; no entanto, o interior da parte central era pavimentado com pedras grandes. Na parte central, cerca de um metro abaixo da superfície e sob a camada de pedra, foi descoberta a primeira sepultura, denominada “Grav I”. A 8 metros de Grav I, na parte ocidental do monte, foi encontrada a segunda sepultura, denominada “Grav II”. Ambas as sepulturas representam enterros de cremações da segunda metade do século X e são catalogadas sob a marca C27317. Ambas as sepulturas foram documentadas por Sigurd Grieg em Gjermundbufunnet : en høvdingegrav fra 900-årene fra Ringerike em 1947.

Grav I consistia em dezenas de objetos ligados à propriedade pessoal e várias atividades, incluindo lutas, arquearia, equitação, jogos de lazer e culinária. Entre outros, os mais interessantes são os objetos únicos como a cota de malha e o elmo, que se tornaram muito famosos e são mencionados ou retratados em quaisquer publicações relevantes.
Předpokládaná rekonstrukce bojovníka uloženého v Gjermundbu, 10. století. Podle

Possível reconstrução do equipamento que foi encontrado em Grav I, Gjermundbu. Tirado de Hjardar – Vike 2011: 155. O formato da coifa é o ponto fraco da reconstrução.

© 2016 Kulturhistorisk Museum, UiO.

O elmo é frequentemente descrito como “o único elmo completo da Era Viking que se tem conhecimento”. Infelizmente isso não é verdade por pelo menos duas razões. Em primeiro lugar, o elmo não é de modo algum completo – ele demonstra danos pesados e consiste em cerca de 10 fragmentos no estado em que se encontra atualmente, o que representa um quarto ou pouco mais de um terço do elmo. Para ser honesto, esses fragmentos do elmo são fixados sobre uma matriz de gesso que tem a forma aproximada do elmo original; alguns deles de maneira especulativa, podem até estar na posição errada. Membros negligentes da academia apresentam essa versão como uma reconstrução nos museus e nos livros, então essa tendência é copiada e reproduzida por recriacionistas e pelo público geral. Tenho de concordar com Elisabeth Munksgaard (Munksgaard 1984: 87), que escreveu: “O elmo de Gjermundbu não está bem preservado nem bem restaurado“.


Uma antiga reconstrução do elmo, feita por Erling Færgestad. Retirada de Grieg 1947: Pl. VI.

Em segundo lugar, há publicações sobre fragmentos de pelo menos 5 outros elmos espalhados pela Escandinávia e também em áreas com forte influência escandinava (veja o artigo Elmos Escandinavos do Século X [em inglês]). Estou ciente de vários achados e interpretações não publicadas cujas autenticidades não podem ser comprovadas, especialmente os fragmentos de elmos encontrados em Tjele, na Dinamarca, que são muito próximos ao elmo de Gjermundbu, uma vez que consistem em uma máscara e oito faixas estreitas de metal de 1 cm de largura (veja o artigo O Elmo de Tjele [em tcheco]). Baseado nos fragmentos do elmo de Gjermundbu, nos fragmentos do elmo de Tjele e na máscara de Kyiv (o formato original do fragmento de Lokrume é desconhecido), podemos dizer que o tipo de elmo “spectacle helmet” (algo como elmo com máscara ocular em português) claramente evoluiu dos elmos da Era Vendel e foi o tipo predominante de elmo escandinavo até próximo de 1000 A.D., quando os elmos cônicos com nasais tornaram-se populares.

Para ser justo, o elmo de Gjermundbu é o único elmo do tipo “spectacle helmet” da Era Viking cuja construção é completamente conhecida. Vamos dar uma olhada nisso!

O esquema do elmo. Feito por Tomáš Vlasatý e Tomáš Cajthaml.

Meu colega Tomáš Cajthaml fez um esquema muito legal do elmo, de acordo com minhas instruções. O esquema é baseado na ilustração de Grieg, em fotos salvas no catálogo Unimus e em observações feitas pelo pesquisador Vegard Vike.

A cúpula do elmo é formada por quatro placas triangulares (azul escuro). Sob a abertura entre cada duas placas, há uma tira estreita que é rebitada à outra tira ligeiramente curvada situada acima dessa abertura entre cada duas placas (amarelo). Na direção nuca-testa, a tira é formada por uma única peça, que é estendida no meio (no topo do elmo) e forma a base para o espeto (azul claro). Existem duas tiras planas na direção lateral (verde). As placas triangulares são rebitadas em cada canto da tira nuca-testa. Uma tira larga, com a linha perfilada visível, é rebitada à borda da cúpula (vermelho; não se sabe como as extremidades desta parte de metal conectavam-se). Dois anéis estavam conectados na borda dessa tira larga, prováveis restos de uma coifa em malha de aço. Na parte dianteira, a máscara ocular é rebitada na tira larga.

© 2016 Kulturhistorisk museum, UiO.

