In the second half of 2025, news circulated across various online platforms regarding the discovery of a helmet within the Rustavi fortress in Georgia. Different sources tentatively date the find to the 9th-10th or 10th-11th centuries. The artifact merits attention because comparable pieces from this epoch are currently lacking in the South Caucasus region. Following the release of initial visual documentation, we decided to publish this preliminary report, which introduces the find to the English speaking audience and aims to assist the authors of the forthcoming official publication, who may lack specialized expertise in early medieval helmet typologies. The following text, intended for military historians, reenactors, and researchers, also serves as an extension of the Catalog of European helmets of 9th-12th century.
Map 1: Location of Rustavi on the map of South Caucasus.
Discovery
In July 2025, the Rustavi City Council initiated archaeological fieldwork at the Rustavi fortress, situated approximately 25 km southeast of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. The excavations, involving over one hundred archaeologists, students, and public volunteers, aimed to examine in detail the palace complex, generally dated to the 9th-12th centuries. During this period, the Rustavi fortress played a pivotal role within the Principality of Kakheti, a political entity in present-day eastern Georgia that achieved independence from Arab rule between the 8th and 9th centuries and was subsequently incorporated into the Kingdom of Georgia in the early 11th century (see Havlík 1980).
Fig. 1: Ground plan of the Rustavi fortress.
1 – Walls; 2 – Baths; 3 – Palace Complex.
Source: Demetrašvili 2014: Tab. IV, edited.
Video 1: Report on the excavations of the Rustavi fortress palace.
Source: inforustavi.ge.
In Room No. 6, which, according to media reports, yielded evidence of fire and combat, glazed pottery vessels typologically dating to the 9th-10th centuries were discovered (see Bakhtadze 2013: 37, 40; Izoria 2024). Furthermore, this room contained extraordinary finds of militaria. On August 27, the expedition announced the discovery of a helmet. On October 21, the discovery of a mail armour was reported, which appears to be complete and fitted with brass edging. On October 29, information was released regarding the discovery of a second helmet and mail fragments. Shortly thereafter, on November 11, archaeologists shared footage of a third helmet. All helmets appear to be spheroconic with distinct socket, and at least the first and third helmets share similar aventail suspension. Given this concentration of militaria – which also included arrowheads – it is not implausible that Room No. 6 may have functioned as an armory. The subsequent text will focus on describing the first helmet, which was restored and presented by local media toward the end of October.
Fig. 2: Images of the first helmet in situ.
Source: Rustavi Archaeological Expedition.
Observations
A physical inspection of the helmet is currently not feasible; thus, the following description is not based on autopsy but rather an evaluation of visual materials shared via media outlets in October 2025. Consequently, some presented interpretations may not reflect the physical reality and are instead educated estimates based on long-term study of Early Medieval helmets. Should any of these data prove inaccurate, the text will be corrected in future revisions.
The available visual documents suggest that the helmet is in a relatively preserved yet flattened state. The rear and one lateral segment are clearly visible and substantially complete. The frontal segment, according to released footage, is also in good condition but is bent inwards, and the appearance of its lower edge remains unknown. The remaining lateral segment is heavily damaged. The segments are held together by the original rivets.
Fig. 3: View of all four segments of the Rustavi helmet.
Source: inforustavi.ge; Rustavi Archaeological Expedition
The original helmet, which undoubtedly had an oval base profile, was formed by four triangular segments, with the frontal and rear segments overlapping the lateral ones. The plates are neither covered with gilded sheet metal nor are the lateral segments adorned with rosettes. There appears to be no copper alloy interlining between the individual segments. The lateral edges of the frontal and rear segments are fitted with four decorative lobes, while the edges of the lateral segments remain undecorated. The lobes are not accompanied by small semicircular cutouts. The lowest set of lobes is positioned relatively high above the rim, and the remaining sets have relatively uniform spacing. Domed rivet heads (at least 0.4-0.5 cm in diameter) are visible within the lobe projections. The dome reached a medium height, estimated at 18-20 cm, excluding the socket.
