Introduction
As part of the preparation of the Catalog of European helmets of 9th-12th century, we had the opportunity to personally inspect the helmet that has been introduced in the literature as “helmet from Salerno” and that represents a little-known one-piece helmet from southern Europe. The three-hour examination, which took place on Monday, February 10, 2025, at the Luigi Marzoli Arms and Armor Museum (Museo delle Armi Luigi Marzoli) at the Brescia Castle, with the participation of museum staff and Visundr group, helped to edit and supplement some previously published information. In the following article, we present the most detailed publication of this find to date, which aims to bring the object to international awareness. The article is dedicated to the professional public, reenactors and practically all those interested in medieval military science. All work is created with the consent of the aforementioned museum.
Fig. 1: Helmet from “Salerno”.
Source: Archivio Fotografico Civici Musei di Brescia – Fotostudio Rapuzzi.
History of the object
The history of the helmet discussed below is shrouded in many question marks. We know for certain that it comes from the collection of businessman Luigi Marzoli (1883-1965), who bequeathed most of his collection to the city of Brescia, Lombardy, North Italy at the end of his life. Marzoli’s collection was created over a period of about forty years, especially in the interwar period, when a large number of weapons and armour from aristocratic and other collections were released onto the market. According to available information, the helmet was purchased during the 1930s-1940s, allegedly in an unspecified church in Salerno, Campania. The credibility of this story cannot be verified in any way, and museum workers express doubts, saying that the collector may have wanted to give the object credibility while at the same time concealing the true source. For this reason, the southern Italian provenance must be understood as highly questionable. The only points of support can therefore be the probable Italian origin and the acquisition in the 1930s-1940s, with some estimates setting the time of purchase at the 1930s. Given the relatively good state of preservation, the most likely place of storage could be a body of water or a well-preserved settlement layer.
After the establishment of the Luigi Marzoli Arms and Armor Museum in 1988, the helmet found its home in the Brescia Castle. However, because it was considered a forgery, it was not exhibited at all for several decades. The first brief public presentation took place in 2007. The helmet did not enter the permanent exhibition until 2018 and in 2022 it traveled abroad for the first time, specifically to the exhibition Die Normannen, organized at the Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen in Mannheim, Germany. The helmet’s inventory number is MR 14800, or item E 121 in the inventory of the expert Francesco Rossi, who mapped the Marzoli collection.
Map 1: Position of Salerno on the map of Europe.
As far as we know, the artifact has only been published six times to date. The first and for a long time isolated publication is Mann’s article from 1963, which presents a photograph of the helmet from the side (Mann 1963: 51). In 2009, a neglected article by Giordan and Marelli was published, which – perhaps also thanks to the reenactor background of one of the authors – provides a lot of accurate information and even offers a photograph that allows a partial view inside the dome (Giordan – Marelli 2009). In 2020, the helmet was included in a popular book by D’Amato and Salimbeti, which presents two black and white photographs of the helmet with an inaccurate description (D’Amato – Salimbeti 2020: 44). Another publication is a museological insight into the construction of the new 2018 exhibition by De Montis and Pellegrini (De Montis – Pellegrini 2021: 379, 404, Fig. 2). A brief mention of the helmet can also be found in the catalogue of the Norman exhibition in Germany and which contains partly inaccurate metric data (Coppola – Merlo 2022). The most recent publication is an article by Iula and Vlasatý, which summarizes the historical consequences of the helmet, but is based on mediated data, not personal observations (Iula – Vlasatý in press). Rossi’s works do not mention the helmet (Rossi 1988; Rossi – Di Carpegna 1969).
All available sources agree on a southern Italian or Norman origin and a dating to the 11th-12th century. No publication has yet provided photographic documentation of all four sides and the interior. There is disagreement in the literature regarding the height; while some estimate the height without the nasal at 19 cm and with the nasal at 22.5 cm (Coppola – Merlo 2022: 299), others give the height without the nasal at 24 cm and with the nasal at 33 cm (D’Amato – Salimbeti 2020: 44).
Fig. 2: Published photos of the helmet from “Salerno”.
Construction and metric data
We have a surprisingly well-preserved helmet with an integral nasal, which gives a compact impression and holds together even without the use of full-surface conservation interventions. The metal is darkened by age, perished, porous, broken in places, and there is a risk of certain parts breaking off during handling. None of the defects can be linked to a weapon strike. For this reason, contact with the artifact is limited to a minimum and examination is significantly difficult. Nevertheless, previously unpublished data have been collected that convincingly prove the originality of the helmet and may be valuable for the study of a wider group of analogical helmets.