Uma vez que todas as dimensões conhecidas foram exibidas no esquema, deixe-me acrescentar alguns fatos suplementares. Em primeiro lugar, as quatro tiras ligeiramente curvas são demonstradas de maneira um pouco diferente no esquema – as originais são mais curvas na parte central e se afilam perto das extremidades. Em segundo lugar, embora o espeto seja uma característica importante, estudos nos mostram que sua presença é mais uma questão de uso estético do que de uso prático. Sobre os anéis da possível coifa de malha, o espaçamento entre eles é de aproximadamente 2 cm. Também são muito grossos, ao contrário dos anéis da cota de malha. Provavelmente foram fechados apenas encostando as pontas (butted mail), uma vez que nenhum vestígio de rebite foi encontrado. Não se pode afirmar se eles de fato representam uma coifa, porém, caso tal afirmação seja positiva, o que parece é que a coifa estava pendurada em anéis ou em um fio que atravessava estes anéis (ver meu artigo sobre Dispositivos de Suspensão de Coifas Medievais [em tcheco]).

Falando sobre a máscara, os raios-x revelaram pelo menos 40 linhas que formam cílios, da mesma forma que a máscara do elmo de Lokrume (veja o artigo O Elmo de Lokrume [em inglês]). Apesar das tendências modernas, não foram encontrados vestígios de incrustações metálicas nem gotículas de metal derretido. Existe uma diferença significativa entre a espessura das placas e tiras e a espessura da máscara, mesmo esta demonstrando uma espessura irregular. Inicialmente, a superfície do elmo poderia ser polida, de acordo com Vegard Vike.

Eu acredito que estas notas podem ajudar as novas gerações mais acuradas de recriacionistas. Sem contar anéis, o elmo pode ser formado a partir de 14 peças e pelo menos 33 rebites. Tal construção é um pouco surpreendente e não tão sólida. Em minha opinião, este fato pode levantar a discussão entre recriacionistas sobre o elmo de Gjermundbu representar um elmo de guerra ou um elmo cerimonial/simbólico. Eu, particularmente, penso que não há necessidade de ver essas duas funções como funções separadas. Sou muito grato aos meus amigos Vegard Vike, ao jovem artista e recriacionista Tomáš Cajthaml e ao Samuel Collin-Latour. Espero que vocês gostem deste artigo. Em caso de qualquer pergunta ou observação, por favor contacte-me ou deixe um comentário. Se vocês quiserem saber mais e apoiar meu trabalho, por favor, financie meu projeto no Patreon.

Vestanspjǫr agradece ao amigo Tomáš Vlasatý pela oportunidade de trazermos este trabalho à língua portuguesa. A bibliografia utilizada pelo autor pode ser consultada no artigo original, no link abaixo.

The helmet from Gjermundbu

On March 30 1943, Universitetets Oldsaksamling in Oslo gained the information that a farmer named Lars Gjermundbo found and dug into a huge mound on his land near the farm of Gjermundbu, Buskerud county, southern Norway. The place was examined by archaeologists (Marstrander and Blindheim) the next month and the result was really fascinating.


The plan of the mound. Taken from Grieg 1947: Pl. I.

The mound was 25 meters long, 8 meters broad in the widest place and 1.8 meters high in the middle part. The most of the mound was formed by stony soil; however, the interior of the middle part was paved with large stones. Some stones were found even on the surface of the mound. In the middle part, about one meter below the surface and under the stone layer, the first grave was discovered, so called Grav I. 8 meters from Grav I, in the western part of the mound, the second grave was found, Grav II. Both graves represent cremation burials from the 2nd half of the 10th century and are catalogized under the mark C27317. Both graves were documented by Sigurd Grieg in Gjermundbufunnet : en høvdingegrav fra 900-årene fra Ringerike in 1947.

Grav I consists of dozens of objects connected to personal ownership and various activities, including fighting, archery, horse riding, playing games and cooking. Among others, the most interesting are unique objects, like the chain-mail and the helmet, which became very famous and are mentioned or depicted in every relevant publication.

Předpokládaná rekonstrukce bojovníka uloženého v Gjermundbu, 10. století. Podle

Possible reconstruction of the gear that was found in Grav I, Gjermundbu. Taken from Hjardar – Vike 2011: 155. The shape of the aventail is the weak point of the reconstruction.

© 2016 Kulturhistorisk museum, UiO

The helmet is often described as being complete and being the only known Viking Age helmet we know. Unfortunately, it is not true, for at least two reasons. Firstly, the helmet is not by any means complete – it shows heavy damage and consists of only 17 fragments in the current state, which means one-fourth or one-third of the helmet. To be honest, fragments of the helmet are glued onto a plaster matrix (some of them in the wrong position) that has the rough form of the original helmet. Careless members of academia present this version as a reconstruction in the museum and in books, and this trend is then copied by reenactors and the general public. I have to agree with Elisabeth Munksgaard (Munksgaard 1984: 87), who wrote: “The Gjermundbu helmet is neither well preserved nor restored.

The current state of the helmet. Picture taken by Vegard Vike.