The socket is relatively low, massive, and broad. As far as can be determined from the footage, the socket appears to have a quadrilobed or star-shaped base, from which a tubular part adorned with raised ribs emerges. Massive rivets are visible on the base of the socket, apparently situated at the corners of the base such that each rivet secures one segment. The socket appears to be hollow and capable of supporting an organic plume.
Fig. 4: Socket of the helmet from Rustavi.
Source: inforustavi.ge; Rustavi Archaeological Expedition.
A prominent feature of the helmet is the relatively high peripheral band, which reinforced the helmet’s structure and simultaneously served to attach the aventail (the mail protecting the neck). The upper edge of the band is straight and does not appear to be lined by contrastive copper alloy bands, while the lower edge features an aventail holder. Massive rivets are located roughly at the mid-point of the band’s height, spaced so that they lie in close proximity to the segment overlaps; it is possible that some of the rivets securing the band also served to penetrate the segments. The band is affixed at the center of the lateral segment by a pair of rivets, which seems redundant for simple fixation. Theoretically, this might be a method of securing the helmet’s padding or chinstraps.
The aventail holder with regular slots is very likely single-sided and consists of teeth bent inwards to form a P-shaped profile (Type 3.2; Vlasatý 2020a). The teeth still hold a visible wire onto which the aventail was suspended. The rings are inserted into the prepared slots in pairs. The use of a larger number of rings is related to the fact that the rings were small and the aventail was probably very dense and provided solid protection. While some helmet slots were designed to hold up to three rings (Šnajdrová 2014: 32), other helmet slots were constructed for a single ring (Kirpičnikov 2009: Fig. 7, 46; Tweddle 1992: Fig. 462). The overall method of attachment is preserved in unusually good quality and constitutes a valuable component of this helmet. A considerable quantity of mail has been preserved from the original aventail. The aventail is constructed from very minute rings, estimated to have an internal diameter of 0.4–0.5 cm. It can be expected that the mail was manufactured using the usual combination of riveted and punched rings; the rivets of these rings are still visible in the footage. A green patina is discernible on the fragments, which may indicate the use of copper alloy edging (Vlasatý 2020b). The surviving fragments suggest that the height of the aventail exceeded 10 cm when unfolded, though it is unlikely to have been greater than 22 cm.
Fig. 5: Aventail holder of the helmet from Rustavi.
Source: inforustavi.ge; Rustavi Archaeological Expedition
Fig. 6: Mail aventail of the helmet from Rustavi.
Source: inforustavi.ge; Rustavi Archaeological Expedition
The media presentation of the helmet was accompanied by a report that the helmet featured a detachable face protection. Since the edge of the frontal segment is not visible in the available materials, a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn. At the very least, we can state that no prominent protection is discernible. Based on typological analogies, such a claim appears questionable, and it is possible that the reported protective element actually refers to another damaged part of the helmet. Although we know of sliding nasal guards from the 12th-14th centuries (D’Amato – Spasić-Đurić 2018; Spasić-Đurić 2017; Rabovyanov – Dimitrov 2017: 37-8), the original textual description suggests a sheet metal nature, which does not perfectly align with a nasal guard. Clip-on face masks, hypothesized in the Byzantine sphere (D’Amato 2015), would better fit the textual description. To establish unambiguous conclusions, further developments must be awaited. If such protection were absent, the aventail holder would be expected to extend onto the frontal segment, possibly reaching the temples or eyes, thereby allowing the mail curtain to protect the face. It is nonetheless true that all known Early Medieval helmets featuring such an aventail holder are combined with some form of facial protection, whether a simpler reinforcement copying the browline, or more complex elements like tridents and nasal guards.
Fig. 7: Conceptual reconstruction of the helmet, rear view.
Credit: Diego Flores Cartes.
Full resolution available here.
Comparison
The newly discovered helmet can very likely be classified as Kirpičnikov Type II (Kirpičnikov 1958; 1971; 2008; 2009), Black Mound Type as defined by Papakin (2017; 2019; et al. 2017), or Kainov’s Subgroup 4 (Kainov 2022). Given that we have evidence for dozens of comparable examples from Central Europe, the North Caucasus, and Eastern Europe spanning the 9th-11th centuries, we are able to define the distinct, chronologically sequential variants. To accurately place the Rustavi helmet, a brief summary of this evolutionary sequence is necessary.