The helmet is a one-piece product made of a single piece of sheet metal, as evidenced by the different thicknesses of the material, which reaches a maximum at the edge and a minimum at the top. It shows no signs of welding. The base of the helmet is formed by a conical dome, which, when viewed from the front and side, ends with a rounded top. There are no reinforcing spines and the surface was originally smooth, polished or painted. The height of the dome without the nasal is 19 cm. The top and edges are damaged, so the height is an approximate estimate. It is possible that the dome was originally slightly higher, but it certainly did not exceed a height of 20 cm. The last centimeter of the dome’s height was perhaps very thinned, which resulted in extensive damage in this part. The perforations on the top are therefore not intentional and are results of the production method.
The outer length of the dome is about 22-22.5 cm, width 19.8 cm. The cross-section of the dome is oval at the base, but slightly asymmetrical in the forehead area. The integral nasal is part of this asymmetry and for this reason its base also appears to be slightly tilted. However, the nasal itself is also not symmetrical and is bent in the opposite direction. It is not possible to determine with certainty whether this is an intentional intervention or a post-depositional process. If this were a deliberate modification, the bent nasal could be an attempt to compensate for the non-ideally shaped dome, or, theoretically, both modifications could lead to adaptation to a user with unusual anatomical dispositions. However, this is pure speculation.
Despite minor damage, the circumference can be roughly determined. The outer circumference is 66 cm, the inner circumference is about 64 cm. The helmet was very likely intended to be worn over a coif, so we can expect that the circumference of the wearer’s head was at most 58-59 cm. The weight of the helmet in its current state, with local defects and repairs, is 1.827 kg, while the literature states 1.845 kg (Giordan – Marelli 2009).
Fig. 3: View of all four sides of the helmet.
Fig. 4: Inner and outer sides of the helmet.
The edge of the dome only gives a partial picture of the original condition. The thickness of the edge reaches its maximum at the forehead and is equal to 0.222 cm, however it ranges 0.17-0.19 cm on most of the corroded edge. Around the entire circumference, at a distance of 1.2-1.5 cm from the very edge, there are 24 holes. In many places, the holes are torn to the level of the edge or two holes are connected. The centers of the holes have an even spacing of about 2.7 cm. The regularity is disturbed in two places – on the nape (spacing 2.2 cm) and on the forehead (spacing 2.8 cm). The holes were made with a sharp tool with a conical diamond head. The direction of punching in all preserved holes was from the outside inwards. The maximum outer dimension of the diamond holes is 0.6 cm. The holes were cleaned inside and adjusted so that they were circular or oval. This modification could have been done in various ways, for example by using a circular tool. The diameter of the cleaned holes reaches 0.42-0.43 cm. On the inside of the helmet there are light cleaned burrs, which are evident when running your fingers over them and which indicate the direction of punching and subsequent modification. The holes were intended to stretch one or more cords through that held an organic cap inside the dome bell, serving as an intermediate layer between the helmet and the coif.
Fig. 5: Detail of the holes from the outer (top) and inner (bottom) sides.
In the center of the visible side of the helmet there is an integral nasal, which takes on the shape of an hourglass and widens towards the end. The length of the nasal is approximately 8.6 cm. The maximum width of the nasal at the dome is up to 4.7 cm, the greatest width at the bottom is 4.1 cm. In the central part, the nasal is 3.3 cm wide at its narrowest point. The unusual width of the nasal base suggests that the wearer may have had an above-average pupillary distance (70+ mm). The nasal is the thickest part of the helmet, as it is 0.295 cm thick at the tip and approximately 0.26-0.286 cm in the center. The edges of the nasal at the tip were deliberately rounded. The nasal is set off from the edge of the helmet by relatively sharp lines that could indicate the use of a certain tool (chisel, saw) that was used to model the nasal from the initial rough forging. The nasal does not have any reinforcing elements or a hook. In the upper half, the nasal is broken approximately horizontally and was repaired during the 20th century by underlaying it with a tin or similar layer, which is not very stable or aesthetic. This substance leaked into the holes in the forehead area. The nasal is not bent outwards from the dome, but rather follows the dome for half of its length and is slightly bent towards the centre of the helmet at the bottom.
Fig. 6: Schematic drawing of the “Salerno” helmet. Author: Tom Betts.
Higher resolution here.