Secondly, there are at least 5 other published fragments of helmets spread across Scandinavia and areas with strong Scandinavian influence (see the article Scandinavian helmets of the 10th century). I am aware of several unpublished depictions and finds, whose reliability can not be proven. Especially, helmet fragments found in Tjele, Denmark, are very close to Gjermundbu helmet, since they consist of a mask and eight narrow metal bands 1 cm wide (see the article The helmet from Tjele). Based on the Gjermundbu helmet, Tjele helmet fragments and Kyiv mask (the shape of the original form of Lokrume fragment is unknown), we can clearly say that spectacle helmet type with decorated mask evolved from Vendel Period helmets and was the most dominant type of Scandinavian helmet until 1000 AD, when conical helmets with nasals became popular.


An old reconstruction of the helmet, made by Erling Færgestad. Taken from Grieg 1947: Pl. VI.

To be fair, the helmet from Gjermundbu is the only spectacle type helmet of the Viking Age, whose construction is completely known. Let’s have a look at it!


The scheme of the helmet. Made by Tomáš Vlasatý and Tomáš Cajthaml.

My mate Tomáš Cajthaml made a very nice scheme of the helmet, according to my instructions. The scheme is based on Grieg´s illustration, photos saved in the Unimus catalogue and observations made by researcher Vegard Vike.

The dome of the helmet is formed by four triangular-shaped plates (dark blue). Under the gap between each two plates, there is a narrow flat band, which is riveted to a somewhat curved band located above the gap between each two plates (yellow). In the nape-forehead direction, the flat band is formed by a single piece, that is extended in the middle (on the top of the helmet) and forms the base for the spike (light bluethe method of attaching the spike is not known to me). There are two flat bands in the lateral direction (green). Triangular-shaped plates are riveted to each corner of the extended part of the nape-forehead band. A broad band, with visible profiled line, is riveted to the rim of the dome (red; it is not known how the ends of this piece of metal connected to each other). Two rings were connected to the very rim of the broad band, probably remnants of the aventail. In the front, the decorated mask is riveted onto the broad band.

© 2016 Kulturhistorisk museum, UiO

Since all known dimensions are shown in the scheme, let me add some supplementary facts. Firstly, four somewhat curved bands are shown a bit differently in the scheme – they are more curved in the middle part and tapering near ends. Secondly, the spike is a very important feature and rather a matter of aesthetic than practical usage. Regarding the aventail, 5 rings were found around the brim, having the spacing of 2,4-2,7 cm. On contrary to chain-mail, rings from the helmet are very thick and probably butted, since no trace of rivets were found. It can not be said whether they represent the aventail, and if so, what it looked like and whether the aventail was hanging on rings or on a wire that was drawn through the rings (see my article about hanging devices of early medieval aventails). The maximum number of rings used around the brim is 17. Talking about the mask, X-ray showed at least 40 lines, which form eyelashes, similarly to Lokrume helmet mask (see the article The helmet from Lokrume). The lines are too shallow for inlayed wires. Instead, lead-tin alloy was applied and melted during the cremation. The mask shows a two-part construction, overlaped and forge-welded at each temple and in the nose area (according to the X-ray picture taken by Vegard Vike). There is a significant difference between the thickness of plates and bands and the mask; even the mask shows uneven thickness. Initially, the surface of the helmet could be polished, according to Vegard Vike.

I believe these notes will help to the new generation of more accurate reenactors. Not counting rings, the helmet could be formed from 14 pieces and at least 33 rivets. Such a construction is a bit surprising and seems not so solid. In my opinion, this fact will lead to the discussion of reenactors whether the helmet represents a war helmet or rather a ceremonial / symbolical helmet. I personally think there is no need to see those two functions as separated.

I am very indebted to my friends Vegard Vike, who answered all my annoying question, young artist and reenactor Tomáš Cajthaml and Samuel Collin-Latour. I hope you liked reading this article. If you have any question or remark, please contact me or leave a comment below. If you want to learn more and support my work, please, fund my project on Patreon or Paypal.


GRIEG, Sigurd (1947). Gjermundbufunnet : en høvdingegrav fra 900-årene fra Ringerike, Oslo.

HJARDAR, Kim – VIKE, Vegard (2011). Vikinger i krig, Oslo.

MUNKSGAARD, Elisabeth (1984). A Viking Age smith, his tools and his stock-in-trade. In: Offa 41, Neumünster, 85–89.

Scandinavian helmets of the 10th century

In this article, we will have a short look at evidences of helmets used in Scandinavia during the 10th century. Pictures of modern replicas are added as well.

Spectacle helmets:

Nasal helmets:

Unknown types:

Russian helmets in Scandinavia:



Spectacle helmets


Object, context A head on the sacrificial (or weaving?) knife from Gnëzdovo, Russia, mound number 74. 2nd half of the 10th century.
Description The head is rather schematic. Fechner writes, that the head is covered with a helmet that has typical hemisphere shape with spectacle mask. No visible spike on the top, no visible decoration. Sizov´s picture shows rather a head with beard.
Literature Fechner 1965; Sizov 1902: 91, Fig. 59, 60.