For much of the 8th century, spheroconic helmets were typically manufactured in the traditional manner from eight segments, combined with a separate T-shaped nasal guard. Earlier examples tend to feature segments with straight edges and narrowed terminals at the socket. Notable examples include the helmet from Kazazovo (Pjankov et al. 2023), dated by various scholars to the first or second half of the 8th century (Kainov – Ščedrina 2021: 157; Komar – Suchobokov 2000), as well as the Lagerevo helmet (Vlasatý 2021) from the second half of the same century, and pieces from Kamenets-Podolskiy and the Astrakhan Oblast, which Kainov suggests may be of similar date (Kainov 2022: 55). In the second half of the 8th century, this group underwent a significant transformation: four segments replaced the standard eight, and their lower edges were shaped into large pronounced arcs. The segments are joined by five rivets, sometimes featuring conical heads or covered with copper alloy sheeting (Kainov 2017). The aventail was suspended via wire fastened in omega-shaped loops (Type 2.2; see Vlasatý 2020a). The nasal guard evolved into a Y-shape, the arms of which ended in volutes, and a reinforcing ridge ran along its center. The socket is massive, terminates in a square-profile finial, and has an oval base. Examples include the helmet from Stolbishche, dated between 745–775 (Kainov et al. 2020: 209; Komar 1999: 129, 132), and the Bezhta helmet, which Adam Kubik places in the second to fourth quarter of the 8th century (Kubik 2023). A nearly identical piece to the Stolbishche find was also discovered in Ukraine (Kainov 2017: Fig. 4). However, the eight-piece construction did not entirely vanish, as evidenced by a helmet from the Krasnodar Krai, which is otherwise analogical to the Stolbišče type (Kainov 2017). The continuation of the large arc design into the early 9th century is debatable; Kainov, who previously suggested this (Kainov 2017: 271), now advocates exclusively for dating this stage to the second half of the 8th century (Kainov 2022: 75). This evolutionary step is known in the literature as the “Stolbishche Type” (Papakin et al. 2017) or “Oskol Type” (Kainov 2022).
Fig. 8: Development of segment edges in 8th-10th century in the Black Sea region:
1 – 2nd-4rd quarter of the 8th century (Stolbishche, Krasnodar, Bezhta).
2 – 1st-2nd third of the 9th century (Moldavanskoye, Dyurso).
3 – 9th century (Karla Marksa).
4 – 3rd third of the 9th century (Manvelivka).
5 – 4th quarter of 10th and 1st quarter of 11th century (gilded variant of the Black Mound type).
Source: Kainov et al. 2020: Fig. 7.
A further significant developmental change occurred toward the close of the 8th or the beginning of the 9th century (Kainov 2022: 55). The large arcs on the segment edges were superseded by two smaller, subtler arcs, and the Y- or T-shaped nasal guard was simplified to a facial reinforcement of a similar shape with eye cutouts, but lacking the full-size vertical nasal. Some helmets, such as the one from Moldavanskoye (Kainov et al. 2020: 209-210), entirely lack nose protection. While the last eight-piece helmets appear during this time, exemplified by the find from Grave 28 at Dyurso (Malyšev 2021: 68-73), the four-segment construction became dominant. In the four-segment dome, the frontal and nape plates overlap, while the lateral segments are overlapped. In the eight-segment variant, the construction mirrors earlier pieces, with the frontal, nape, and lateral segments overlapping, and the spaces filled by four overlapped pieces. The segments are joined by five rivets. Crucially, this phase sees the first appearance of copper alloy bands between the segments, visible on the helmet from Dyurso Grave 13 (Malyšev 2021: 29-32) and an socket from Sarskoye Gorodishche (Leontijev 1996: 121-2, Fig. 47.2; Ščedrina 2022: Fig. 11.2). The bands respects the segment edge shapes but are not visible from the helmet interior. The two-piece riveted sockets makes its final appearance in this stage; the sockets still possess an oval base. The aventail was affixed using P-profile loops made from bent sheet metal (Type 2.3; see Vlasatý 2020a). Although firm chronological anchoring for this