Appendix
Appendix 1: All photos of the helmet taken during the documentation can be found in the following link:
Comparative analysis
The helmet can be described without much difficulty as a typical one-piece conical helmet with an integral nasal, somewhat inaccurately described as the “Norman type” in the literature. 10 pieces of this type are currently known from Europe. This type of helmet began to be established as early as the 2nd half of the 10th century (see Bravermanová et al. 2019) and survived until the 13th century, although in the 12th century a number of new evolutionary forms were created (e.g. Alekseychik et al. 2023), meaning a significant decrease in the use of the established shape. When compared with high and late medieval armour pieces, these helmets may appear simple, but in the context of the 9th-12th century they are relatively demanding works and the one-piece construction is the pinnacle of the armour craft of that time. In this respect, the helmet from “Salerno” can be assessed as high-end warrior equipment of its time.
Fig. 7: Comparison of one-piece helmets with integral nasals.
1 – Hradsko; 2 – Meuse River; 3 – Hainburg an der Donau; 4 – Orchowo Lake; 5 – Lednica Lake; 6 – Olomouc; 7 – Augsburg; 8 – “Salerno”. Author: Diego Flores Cartes.
The closest parallel in shape and size in the corpus of analogical helmets comes from Hainburg an der Donau, Austria (Wilczek 1912-1914: 47, № 7). This helmet, which was discovered in the 19th century, had a similarly rounded dome 23.3 cm long, 19.7 cm wide and 20 cm high. Its current condition is unknown. It was sold from Kreuzenstein Castle, but Professor Erik Szameit saw it in Austria in 1976. Now only a failed copy is exhibited in the castle (Wolfram et al. 1981: 63-4). Around 2010, a rumor appeared that the helmet was part of the Royal Netherlands Army Museum (Koninklijk Nederlands Legermuseum), but the National Military Museum, which took over the collections, denied this information.
Other analogical helmets with integral nasals include those found in Hradsko and Olomouc, Czech Republic (Novotný 1964: 400-2, Obr. 9; Šnajdrová 2014: 32-3), Lednica and Orchowo Lakes, Poland (Rajewski 1973; Sankiewicz 2018), Augsburg and the Meuse River, Germany (Bakker 2000; 2002; Waurick – Böhme 1992: 100, 104). The St. Wenceslas helmet from Prague (Bravermanová et al. 2019) and the helmet from Nemyja, Ukraine (Dani – Angi 2024; Vlasatý 2023) also had integral nasals and holes at the edge, but they were modified. Apart from these helmets, other comparable pieces are known that lack a nasal – for example, helmets from Trnčina, Bosnia (Shchedrina – Kainov 2021), Hradsko, Czech Republic (Šnajdrová 2014: 32-3) and a continental helmet stored in Oxford (Ffoulkes 1912: 60; Vlasatý et al. 2024). Helmets with separated nasals are also known, originating from Pernik, Bulgaria (Rabovyanov – Dimitrov 2017: 37-8, Fig. 1; D’Amato – Spasić-Đurić 2018: 37, 48-54, Fig. 15), Torres Novas, Portugal (Barroca – Monteiro 2000: 247-8; Sousa 2020: 198) and Braničevo, Serbia (D’Amato – Spasić-Đurić 2018; Spasić-Đurić 2017). From this list, it is clear that the main focus of physical finds is mainly Central Europe. In the Italian environment, the helmet under discussion is a unique find.
Fig. 8: Analogical helmet from Haiburg. Source: Wilczek 1912-1914: 47.
A comparison of helmets suggests that helmets dating to the oldest horizon – say the second half of the 10th century and around the turn of the millennium – have low domes with a height of around 16-18 cm and may still have an aventail holder (Bravermanová et al. 2019; Shchedrina – Kainov 2021). Helmets with a dome height exceeding 18.5 cm and an absent aventail holder, where the discussed helmet fits well, can be dated to the period from the early 11th to the 12th century (e.g. Bakker 2000; Rajewski 1973; Sankiewicz 2018: 130). It can be assumed that the higher dome is related to the improvement of the production technique. However, a closer chronological classification is essentially impossible.