Object, context The only complete Viking Age helmet found in Gjermundbu mound 1, Norway. 2nd half of the 10th century.
Description The dome is made from 4 pieces connected with 4 quadrant ribs of semicircular section. There is a spike on the top and a plate connected to the rim of the dome. The mask is from one piece, is decorated with silvar inlay and is riveted to the plate. There are some traces of the rings on the plate, indicating that a kind of neck guard was used.
Literature Grieg 1947; Tweddle 1992: 1125-1128; Vlasatý 2016




Object, context A mask fragment found among the forging equipment in Tjele, Denmark 2nd half of the 10th century.
Description Iron mask decorated with bronze plates. The nasal is broken. It is possible there were some rivets on the nasal, indicating the mask was made from several pieces.
Literature Kirpichnikov 1973Tweddle 1992. 1126, 1128; Vlasatý 2015b.



Object, context A mask from a helmet found in Desjatinna Church in Kyiv, Ukraine. 2nd half of the 10th century.
Description Iron mask decorated with silver and gold coating and silver inlay. The nasal is broken. It is sure there were some rivets on the nasal, indicating the mask was made from several pieces. Some people suggest reversed position of the mask.
Literature Kirpichnikov 1973Tweddle 1992. 1126, 1129; Vlasaty 2018a.


Nasal helmets


Object, context A Scandinavian (Anglo-Scandinavian?) warrior depicted on the Middleton Cross B, England. 10th century.
Description The head is rather schematic. The helmet has conical shape with integral nasal. No visible decoration.
Literature Graham-Campbell 1980: cat. no. 537.



Object, context The so-called helmet of Saint Wenceslaus. The nasal and the rim are probably of Gotlandic origin, 2nd half of the 10th century, the dome is later addition (but the original dome might be similar).
Description Both nasal and rim are decorated with silver inlay and coating. The decoration of the rim resembles the piece from Lokrume. The figure on the nasal is important example of mixing pagan religion with Christianity.
Literature Hejdová 1964; Vlasaty 2018b.


Unknown types


Object, context A mask fragment from a helmet found in Lokrume, Gotland. 2nd half of the 10th century.
Description Iron fragment richly decorated with silver and copper inlay/overlay. The nasal is broken. It is impossible to claim whether the fragment belonged to spectacle or nasal helmets.
Literature Lindqvist 1925; Vlasatý 2015c.



Object, context A fragment of what could be an aventail holder. Found in the hall in Birka, 950 – 970 AD.
Description Gilded iron plate with teeth on one side. A hole for the rivet is visible. This fragment could be used as an aventail holder that can be seen on some early medieval helmets.
Literature Vlasatý 2015a.


Russian helmets in Scandinavia


Object, context Fragments of what could be a Russian helmet. Found in the hall of Birka. 950-970 AD.
Description Two gilded fragments decorated with birds and a flower and one tinned bronze conus. Rests of silvers and iron rivets are still present. It is impossible to claim whether these fragments belonged to one or two helmets.
Literature Holmquist Olausson – Petrovski 2007; Vlasatý 2014.



The number of the evidence is sufficient to claim there were 3 types of helmets in Scandinavia during the 10th century. Spectacle helmet was the most dominant and traditional type, nasal helmets probably represent a new Continental fashion and Russian helmets (like spectacle helmets in Gnëzdovo and Kyiv) form the evidence of close relations between Eastern Europe and Eastern Scandinavia. Spectacle helmets were used until 1000 AD, conical helmets with nasals became widespread in the 11th century (Munksgaard 1984: 88).

It has to be stressed that all examples are richly decorated – we can not find any proof of undecorated examples. Undecorated helmets used in 10th century reenactment are rather a reeenactism. Even the nasal of the Saint Wenceslaus helmet is decorated, even though there is no other proof of decorated conical helmet with a nasal. The tradition of helmet decoration has to be seen as important; it is obvious that decorated masks had been used to terrify oponents and to show exceptional status.

We can not see any cheek guards or chainmail aventails on masks – these devices were used on finds from different centuries and were not used in the 10th century.

Old Norse literature, mainly skaldic poetry, can bring some interesting facts as well. For example, Norwegian king Hákon the Good († 961 AD) was buried with his “gilded” helmet and another pieces of gear and his skald Eyvindr praises his arrival to Valhǫll, where he refuses to hand off his equipment.

Many authors claimed there is almost no evidence because of the weight of helmets. However, the true reason of this is that helmets were very expensive and were worn only by nobles and their retinues. The important note is that helmets were purposely destroyed, so we find mostly their masks.

In case of deeper interest, I recommend my further work, Grafnir hjálmar : A Comment on the Viking Age Helmets, Their Developement and Usage (in Czech).

I hope you liked reading this article. If you have any question or remark, please contact me or leave a comment below. If you want to learn more and support my work, please, fund my project on Patreon or Paypal.


FECHNER, Maria V. (1965). О ≪скрамасаксе≫ из Гнёздова // Новое в советской археологии, Москва, 260–262.

GRAHAM-CAMPBELL, James (1980). Viking Artefacts: A Select Catalogue, London.