stage is difficult, the cremation graves at Dyurso generally correspond to the period between the second half of the 8th and the first half of the 9th century (Gavrituchin – Pjankov 2003: 198; Uspenskij 2015: 74-97). The buckle, bit, and stirrups from Dyurso Grave 28 can be assigned to Komar’s Horizon II, dating between the late 8th and the first third of the 9th century (Komar 1999: 130, 132; 2011: 66). Furthermore, the belt components from Dyurso Grave 161 can be dated to the mid-9th century (Dmitrijev 2003: 204-5; Malyšev 2021: 264-269), suggesting a potential chronological gap between the eight-segment and some of the four-segment helmets in this series. This stage is simplified as the “Dyurso Type” by some authors (Kainov 2022). Closely related is the now-lost helmet from Novorossiysk, characterized by four straight-edged segments joined by rivets and a two-piece socket (Arendt 1936: 32, Abb. 11). Original literature speaks of the presence of metal shin guards in the same grave; generally speaking, similar metal protection appears in the region no later than the 9th century (Zozulja – Baryšev 2014).
The small arcs on the segment edges were superseded by pronounced lobes (or scalloped edges) in the second half of the 9th century, typically appearing in groups of four or five. Finds from this significantly heterogeneous group include helmets from Karla Marksa (Kainov et al. 2020), Karanayevo (Mažitov 1981: 114-6, Fig. 61.17; Ščedrina 2022: Fig. 11.3), Manvelivka (Čurilova 1986; Ščedrina 2022), and Pécs (Vlasatý 2022a). Copper alloy band between the segments now predominates. The slightly oval cross-section of the socket base, common until this point, vanishes in this group, last seen on the Karla Marksa helmet (which lacks the bands but has a frontal reinforcement and aventail suspension similar to the Dyurso group). The reinforcements on the Manvelivka and Karanayevo helmets develop into tridents with vestigial nasal guards. The lower rim of the Manvelivka helmet is entirely encircled by a single-piece diadem, likely fastened at the back and backed by a copper alloy band. Instead of a socket, the Manvelivka helmet features a quadrilobate plate, also lined with copper alloy sheeting. As a continuation of the Dyurso tradition, the Pécs helmet, which lacks any frontal reinforcement, retains a small arc beneath the lobes. Its socket has an octalobate cross-section and is closed. The aventails of all these helmets were suspended using omega-shaped loops (Types 2.2 and 3.3b; see Vlasatý 2020a). The lobed-edge helmets are well-datable chronologically. The Manvelivka helmet, based on accompanying belt components, is dated to the last third of the 9th century and is associated with the Magyar migrations across what is now southern Ukraine (Golubjev 2018: 393; Ščedrina 2022). The similar Karanayevo helmet comes from a mound fill that, according to Oleksiy Komar, contains 8th-9th century material culture and is generally dated in published literature to the 7th-9th centuries (Ivanov 1984: 45; 1987: 182; Kirpičnikov 2009: 24). Literature suggests the 9th century for the Karla Marksa helmet (Kainov et al. 2020), or more specifically its second half (Kainov 2022: 75). The Pécs helmet is linked to the Magyar conquest of the Carpathian Basin (see Szőke 2019: 273-5; Torma – Veszprémy 2008) and can thus be dated from the 850s to the early 900s, with a culmination in the final three decades of that range (Vlasatý 2022a).
The Gulbishche helmet (Kainov 2022) also fits well into this period, retaining nine lobes on the segment edges that are not decorated with copper alloy bands. The lower rim is not reinforced by a band, but the frontal segment features a large semicircular gilded copper alloy plate. The massive socket has a quadrilobate cross-section at the base. The mound, based on size and inventory, is dated to the third quarter of the 10th century (Kainov 2022), containing a dirham from the late 9th century (Arendt 1936: 31; Rybakov 1949: 37), a Petersen Type T sword with an Androshchuk Type 3 chape (Kainov 2022: Fig. 11-2) which cannot be dated before 950 (Androshchuk 2014: 121), and belt components datable to the 950s–960s (Komar 2012: 344-5; 2018: 210).