Differences in material thickness are typical for one-piece helmets. A common feature of virtually all analogies is that the nasal is the strongest part of the helmet, while the top is the weakest point. The nasals of all the aforementioned parallels have a thickness greater than 0.2 cm, often exceeding 0.4 cm and sometimes reaching 0.7 cm. The edges of the helmets are usually in the range of 0.2-0.4 cm. The difference in material thickness results from the technological process, in which a thick starting material is used to form the dome: the thick zones are therefore located at the edges and are closest to the thickness of the starting material, while the center is the most shaped and thinnest. Opinions on the exact manufacturing process differ. Elite armoursmith Jiří Klepač, who was consulted on the production, used to believed that the dome was created by pulling off a wide-diameter plate that was hammered out of a thick circle (see Klepač 2008). He currently holds the opinion that this process is pointless when using a wrought iron, because it is necessary to forge the plate to an almost final thickness and then shape it without contact with the anvil – a process the wrought iron does not tolerate. According to the armoursmith, it is much more economical and more suitable for wrought iron to hollow directly from a smaller thick circle using an anvil, which gives the helmet 70-80% of its depth and shape. In any case, the helmet from “Salerno” shows logical handling of the material and is comparable to analogies.
Fig. 9: Process of making a helmet by pulling, unlikely for the “Salerno” helmet.
Source: Tomič 2012.
It is common for the nasals of analogical helmets to be shaped according to the anatomical proportions of the wearer. Therefore each nasal is somewhat different, and the hourglass shape is a natural result of this need. The nasal in question is unusually wide at the base (a common value is 2.9-4 cm), the middle and lower parts of the nasal are comparable to parallels. The nasal of the helmet is the longest in the entire corpus of one-piece helmets with an integral nasal. Since nasals usually copy the length of the nose, it is not common for them to exceed 8 cm in length. It can be considered certain that the nasal reached the level of the mouth, which is a feature that is also known from southern European iconography of the 12th century (e.g. Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 120.II). However, given the schematic depiction of helmets in the 11th century, this similarity cannot be taken as conclusive evidence for dating to the 12th century. On the other hand, it is true that nasals begin to lengthen in other European physical finds around the 12th-13th century (see Kirpičnikov 1971: № 7, Табл. XV.1; Sousa 2020: 198).
Fig. 10: Long nasals from the 12th century.
Source: Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 120.II, fol. 131r.
The number of holes on the edge is at the upper limit known in the corpus of analogical helmets (8-25 holes). The only comparable helmets with a similar number are the Augsburg helmet and the Nemiya helmet. What slightly deviates is the distance of the holes from the very edge, as the holes of analogical helmets usually keep a distance of a few millimeters from the edge. The spacing of the holes can be assessed as average. The disturbance of the spacing of the holes on the forehead and nape is also known from other helmets and the author believes that this feature is most likely related to the way the cord or cords that fixed the padding to the dome were terminated.
Fig. 11: Depiction of a conical helmet on an aquamanile from northern Germany.
Source: Heeg 2011: 273; Hejdová 1964: Tab. XV.
Conclusion
This work presents a comprehensive analysis of a one-piece helmet, which is kept in the Luigi Marzoli Arms and Armor Museum in Brescia, and is said to have originated in Salerno, southern Italy. Although its provenance is debatable, there is no reason to doubt that it is an extraordinary specimen, which has no analogies in southern Europe. Detailed examination and comparisons have allowed us to identify the key characteristics of this unique artifact and to place it in the context of 10th-12th century European helmets. Our findings confirmed that the “Salerno” helmet shares many common features with other one-piece helmets, but also exhibits several unique features, such as the unusual wide base of the nasal and its overall length, which distinguish it from other finds. These differences may reflect the adaptation of the helmet to the individual requirements of the wearer, who probably had a head circumference of 58-59 cm and eyes set relatively far apart. The assumption that it is a forgery has not been confirmed, as the helmet has been proven to have existed no later than the 1960s, maintains typical morphology, shows common defects, does not bear traces of welding and indicates the use of manual, non-electric tools.
The paper is a first step towards a deeper understanding of the helmet. Apart from X-ray imaging, future research could focus on archaeometallurgical analysis, as the iron core is relatively well preserved and could provide interesting evidence of the material composition, potentially also the source of the ore. This renewed interest could include a restoration intervention to stabilize the nasal, which is in danger of breaking off.
Supplement
During the visit to the Luigi Marzoli Arms and Armor Museum, some other collection items were examined that had not yet been properly published. These are primarily items that are displayed in the same showcase as the aforementioned helmet. The following texts do not claim to be complete and should be understood as a preliminary introduction to international awareness.