GRIEG, Sigurd (1947). Gjermundbufunnet : en høvdingegrav fra 900-årene fra Ringerike, Oslo.

HEJDOVÁ, Dagmar (1964). Přilba zvaná „svatováclavská“. Sborník Národního muzea v Praze, A 18, č. 1–2, Praha.

HOLMQUIST OLAUSSON, Lena – PETROVSKI, Slavica (2007). Curious birds – two helmet (?) mounts with a christian motif from Birka’s Garrison. In: FRANSSON, Ulf (ed). Cultural interaction between east and west, Stockholm, 231–238.

KALMRING, Sven (2014). A conical bronze boss and Hedeby´s Eastern connection. In: Fornvännen 109, 1–11, Stockholm. Available at:

KIRPIČNIKOV, Anatolij N. (1971). Древнерусское оружие: Вып. 3. Доспех, комплекс боевых средств, IX–XIII вв.// АН СССР, Москва.

LINDQVIST, Sune (1925). Vendelhjälmarnas ursprung. In: Fornvännen 20, Stockholm, 181–207. Available at:

MUNKSGAARD, Elisabeth (1984). A Viking Age smith, his tools and his stock-in-trade. In: Offa 41, Neumünster, 85–89.

SIZOV, Vladimír I. (1902). Курганы Смоленской губернии I. Гнездовский могильник близ Смоленска. Материалы по археологии России 28, Санкт-Петербург.

TWEDDLE, Dominic (1992). The Anglian Helmet from 16-22 Coppergate, The Archaeology of York. The Small Finds AY 17/8, York.

VLASATÝ, Tomáš (2014). Fragmenty přilby z Birky. In: Projekt Forlǫg: Reenactment a věda [online]. [cit. 2016-01-03]. Available at:

VLASATÝ, Tomáš (2015a). Další fragment přilby z Birky. In: Projekt Forlǫg: Reenactment a věda [online]. [cit. 2016-01-03]. Available at:

VLASATÝ, Tomáš (2015b). The helmet from Tjele. In: Projekt Forlǫg: Reenactment a věda [online]. [cit. 2016-01-03]. Available at:

VLASATÝ, Tomáš (2015c). The helmet from Lokrume. In: Projekt Forlǫg: Reenactment a věda [online]. [quoted 2016-11-21]. Available at:

VLASATÝ, Tomáš (2016). The helmet from Gjermundbu. In: Projekt Forlǫg: Reenactment a věda [online]. [quoted 2016-11-21]. Available at:

VLASATÝ, Tomáš (2018a). Přilba z Kyjeva. In: Projekt Forlǫg: Reenactment a věda [online]. [quoted 2018-11-24]. Available at:

VLASATÝ, Tomáš (2018b). K původu „svatováclavské přilby“. In: Projekt Forlǫg: Reenactment a věda [online]. [quoted 2018-11-24]. Available at:

Další fragment přilby z Birky?

Po sepsání článku o možných fragmentech východní přilby z Birky (“Fragmenty přilby z Birky?“) mne můj ruský přítel Pavel Voronin upozornil na další podezřelý fragment, který byl nalezen v oblasti tzv. Posádky (Garrison/Garnison; Bj 596). Pavel mi také poskytl své vlastní fotky, které pořídil ve Státním historickém muzeu (SHM) ve Stockholmu. To bylo téměř vše, co jsem byl schopen vyzvědět – Pavel si není vědom žádné literatury, která by se fragmentem zabývala, není mu známo katalogové číslo ani rok objevu či přesná pozice nálezu. V internetovém katalogu Státního historického muzea se tento předmět nachází pod katalogovým číslem 449257 (Bj 596: 46) a byl přidán do databáze Ny Björnem Gustafssonem 14. 11. 2006.

Fotky a popis


S vědomím toho, že předměty nelze popisovat na základě fotek, se pustíme do povrchního popisu, který však nemusí odpovídat realitě. Předmět, který je označen za “okrajové kování”, je vyrobený z “pozlaceného bronzu”. Na zadní straně předmětu si můžeme povšimnout měděnky.

Kvůli pokroucení nelze přesně určit jeho rozměry; délka se pohybuje kolem 90 mm a šířka kolem 13 mm (zuby nepočítaje). Ze spodního okraje vybíhá 13 patrných kolmých zubů o délce cca 5 mm a šířce 3 mm. Výřezy mezi zuby si udržují pravidelné rozestupy 3 mm. U horního okraje levé poloviny fragmentu se nachází nýtový otvor o průměru 3–4 mm. Boční strany fragmentu svědčí o násilném odtržení.

Fragment má zjevně vlnkovaný profil. Pozlacení se zachovalo v drážkách a nabízí se otázka, zda byla pozlacena celá čelní strana či nikoli. Zlacení zasahuje až na zuby. Vrcholky vlnek nemusely být pozlacené, ale stejně tak mohly být sedřeny a zbaveny pozlacení. Zdobení dnes každopádně působí dojmem tří zlatých pruhů.

Fragment přilby?