From the last quarter of the 10th century, helmets show a higher standardization of production (see Kainov – Marzaljuk 2024; Vlasatý 2022b; 2022c; 2022d; 2023; 2024). These helmets are constructed from four triangular segments, where the front and rear segments overlap the side plates. The lateral edges of the front and rear segments typically feature four ornamental lobes, while the edges of the side segments are left plain. Mushroom-shaped rivet heads, sometimes non-ferrous, are placed at the lobe terminals. A large number of these helmets are covered with gilded copper alloy sheeting. Decorative copper alloy bands, stamped with a double-row dot pattern, separate the segments. The domes are capped by massive sockets, which appear as a quadrilobate, slightly oval star from above. The frontal segments are dominated by facial reinforcements that closely follow the contours of the face, often featuring high uni- or tri-pronged superstructures. These iron reinforcements are backed by stamped copper alloy bands; a significant group of trident-shaped reeinforcements is openwork. A completely new decorative element is the inclusion of rosettes, which are placed at the center of the lateral segments and are either iron or cast copper alloy. The rims of the helmets are reinforced by bands of varying profiles. Notably, the iron applications (sockets, rosettes, reinforcements, rims) are invariably covered with silver foil.
Fig. 9: Chronological sequence of Eastern European helmets, 8th – 11th century.
Source: Kainov 2022: Fig. 15.
The established sequence of helmet evolution is primarily based on artifacts originating predominantly from the North Caucasus and Eastern Europe. It is, therefore, a significant question whether the Rustavi helmet can be incorporated into this evolutionary schema at all. We contend that the artifact itself combines construction elements credibly enough to merit inclusion in this group. The four-segment dome suggests a dating after the turn of the 8th and 9th centuries. The clearly defined segmentation lobes, without the presence of arcs – first observed on the Karla Marksa helmet – point to at least the advanced 9th century. Based on the helmets from Manvelivka and Pécs, the single-piece sockett with a lobed base can be dated no earlier than the final third of the 9th century. The same applies to the presence of a reinforcing band on the domes’s edge, first seen on the Manvelivka helmet. However, the combination of the band with a aventail holder featuring bent, P-shaped teeth is a feature encountered only on the four-segment gilded helmets from Gelendzhik (Schatum 2024), the Black Mound (Samokvasov 1916: 7-8, Kirpičnikov 2009: 63, Fig. 46), and an unlocalized Russian helmet from the “Russian Chambers” gallery (Kirpičnikov 2009: Fig. 5-6). It would therefore seem that the Rustavi helmet is not chronologically distant from these artifacts. Further similarity is suggested by the riveting of the rim near the segment overlaps. The absence of features typical of standardized helmets of the final quarter of the 10th and early 11th centuries – namely surface gilding, rosettes, and silvering of components – might suggest a somewhat earlier date. Simultaneously, the massive, low socket with prominent moldings resembles the helmet from Gulbishche, which is datable to the mid-10th century.
Assuming that the typological observations derived from North Caucasian and Eastern European helmets are applicable to the Rustavi find, the helmet appears chronologically placeable on a spectrum between the Karla Marksa helmet and the Gelendzhik helmet, seemingly closer to the Gulbishche and Gelendzhik examples. There is no compelling reason to seek the origin of this helmet in Byzantium or anywhere outside the Black Sea region. Absolute dating is inherently difficult, as helmets remained in active cultural use for extended periods, often exceeding 50 years. It is therefore appropriate to adopt broader chronological horizons for their dating. The most secure dating for the Rustavi helmet falls between the final third of the 9th and the second half of the 10th century, a timeframe that notably aligns with the dating proposed by the Georgian archaeologists based on ceramic vessels. The Rustavi helmet very likely fills a specific chronological lacuna previously identified for this period (Vlasatý 2022a). Should our assessment prove correct, this represents one of the artifact’s most significant contributions. The eventual publication of supplementary details, such as evidence of face protection, may allow for further chronological refinement. In any case, the helmet provides valuable testimony that the development of defensive armour in the South Caucasus during the 9th and 10th centuries followed a trajectory similar to that observed in the North Caucasus.