Sword
A well-preserved sword with smoothly tapered, corroded edges. The sword reaches a total length of 90 cm. The blade most closely resembles Oakeshott’s type XIIIb (Oakeshott 1998). The blade width at the guard is 5.4 cm. A narrow, approximately 1.2 cm wide fuller runs through the middle of the blade, which disappears approximately halfway down the blade and extends halfway up the handle. The blade bears no marks that would be visible to the naked eye. The now loose guard is 15.5 cm long, slightly curved and slightly shaped, tapering towards the ends. The guard corresponds to Oakeshott’s style 7. The opening in the guard on the side of the blade is significantly larger than the width of the blade. The hilt is co-formed by an oval coin-shaped pommel measuring 4.8 × 4.1 cm and with a maximum thickness of 2.35 cm. When viewed from the side, the pommel tapers slightly towards to top. The widest part of the tang at the guard is 3.12 cm wide, the thinnest part at the pommel 1.43 cm. The thickest part of the blade (0.55 cm) is located at the tang, approximately 4.4-5 cm from the stepped offset of the tang. The organic handle was undoubtedly inserted into the pommel, as evidenced by the enlarged hole in the pommel. The point of balance is currently located 15 cm in front of the guard. The weight of the sword at the time of measurement is 0.879 kg. The sword is located in a different showcase and bears the inventory number G 2. The sword was once published in pictures (Giordan – Marelli 2009).
The museum dates the sword to the 12th-13th century, the literature to the 13th century. Based on European comparisons, the combination of a short fuller, a round pommel and a slightly curved guard could be dated to the long 13th century (late 12th – early 14th century; more recently Hošek et al. 2019; Tomsons 2018). Similar Italian swords with straight guard have been tentatively dated to the late 12th century (see Chodyński 2014), when they also appear in iconography (see Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. 120.II).
Fig. 12: Sword, inv. no. G 2.
Source: Giordan – Marelli 2009; Archivio Fotografico Civici Musei di Brescia – Fotostudio Rapuzzi.
All photos of the sword taken during the documentation can be found in the following link:
Spear
A well-preserved winged spear with a total length of 43.5 cm, which is set on a modern, about 1.5 meter long shaft. The blade width is 4.02 cm. The blade has a lenticular cross-section, with a raised spine running through the center. The socket, which is damaged and broken off, has an outer diameter of 3.15 cm, with unusual burrs at the mouth. The socket is decorated with a plastic decoration consisting of deep lines and a notches. The decoration is also found on the sides and is directed towards the edges. The socket includes a pair of wings, which are perfectly opposite and have a span of 6.72 cm. The wings are decorated with similar deep grooves, together with the reinforcement of the ends of the wings. The wings are axially aligned with the lines of the edges and there is no noticeable deviation. The tip is slightly bent relative to the socket and is not perfectly centered. One or two nails with an irregular square head measuring approximately 0.66 × 0.5 cm were used to secure the shaft. The weight is impossible to determine due to the presence of the shaft. The spear has only been published once in the form of a photograph (De Montis – Pellegrini 2021: Fig. 2).
The provenance of the spear is unknown. Curator Marco Merlo found the spear in the museum warehouse after his appointment, without it being provided with any inventory number or information. It is certain that the spear did not belong to the Marzoli collection or the collections of the Brescia museums. The curator believes that it may be a forgery; the museum description gives 13th-14th century as the dating. When it comes to size, shape and proportions, the spear meets all the attributes of a Carolingian spear from the 2nd half of the 8th and 9th century. The wings correspond to the combination type 1A.2A.3B.4B.5C.6A according to Vlasatý (Vlasatý 2019). The decoration is made in high quality and with knowledge of details that are not usually part of publications. A possible forger would therefore have to fake based on personal knowledge. The author believes that this may be a valuable specimen of genuine Carolingian armament, which has the closest comparative parallels in Austria (Szameit 1987: Abb. 2-3), Slovenia (Svoljšak et al. 1997: Tab. 16, 18) and Switzerland (Boissonnas 1914: Cat. No. 75; Wegeli 1939: Taf. XVII). Some elements may have arisen secondarily.
Fig. 13: Spear.
All photos of the spear taken during the documentation can be found in the following link:
Axe
A well-preserved bearded axe with a very wide, asymmetrical blade. The maximum length is 12.78 cm, the width of the blade is 14.44 cm and the length of the rounded blade is 15 cm. From the top view, the axe is wedge-shaped. The neck at its narrowest point is 2.37 cm high and at the same point it is 2.92 cm thick. The shaft hole is oval in shape, slightly tapering towards the blade; its dimensions are 3.15 × 2.7 cm. The shaft hole is accompanied by short double-sided thorns, which become slightly thinner towards the ends. The attachment to the axe was improved by a massive and heavily damaged cap-shaped butt that was 3.27 cm wide. The butt became thinner towards the ends and was bent to the axehead. The shaft hole is broken on one side. The axe head is seated on a modern shaft, from which it cannot be removed. The weight of the head together with the shaft is 1.044 kg. The inventory number of the piece cannot be traced, because all the larger axes in the museum are provided with illegible labels from the 1950s and the inventory book does not contain photographs or more detailed descriptions. So far, it has only been published in print once in the form of a photograph (De Montis – Pellegrini 2021: Fig. 2).