Další fotografie fragmentu. Převzato z katalogu Státního historického muzea (SHM), Ny Björn Gustafsson SHMM

Jakmile jsem spatřil fotky předmětu, okamžitě mě napadlo, že může jít o fragment přilby, konkrétně závěsu barmice. Takový nález by v kontextu síně válečníků jistě dával smysl. Ostatně, již dříve jsem referoval o dalších fragmentech přilby, které se nalezly na témže místě. S těmito fragmenty má diskutovaný předmět několik podobností – v obou případech jde o pozlacené bronzové pásky a nápadné jsou podobně široké nýtové otvory, které jsou rozmístěné daleko od sebe. Všechny předměty vykazují poškození bočních stran a naznačují odtržení. Přesto pokládám za nepravděpodobné, že by diskutovaný fragment pocházel z téže přilby, jako dříve popsané fragmenty. Domnívám se tak na základě různých konstrukčních rysů – dřívější fragmenty (šířka 1,9 cm) představují lemující pás na spodním okraji přilby, zatímco zde diskutovaný fragment (šírka cca 1,3 cm) mohl sloužit jako závěs barmice, který byl nanýtovaný na spodní okraj přilby. V tom případě se oba typy pásů musely překrývat, což vzhledem k jejich nákladnosti není pravděpodobné. Dřívější nálezy navíc nemají známky po nýtech na spodním okraji. Jedinou možností, jak by oba pásy mohly být na stejné přilbě, je ta, že by byly nanýtovány na přilbu samostatně a nepřekrývaly se. Podobný systém lze najít na přilbě z ukrajinské Nemie, na které je ozdobný pásek nanýtovaný nad závěsem barmice, který je však reprezentován otvory do zvonu přilby. Kombinaci obou typů fragmentů pokládám za nepravděpodobnou a jako pravděpodobnější se mi jeví možnost, že fragmenty pocházejí z různých přileb.

Přilby doby vikinské
Člověk by si mohl pokládat otázku, stojí-li za to zabývat se tisíc let starým a pokrouceným fragmentem, který může pocházet z přilby. Je potřeba připomenout, že je známo velmi málo archeologicky doložených přileb, které byly vyrobeny nebo se nalezly ve vikinské Skandinávie. Vynecháme-li již zmíněné fragmenty z Birky, jde především fragmenty masek (Tjele, Lokrume, Kyjev, Svatováclavská přilba) a vyobrazení přileb. Jedinou kompletní ověřenou přilbu představuje přilba z Gjermundbu. Dále je známa rytina ze Sigtuny, která zpodobňuje mužskou hlavu s kónickou přilbicí. Zatím neověřeným nálezem zůstává přilba z anglické řeky Tees, která je nápadně podobná přilbě z Gjermundbu. Dále se na internetových aukcích objevují přilby, ale jejich pravost nelze ověřit. K podrobnějším datům doporučuji přečíst článek „Grafnir hjálmar“.

Komparativní materiál – závěs barmice
Z toho vyplývá, že ve Skandinávii známe metodu zavěšení barmice pouze u přilby z Gjermundbu, a proto je třeba zkoumat tuto problematiku ze širší perspektivy. Dochování a interpretace zařízení sloužící k uchycení barmice je obecně problematické. V mnoha případech se po obvodu spodního okraje nacházejí otvory bez pozůstatků barmice, a jelikož díry jsou poměrně daleko od sebe, vyvstává komplikace. Za takových okolností není ani jisté, že otvory sloužily k uchycení ochrany krku, protože stejně dobře mohly sloužit k přinýtování výplně přilby či řemínků. To je například problém přileb z polských nalezišť Lednice (Ostrów Lednicki) a Orchowa (Jeziora Orchowskie), již zmíněné Nemie, Olomouci nebo norského Gjermundbu. U těchto přileb nemůžeme s absolutní jistotou tvrdit, zda otvory:

  • nesloužily k přinýtování výplně přilby nebo řemínků.
  • nesloužily k uchycení kroužků, na kterých byla pověšena barmice.
  • nesloužily k uchycení koženého pásku na vnitřní straně přilby, na kterém byla pověšena barmice nebo jiná ochrana krku.
  • nesloužily k uchycení horizontálně nasměrovaných oček, kterými byl provlečen drát, na němž byla zavěšena barmice.

Spodní okraj přilby z Gjermundbu; detail metody uchycení ochrany krku. Převzato z portálu; autor fotky Leif Pedersen.

Při posuzování výše zmíněných přileb se nesmíme dopustit generalizace. Měli bychom brát každý nález samostatně a zohlednit vzdálenost otvorů od spodního okraje přilby a další faktory. U přilby z Gjermundbu se otvory nacházejí dost blízko spodnímu okraji a ve dvou z nich se stále nacházejí kroužky, a proto se domnívám, že za tyto kroužky mohla být pověšena barmice (viz také např. Vike 2000: 8), třebaže byly vysloveny názory, že otvory se nacházejí daleko od sebe (2 cm), a tak v nich byl uchycen spíše kožený závěs vyztužený kovovými pásky (Munksgaard 1984: 87).