Fig. 10: Comparison of the helmet with its nearest parallels.
Author: Diego Flores Cartes.
Full resolution available here.
1 – Dyurso, Grave 28; 2 – Moldavanskoye; 3 – Novorossiysk; 4 – Dyurso, Grave 13; 5 – Dyurso, Grave 161; 6 – Krasnodar Krai; 7 – Karla Marksa; 8 – Manvelivka; 9 – Pécs; 10 – Gulbishche; 11 – Rustavi; 12 – Gelendzhik.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express his gratitude to János Mestellér for providing the shelter and technical equipment needed to produce most of the text. Irakli Bakradze provided assistance with the translation of Georgian sources. We also thank Diego Flores Cartes for his prompt and accurate drawing of the illustrations.
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.
Bibliografie
Androshchuk, Fedir (2014). Viking Swords : Swords and Social aspects of Weaponry in Viking Age Societies, Stockholm.
Arendt, Wsewolod (1936). Der Nomadenhelm des Frühen Mittelalters in Osteuropa. In: Zeitschrift für Historische Waffen- und Kostümkunde, Neue Folge 5, 3, 26–34.
Bakhtadze, Nodar (2013). Ceramics in the Medieval Georgia, Tbilisi.
Čurilova 1986 = Чурилова, Л. Н. (1986). Погребение с серебряной маской у села Манвеловки на Днепропетровщине // СА, № 4, 261–266.
D’Amato, Raffaele (2015). Old and new evidence on the East-Roman helmets from the 9th to the 12th centuries. In: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia XI, Kraków – Sanok – Wrocław, 27-157.
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.
Demetrašvili 2014 = დემეტრაშვილი, ინგა (2014). ქვამტყორცნი იარაღების კვალი რუსთავის ნაქალაქარზე. In: პაჭიკაშვილი, ნაზი (ed.). რუსთავი IV, თბილისი, 111-119.
Gavrituchin – Pjankov 2003 = Гавритухин И. О. – Пьянков, А. В. (2003). Древности и памятники VIII–IX веков // Крым, Северо-Восточное Причерноморье и Закавказье в эпоху средневековья IV–XIII века. Отв. ред. Т. Н. Макарова – С. А. Плетнева, Москва, 195-200.
Golubjev 2018 = Голубев, А. М. (2018). Хронология салтовских памятников Верхнего Подонцовья в контексте венгерской проблематики // ІІІ-й Международный мадярский симпозиум. Будапешт, 6–10 июня 2016 г., Budapest, 367-400.
Havlík, L. E. (1980). Dějiny středověké Gruzie, Brno.
Ivanov 1984 = Иванов, В. А. (1984). Путями степных кочевий, Уфа.
Ivanov 1987 = Иванов, В. А. (1987). Вооружение средневековых кочевников Южного Урала и Приуралья (VII—XIV вв.) // Военное дело древнего населения Северной Азии. Отв. ред. В. Е. Медведев – Ю.С. Худяков, Новосибирск, 172-189.
Izoria 2024 = იზორია, მარიამ (2024). თიხის მოჭიქურებული ჭურჭელი შუა საუკუნეების აღმოსავლეთ საქართველოში. In: ისტორია, არქეოლოგია, ეთნოლოგია 12, 264-276.
Kainov, S. Y. (2017). The Helmet from Krasnodar Territory. In: Maksymiuk, K. – Karamian, G. (eds). Crowns, hats, turbans and helmets The headgear in Iranian history volume I: Pre-Islamic Period, Siedlce-Tehran, 255-261.
Kainov 2022 = Каинов, С. Ю. (2022). Шлем из кургана Гульбище. К вопросу об эволюции четырехчастевых боевых наголовий Восточной Европы в VIII-XI вв. // Военная археология 7: Сборник материалов Проблемного совета «Военная археология» при Государственном Историческом музее. Отв. ред. О. В. Двуреченский, Москва, 49-78.