The research of Italian axes is complicated by their absence in the funerary rite after the 8th century, the low number of settlement finds and the generally low representation of axes in iconography. Despite certain similarities, the axe cannot be evaluated within Petersen’s or Kotowicz’s typologies (Petersen 1919; Kotowicz 2018). The closest parallels are found in Lombard bearded axes of the 6th-7th century, which are similar in size and shape, have short double-sided thorns and massive shaped butts (Biondi 2021: 74-5; Catalogo 2025; Parenti 1994a: 117; 1994b: 483). This dating contrasts markedly with the museum description, which places the axe in the 13th-14th century.
Fig. 14: Bearded axe.
All photos of the axe taken during the documentation can be found in the following link:
Mail products
The showcase containing the helmet, spear and axe also exhibits mail products, which is represented by three different pieces. The first product is a mail shirt, the second is a belt under the helmet and the third is a triangle placed on the back of the mannequin under the mail shirt. The second and third mail pieces were not examined in detail; the third product is very difficult to access. Weighing the products was not possible. All of them have been published only once, in the form of a photograph (De Montis – Pellegrini 2021: Fig. 2).
The first product with inventory number C 50 is a short shirt. The length of the armour is about 87 cm, the width when stretched is more than 60 cm (roughly 62). The armour is displayed inside out. The sleeves are about 24 cm long when stretched and have a circumference of about 50 cm, they do not show significant tapering. The armour has a large neckline without a collar, which continues on the front into a slit about 23 cm long. The front and back are equipped with central slits, which are 26.5 cm long on the front and 24 cm on the back. When hung, no inserted wedges or the signed rings are visible on the armour. The mail is fully riveted. Some rings are oval, which can theoretically be attributed to damage caused by carrying the armour’s own weight. The outer diameter over the rivet is 1.04 × 0.99 cm in its current state, the wire is mostly 0.11-0.12 cm thick, but in places it ranges from 0.09-0.18 cm. The heads are visible only when viewed from the front, while the back sides are smoothed. The museum dates the armour to the 13th-14th century. The long slit at the neck is a feature of 13th-16th century (see Burgess 1958; Kirpičnikov 1971; Wood et al. 2013), however, the fully riveted mail is more typical of the period after the 14th century. Ultimately, it is likely that the armour is more of a 15th-16th century product. Geographically and structurally, the closest armour we have been able to find is an Italian mail from the collection of The Walters Art Museum, inv. no. 51.575 (The Walters Art Museum 2025).
The second product (inv. no. C 1) is a strip of vertically oriented mail, which is hung horizontally. According to museum workers, it is a remnant of a late medieval skirt. The mail is completely riveted with wedges that are sharp, wide and are visible on the reverse side. The third mail (unknown inv. no.) is a combination of solid and riveted rings. The mail is not balanced and the riveted rings are significantly smaller. The riveted rings have rivets with a prominent head on both sides. Due to the triangular shape, it is the edge part of a triangularly ended product, for example a mantle or collar.
Fig. 15: Mail armour, inv. no. C 50.
All photos of mails taken during the documentation can be found in the following link:
Acknowledgment
The examination and publication of the helmet would not have been possible without the willing cooperation of the Luigi Marzoli Arms and Armor Museum in Brescia, namely the curator Mr. Marco Merlo, to whom we are extremely indebted. Photographic, logistical and translation support during the visit to Brescia was selflessly provided by the reenactor group Visundr – namely Luca Cighetti, Marco Loprieno and Daniele Todisco, who deserve our grateful thanks. Lívia Čellárová (Masaryk University Brno), Raffaele Iula (University of Naples Federico II), Jiří Klepač (armour.cz), Roman Král (King’s Craft), Erik Szameit (University of Vienna) contributed their valuable knowledge and assistance. We must mention Tom Betts, Diego Flores Cartes and Marco Loprieno for their exemplary cooperation in the field of creating illustrations, giving the article its distinctive appearance. In the last, honorable place, we would like to thank the sponsors who helped to realize the Italian expedition with their financial donations.
We hope you liked reading this article. If you have any question or remark, please contact us or leave a comment below. If you want to learn more and support our work, please, fund our project on Patreon, Buymeacoffee, Revolut or Paypal.