Zde diskutovaný předmět však může představovat sofistikovanější metodu, kterou nacházíme na několika evropských přilbách. Tato metoda spočívá v nanýtování samostatného plného pásu, kterým je provlečen drát, na který je pověšena barmice. Kroužky z pásku vystupují skrze zářezy na jeho spodním okraji. Tato metoda je časově i finančně náročná, ale je velmi efektivní a zároveň vzhledná. Můžeme rozdělovat dva podtypy této metody:

  • Rekonstrukce závěsu barmice na přilbě z Coppergate. Převzato z Tweddle 1992: 1000, Fig. 462.

    podtyp A: základ závěsu barmice představuje přehnutý plech, do kterého se vysekají či vystříhají zářezy. Obě části plechu se přinýtují ke spodnímu okraji přilby (na její obvodový pás) a do zářezů se postupně vkládají kroužky držící barmici a skrz ně se protahuje drát. Tuto metodu lze nalézt na přilbě z Coppergate (široký 10,3 mm), přilbách ze Stromovky, přilbě z Gnězdova a Bojné, svatováclavské přilbě a také na některých přilbách z doby vendelské (Valsgärde 7, 8, Vendel 12 a dost možná také Vallentuny). Závěs přilby z Coppergate je vyrobený z mosazi (Tweddle 1992: 960–965, 999–1003, 1052–1053), zatímco závěsy vendelských přileb jsou bronzové (Arwidsson 1977: 23, Abb. 24; Arwidsson 1954: 24, Abb. 10),  závěs svatováclavské přilby byl stříbrný a špatně zachované závěsy přileb ze Stromovky, Bojné z Gnězdova 1 jsou železné (viz článek „Přilba z Bojné (?)“).

  • Rekonstrukce závěsu barmice na nedávno objevené přilbě. Převzato z Kirpičnikov 2009: 35, Obr. 10.

    podtyp B: základ závěsu barmice je plech, jehož zuby jsou ohnuté dozadu a tvoří tunel, kterým je prostrčen drát, stejně jako u podtypu A. Tato metoda se objevuje u řady východních přileb typu „Černá mohyla“ 10.-11 století. Závěsy jsou vždy železné a nejčastěji postříbřené. To se například týká nedávno objevené přilby, o které referuje A. N. Kirpičnikov (Kirpičnikov 2009: 6–8) a která je uložena v galerii “Ruská komnata”. Její železný, postříbřený a rytinami ozdobený závěs barmice je široký 1,8 cm (Kirpičnikov 2009: 8).


Ilustrační náčrt metody plného pásu: podtypy A a B. Autor obrázku: Jan Zbránek.

Detail nanýtovaných oček. Převzato z: Arwidsson 1942: 28, Abb. 20.

Na stejné metodě jako podtypy A a B fungují průvlaky, které se objevují u dalších přileb z vendelského období (Vendel 1 a Valsgärde 6). Skrze tyto bronzové průvlaky, které jsou nanýtovány na spodní okraj přilby, je provlečen drát se zavěšenou barmicí (Arwidsson 1942: 28–9, Abb. 20). Svým způsobem jde o jednodušší alternativu výše zmíněných metod, které využívají plnou ochranu zavěšovacího zařízení. Podobnou metodu ve formě jednoduchých oček nalezneme také u zadní strany lícnic přilby z Coppergate:


Převzato z Tweddle 1992: 999, Fig. 431.

Přilba z Kazazova, podtyp A.

Jestliže jsme výše zmínili horizontálně nasměrovaná očka, pak bychom se měli zmínit například o přilbách z Pécse, Kazazova nebo Gorzuch. Na těchto východních přilbách (a jak jsme naznačili výše, možná také u některých kónických přileb) se objevuje další jednodušší metoda závěsu přilby – jednoduchá očka z drátu (v ruské terminologii tzv. ouška), kterými je protažen drát se zavěšenou barmicí. Opět můžeme rozlišovat mezi dvěma podtypy:

  • podtyp A: očka se nacházejí na zvonu přilby (např. přilba z Pécse, Kazazova, detektorářský nález z Lvovské oblasti).
  • podtyp B: očka se nacházejí na pásku, který je nanýtován na okraj přilby (např. přilba z Gorzuch).

Metoda používající očka, která se na přilbách objevila někdy na přelomu 10. a 11. století, však má své nevýhody. Vytváří překážku na vnější straně přilby, která má být co nejhladší, a rána do této překážky může vést ke rozhození, zranění a zároveň poškození závěsného zařízení. Současně tato metoda nepůsobí tak vzhledně, jako dříve zmiňované plné závěsy nebo průvlaky.


Ilustrační náčrt metody horizontálních oček: podtypy A a B. Autor obrázku: Jan Zbránek.