Kainov et al. 2020 = Каинов, С. Ю. – Меньшиков, М. Ю. – Рукавишникова, И. В. (2020). Шлем из комплекса 3 могильника у хутора им. Карла Маркса // Древние памятники, культуры и прогресс. A caelo usque ad centrum. A potentia ad actum. Ad honores, Москва, 200-211.
Kainov – Marzaljuk 2024 = Каинов, С. Ю. – Марзалюк, И. А. (2024). Золоченый шлем из Бобруйска (Беларусь) // Военная археология 8: Сборник материалов НИЦ «Военная археология». Отв. ред. О. В. Двуреченский – Г. В. Баранов, Москва, 35-61.
Kainov – Ščedrina 2021 = Каинов, С. Ю. – Щедрина, А. Ю. (2021). Кольчужный доспех и кольчужные кольца из раскопок Гнёздова // Труды Государственного исторического музея 215, Москва, 157-187.
Kirpičnikov 1958 = Кирпичников, А. Н. (1958). Русские шлемы X—XIII вв. // СА, № 4, 47-69.
Kirpičnikov 1971 = Кирпичников, А. Н. (1971). Древнерусское оружие: Вып. 3. Доспех, комплекс боевых средств IX—XIII вв., АН СССР, Москва.
Kirpičnikov 2008 = Кирпичников, А. Н. (2008). Восстановленная антикварная воинская редкость. Новые наблюдения о раннесредневековых золочёных шлемах // Дьнєслово: Збірка праць на пошану дійсного члена Національної академії наук України Петра Петровича Толочка з нагоди його 70-річчя. Відп. ред. Гліб Івакін, Киев, 67-75.
Kirpičnikov 2009 = Кирпичников, А. Н. (2009). Раннесредневековые золоченые шлемы. Новые находки и наблюдения, Санкт-Петербург.
Komar 1999 = Комар, А. В. (1999). Предсалтовские и раннесалтовские горизонты Восточной Европы (вопросы хронологии) // Vita antiqua 2, 111-136.
Komar 2011 = Комар, А. В. (2011). Древние мадьяры Этелькеза: перспективы исследований // АДІУ, Вип. 7. Мадяри у Середньому Подніпров’ї, 21-78.
Komar 2012 = Комар, А. В. (2012). Чернигов и Нижнее Подесенье // Русь в IX–X ве- ках: археологическая панорама. Отв. ред. Н. А. Макаров, Москва, 335–365.
Komar, Olekszij (2018). История и археология древних мадьяр в эпоху миграции / A korai magyarság vándorlásának történeti és régészeti emlékei, Budapest.
Komar – Suchobokov 2000 = Комар, О. В. – Сухобоков, О. В. (2000). Вооружение и военное дело Хазарского каганата // Восточноевропейский Археологический журнал, №2.
Kubik, A. L. (2023). Bezhta cemetery helmet and its important contribution to the knowledge of the developement of helmets in the Caucasus region. Some aspects of the evolution of four-piece helmets in the Eurasian borderlands of the medieval period // Воинские традиции в археологическом контексте: от позднего Латена до позднего Средневековья. Сост. Ю. А. Кулешов – С. Ю. Каинов – Г. В. Баранов, Тула, 43-59.
Leontijev 1996 = Леонтьев, А. Е. (1996). Археология мери. К предыстории Северо-Восточной Руси // Археология эпохи великого переселения народов и раннего средневековья. Выпуск 4, Москва.
Malyšev 2021 = Малышев, А. А. (2021). Могильник Дюрсо. Каталог, Часть I, Москва.
Mažitov 1981 = Мажитов, Н. А. (1981). Курганы Южного Урала VIII-XII вв., Москва.
Papakin 2017 = Папакін, Артем (2017). Шоломи у контексті східних контактів Русі та Польщі (X–початок XI ст.) // Історія давньої зброї. Дослідження 2016. Відп. ред. М. Ф. Дмитрієнко et al., Київ, 351–366.
Papakin, Artem (2019). Importy czy łupy z Rusi? Problem pochodzenia „wielkopolskich” hełmów X – początku XI wieku. In: Nagirnyy, V. – Pudłocki. T. (eds). Rusʼ and Poland (10th–14th centuries). Publication from the 9th International Scientific Conference, Przemyśl, 5th–8th December, 2018, Kraków, 55–68.
Papakin et al. 2017 = Папакін, А. – Безкоровайна, Ю. – Прокопенко, В. (2017). Шоломи типу «Чорна Могила»: нові знахідки та проблема походження // Науковий вісник Національного музею історії України. Зб. наук. праць. Випуск 2. Відп. ред. Б. К. Патриляк, Київ, 45–56.
Pjankov et al. 2023 = Пьянков, А. В. – Схатум, Р. Б. – Полицын, Е. Б. (2023). Погребение 106 «запад» могильника «Казазово-1» в Адыгее // Воинские традиции в археологическом контексте: от позднего Латена до позднего Средневековья. Сост. Ю. А. Кулешов – С. Ю. Каинов – Г. В. Баранов, Тула, 60-91.
Rabovyanov, Deyan – Dimitrov, Stanimir (2017). Western European armour from medieval Bulgaria (12th – 15th centuries). In: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia XIII, 37-53.
Rybakov 1949 = Рыбаков, Б. А. (1949). Древности Чернигова // МИА. № 11, Ленинград.
Samokvasov 1916 = Самоквасов, Д. Я. (1916). Могильные древности Северянской Черниговщины, Москва.
Schatum 2024 = Схатум, Р. Б. (2024). Средневековое кремационное погребение знатного воина с территории Северо-Западного Кавказа // Военная археология 8: Сборник материалов НИЦ «Военная археология». Отв. ред. О. В. Двуреченский – Г. В. Баранов, Москва, 148-167.
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.
Szőke, B. M. (2019). A Karoling-kor Pannóniában, Budapest.
Ščedrina 2022 = Щедрина, А. Ю. (2022). Шлем из погребения у с. Манвеловка: результаты исследования до реставрации // Военная археология 7: Сборник материалов Проблемного совета «Военная археология» при Государственном Историческом музее. Отв. ред. О. В. Двуреченский, Москва, 79-100.
Šnajdrová, Evženie (2014). Arma ofensiva et defensiva. Historické zbraně a zbroj ze sbírky Národního muzea, Praha.
Torma, B. G. – Veszprémy, László (2008). Egy elfeledett diadal – a 907. évi pozsonyi csata, Budapest.
Tweddle, Dominic (1992). The Anglian Helmet from 16-22 Coppergate, The Archaeology of York. The Small Finds AY 17/8, York.
Uspenskij 2015 = Успенский, П. С. (2015). Кремационные погребения Северо-Западного Кавказа VIII – XIII вв. как исторический источник, Москва.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2020a). Methods of Mail Suspension Used on Early Medieval European Helmets. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-11-15]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/methods-of-mail-suspension-used-on-early-medieval-european-helmets/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2020b). Decorative edging of mail armour. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-11-15]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/decorative-edging-of-mail-armour/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2021). Lagerevo helmet. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-11-15]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/lagerevo-helmet/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022a). The helmet from Pécs, Hungary. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-11-15]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-helmet-from-pecs-hungary/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022b). The helmet from Gorzuchy, Poland. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-11-15]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-helmet-from-gorzuchy-poland/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022c). The helmet from Olszówka, Poland. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-11-15]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-helmet-from-olszowka-poland/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022d). The helmet from Mokre, Ukraine. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-11-15]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-helmet-from-mokre-ukraine/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2023). The helmet from the Prussian site of Ekritten. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-11-15]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-helmet-from-the-prussian-site-of-ekritten/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2024). The helmet from Giecz, Poland. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2025-11-15]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-helmet-from-giecz-poland/.
Zozulja – Baryšev 2014 = Зозуля, С. С. – Барышев, А. В. (2014). Наруч из собрания Исторического музея // Воинские традиции в археологическом контексте: от позднего Латена до позднего Средневековья. Отв. ред. Б. И. Геннадьевич, Тула, 54-61.