Bibliography
Alekseychik, P. K. et al. (2023). The developed helmets of the Christian Kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula of 1150–1230 AD: indications of unique regional styles. In: Gladius 43, 97-123.
Bakker, Lothar (2000). Ein eiserner Nasalhelm aus Augsburg. In: Das archäologische Jahr in Bayern 1999, 103-104.
Bakker, Lothar (2002). Nasalhelm. In: Kirmeier, Josef et al. (eds.). Kaiser Heinrich II. 1002–1024, Augsburg, 244.
Barroca, M. J. – Monteiro, J. G. (2000). Pera Guerrear. Armamento medieval no espaço português, Palmela.
Biondi, Andrea (2021). Lombard weapons from Fiesole, Tuscany (6th – 7th century C.E.): old archaeological data for new considerations. In: Studia Universitatis Hereditati 9/1, 67–86.
Boissonnas, Jean (1914). Collection Charles Boissonnas. Armes anciennes de la Suisse, Paris.
Bravermanová, Milena et al. (2019). Nová zjištění o přilbě a zbroji zv. svatováclavské. In: Archeologie ve středních Čechách 23, 235–310.
Burgess, E. M. (1958). A Mail Shirt from the Hearst Collection. In: The Antiquaries Journal 38/3-4, 197–204.
Catalogo 2025 = ascia, Ascia barbuta da lancio – longobardo (Alto Medioevo). In: Catalogo Generale dei Beni Culturali [online]. [2025-02-23]. Available from here.
Coppola, Giovanni – Merlo, Marco (2022). Nasalhelm, sog. ‘Normannen-helm’. In: Skiba, Viola et al. (eds.). Die Normannen, Regensburg, 181-183.
D’Amato, Raffaele – Salimbeti, Andrea (2020). The Normans in Italy 1016–1194, Oxford.
D’Amato, Raffaele – Spasić-Đurić, D. L. (2018). The Phrygian helmet in Byzantium: archaeology and iconography in the light of recent finds from Braničevo. In: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia XIV, 29-67.
Dani, János – Angi, János (2024). Különleges sisakok a Déri Múzeum gyűjteményében, Debrecen.
De Montis, Paolo – Pellegrini, Beatrice (2021). Tradizioni romantiche e nuovi orientamenti museologici. L’esposizione medievale del Museo “Luigi Marzoli”. In: Nuova Antologia Militare V, N.2, 355-418.
Ffoulkes, Charles (1912). European Arms and Armour in the University of Oxford: Principally in the Ashmolean and Pitt-Rivers Museums, Oxford.
Giordan, Bruno – Marelli, Alessandro (2009). L’elmo di Brescia. In: Marelli, Alessandro (ed.). A.D. 1238 Federico II e l’Assedio di Brescia, Brescia.
Heeg, Laura (2011). Die Salier: Macht im Wandel. Begleitband zur Ausstellung im Historischen Museum der Pfalz Speyer, München.
Hejdová, Dagmar (1964). Přilba zvaná „svatováclavská“. In: Sborník Národního muzea v Praze, A 18, no. 1–2, 1–106.
Hošek, Jiří et al. (2019). Ninth to mid-sixteenth century swords from the Czech Republic in their European context. Part I, Praha – Brno.
Chodyński, A. R. (2014). The 12th century sword of San Galgano in the Hermitage of Montesiepi in Tuscany. A Transmission of the Arthurian Legend?. In: Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae 27, 21-30.
Iula, Raffaele – Vlasatý, Tomáš (in press). «Et galeam sumpsisti». Un casco normanno proveniente da Salerno. In: Rassegna del Centro di Cultura e Storia Amalfitana XLV, 353-388.
Kirpičnikov 1971 = Кирпичников, А. Н. (1971). Древнерусское оружие: Вып. 3. Доспех, комплекс боевых средств IX—XIII вв., АН СССР, Москва.
Klepač, Jiří (2008). Přilba svatého Václava po řemeslné stránce. Expert assessment, unpublished.
Kotowicz, P. N. (2018). Early Medieval Axes from Territory of Poland, Kraków.
Mann, J. G. (1963). Luigi Marzoli. In: Cooper, Douglas – Clark, Kenneth (eds.). Le grandi collezioni private, Milano, 50-59.
Novotný, Boris (1964). K otázce osídlení Olomouckého kopce a Kláštera – Hradiska ve střední a pozdní době hradištní. In: Památky archeologické 55/2, 392-414.
Oakeshott, Ewart (1998). The Sword in the Age of Chivalry, Woodbridge.
Parenti, Roberto (1994a). Attrezzi agricoli, utensili, armi, strumentario domestico e frammenti metallici. In: Gelichi, Sauro – Giordani, Nicoletta (eds.). Il tesoro nel pozzo. Pozzi deposito e tesaurizzazioni nell’antica Emilia, Modena, 112-118.
Parenti, Roberto (1994b). Le tecniche costruttive fra VI e IX secolo: le evidenze materiali. In: Francovich, Riccardo – Noyé, Ghislaine (eds.). La Storia dell’Alto Medioevo italiano (VI-IX secolo) alla luce dell’archeologia, Atti del Convegno internazionale (Siena 2-6 dicembre 1992), Firenze, 479-496.
Petersen, Jan (1919). De Norske Vikingesverd: En Typologisk-Kronologisk Studie Over Vikingetidens Vaaben. Kristiania.
Rabovyanov, Deyan – Dimitrov, Stanimir (2017). Western European armour from medieval Bulgaria (12th – 15th centuries). In: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia XIII, 37-53.
Rajewski, Zdzisław (1973). O niektórych hełmach wczesnośredniowiecznych. In: Wiadomości archeologiczne XXXVIII, 349-360.
Rossi, Francesco (1988). Guida del Museo delle Armi “Luigi Marzoli”, Brescia.
Rossi, Francesco – Di Carpegna, Nolfo (1969). Armi Antiche dal Museo Civico L. Marzoli, Milano.
Sankiewicz, Paweł (2018). Hełm stożkowy z jeziora Lednica. In: Sankiewicz, P. – Wyrwa, A. M. (eds). Broń drzewcowa i uzbrojenie ochronne z Ostrowa Lednickiego, Giecza i Grzybowa, Lednica, 123-131.
Shchedrina, A. Y. – Kainov, S. Y. (2021). Helmet from the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia XVI, Kraków – Sanok – Wrocław, 225-245.
Sousa, Ana (2020). Guerreiros & Mártires. A Cristandade e o Islão na formação de Portugal, Lisboa.
Spasić-Đurić 2017 = Спасић-Ђурић, Д. Љ. (2017). Шлемови из Браничева: прилог проучавању византијске војне опреме // Зборник Народног Музеја Београд. Археологија XXIII/1, 345–367.
Svoljšak, Drago et al. (1997). Novo gradivo v Arheološkem oddelku Narodnega muzeja v Ljubljani (pridobljeno v letih od 1987. do 1993. In: Varstvo spomenikov 36, 224-297.
Szameit, Erik (1987). Waffenfunde aus Österreich Teil II: Die Saxe und Lanzenspitzen. In: Archaeologia Austriaca 71, 155-171.
Šnajdrová, Evženie (2014). Arma ofensiva et defensiva. Historické zbraně a zbroj ze sbírky Národního muzea, Praha.
The Walters Art Museum (2025). Mail. In: The Walters Art Museum [online]. [2025-02-27]. Available from: https://art.thewalters.org/object/51.575/.
Tomič, Ladislav (2012). Rekonstrukce kónické „normanské“ přilby z jednoho kusu oceli. In: Curia Vitkov [online]. [2025-02-23]. Available from here.
Tomsons, Artūrs (2018). Zobeni Latvijas teritorijā no 7. līdz 16. gadsimtam, Rīga.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2019). Typology of Spearhead Wings. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-02-23]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/combination-typology-of-spearhead-wings/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2023). The helmet from Nemiya, Ukraine. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-02-23]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-helmet-from-nemiya-ukraine/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš et al. (2024). Patching of early medieval helmets. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-02-23]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/patching-of-early-medieval-helmets/.
Waurick, Götz – Böhme, H. W. (1992). Das Reich der Salier, 1024-1125. Katalog zur Ausstellung des Landes Rheinland-Pfalz, Sigmaringen.
Wegeli, Rudolf (1939). Inventar der Waffensammlung des Bernischen Historischen Museums in Bern Lanze. III: Stangenwaffen, Bern.
Wilczek, G. H. (1912-1914). Mittelalterliche Helme aus dem Besitze Sr. Exz. des Grafen Hans Wilczek Sammlung Schlote Kreuzenstein. In: Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde 6, 2, 41–47.
Wolfram, Herwig et al. (1981). Die Kuenringer. Das Werden des Landes Niederösterreich, Wien.
Wood, Edwin et al. (2013). A note on the construction and metallurgy of mail armour exhibited in The Wallace Collection. In: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia IX, 203-229.