Pokud jde o fragment z Birky, mohl náležet k plným závěsům. Vzhledem k nekompletnosti však není možné určit, zda patřil k podtypu A nebo B. Sergej Kainov ze Státního historického muzea v Moskvě, s nímž jsem tento fragment konzultoval, mi sdělil, že s přihlédnutím k použitému materiálu (bronz) se domnívá, že fragment spíše náležel k podtypu A, ale přináležitost k podtypu B nelze vyloučit. Spojitost síně s východním kulturním okruhem byla potvrzena (Hedenstierna-Jonson 2006: 17–21), a tak se nabízejí obě možnosti. Detailní zkoumání závěsných zoubků, které jsou nyní narovnané či dokonce otočené na druhou stranu, by mohlo přinést odpověď na otázku, zda byl z fragmentu odtržen zadní/vnitřní díl (podtyp A), nebo fragment zadní/vnitřní díl pásu postrádal a zoubky byly jednoduše ohnuté (podtyp B).

Výpovědní hodnota fragmentu

Přestože nález by se mohl zdát bezvýznamný, v případě, že náležel k přilbě, by mohl mít vysokou výpovědní hodnotu. Tu se pokusím vyjádřit následovně:

  • V případě, že fragment představuje závěs přilby, obohacuje skandinávský materiál týkající se přileb, který se skládá především z masek a metodu závěsu naznačuje pouze v jednom případě (Gjermundbu, nepočítáme-li nepotvrzenou přilbu z Tees).
  • Fragment může prokazovat, že skandinávské přilby používaly efektivní zařízení k zavěšení barmice. Při rekonstrukci vikinských přileb se často přistupuje k metodě, která spočívá v navrtání velkého množství děr po obvodu. Barmice se poté jednoduše navleče. Srovnáním závěsných zařízení se ukazuje, že tento způsob nebyl používán, zřejmě proto, že vyžadoval značné úsilí. Plný závěs v porovnání vyžaduje zlomek nýtování, zpevňuje okraj přilby a poskytuje možnost zdobení.
  • Fragment připomíná, že přilby doby vikinské byly zdobené drahými kovy, jak se ukazuje i u ostatních fragmentů a v písemných pramenech. Kontext nálezu (síň) naznačuje bojový charakter, možná původní zdobená přilba tedy nemusela být pouhou maskou, nýbrž byla určena k boji, což dost možná souvisí s podobou fragmentu.
  • Jestliže bylo v článku o předchozích fragmentech řečeno, že zhruba 300 kroužků mohlo náležet k barmici (Ehlton 2003: 17), pak mohly náležet k tomuto fragmentu, stejně jako k předchozím fragmentům.


V prvé řadě bych chtěl poděkovat Pavlu Voroninovi, který poskytl fotografie a umožnil tak vznik článku. Dále bych chtěl poděkovat Sergeji Kainovovi za četné konzultace nejen fragmentu z Birky, ale také komparativního materiálu. Dík patří také Romanu Královi a Richardu Grünfeldovi za konzultaci. Současně bych chtěl vyjádřit svůj vděk Janu Zbránkovi, který se ochotně pustil do ilustrací.

Pevně věřím, že jste si čtení tohoto článku užili. Pokud máte poznámku nebo dotaz, neváhejte mi napsat nebo se ozvat níže v komentářích. Pokud se Vám líbí obsah těchto stránek a chtěli byste podpořit jejich další fungování, podpořte, prosím, náš projekt na Patreonu nebo Paypalu.

Rekonstrukce přilby z Černé mohyly poblíž Černihovu na Ukrajině, 2. polovina 10. století. Převzato z Kirpičnikov 2009: 63, Obr. 46.


ARWIDSSON, Greta (1942). Valsgärde 6, Uppsala.

ARWIDSSON, Greta (1954). Valsgärde 8, Uppsala.

ARWIDSSON, Greta (1977). Valsgärde 7, Lund.

EHLTON, Fredrik (2003). Ringväv från Birkas garnison, Stockholm [vysokoškolská práce]. Dostupné z:

HEDENSTIERNA-JONSON, Charlotte (2006). The Birka Warrior – the material culture of a martial society, Stockholm [doktorská práce]. Dostupné z:

KALMRING, Sven (2014). A conical bronze boss and Hedeby´s Eastern connection. In: Fornvännen 109, Stockholm. Dostupné z:

Kirpičnikov 2009 = Кирпичников А. Н. (2009). Раннесредневековые золоченые шлемы, Sankt-Petěrburg. Dostupné z:

MUNKSGAARD, Elisabeth (1984). A Viking Age smith, his tools and his stock-in-trade. In: Offa 41, Neumünster: 85–89.

TWEDDLE, Dominic (1992) (ed.). The Anglian Helmet from 16-22 Coppergate, The Archaeology of York. The Small Finds AY 17/8, York.

VIKE, Vegard (2000). Ring weave : A metallographical analysis of ring mail material at the Oldsaksamlingen in Oslo, Oslo [vysokoškolská práce]. Dostupné z:

Přilby typu Stromovka/Gnězdovo, dostupné z:

Přilby v raném středověku, dostupné z:

Rekonstrukce kónické “normanské” přilby z jednoho kusu dle nálezu z Olomouce – 11.–12. st., dostupné z: