Introduction
As part of the preparation of the Catalog of European helmets of 9th-12th century, we had the opportunity to personally inspect one of the most famous helmets of the Black Mound type, originating from Giecz, Poland. The examination, which took place on Monday, June 6, 2024, in the building of the Archaeological Museum in Poznań (Muzeum Archeologiczne w Poznaniu) with the participation of museum staff and photographer archaeologist Kristián Jócsik, helped to edit and supplement some previously published information. In the following article, we bring the most detailed publication of this find to date. All work is created with the consent of the aforementioned museum.
Fig. 1: Photo of the Giecz helmet from the collections of the Archaeological Museum in Poznań.
Photo authors: Kristián Jócsik, Tomáš Vlasatý.
Previous publications
The Giecz helmet was discovered in the mid-19th century, making it one of the oldest finds of its kind, so it naturally became the most published helmet of the Early medieval Poland. Its popularity was accelerated by the ongoing National Revival, thanks to which the helmet was published soon after its discovery. Among the authors of the second half of the 19th century, we can name Beyer (1859: Tab. XI), Przezdziecki and Rastawiecki (1860–1869: No. 25), Schwartz (1875: 2), Sadowski (1877: 40); Eljasz-Radzikowski (1879: Tabl. XI.1), Sulimirski et al. (1881: 545), Boeheim (1890: 26, Fig. 4), Kohte (1896: 97) and Starzyński (1875-1900: 6-7). Some of these early publications contain drawings and photographs that depict elements that are missing today, and are therefore extremely valuable. The most valuable visual sources from this period are Beyer’s photograph, taken no later than 2 years after the discovery, and the drawn studies by Jan Matejko and Waleri Eljasz-Radzikowski (see Wyrwa 2018: 98, 102).
Fig. 2: Archival drawings and photographs from the 19th century.
From left: Beyer’s photograph, Matejko’s drawing, Eljasz-Radzikowski’s drawing.
Source: Wyrwa 2018: 98, 102.
The main Polish authors of the 20th and 21st centuries who included the helmet in their works are Antoniewicz (1929: 254), Bocheński (1930; 1935: 320), Bochnak (Bochnak – Pagaczewski 1959: 42), Dziewanowski (1935: 146), Engel (Engel – Sobczak 2019: 78), Górewicz (2020: 480-1, Ryc. 10.31), Hensel (1953: 24-7), Pajzderski (1913: 9, Fig. 21; 1922: 38), Nadolski (1954: 71; 1960; 1994: 63), Nowakowski (1991: 85), the duo Poklewska-Koziełł – Sikora (Poklewska-Koziełł 2013; Poklewska-Koziełł – Sikora 2018; Sikora 2013; 2015), Rajewski (1973: 350), Rychter (Rychter – Strzyż 2016: Fig. 9, 10.1; 2019: Fig. 12.1), Sommerfeld-Sarnowska (1948), Wyrwa (2014: 69-87; 2016: 49-55; 2018) and Żygulski (1982: 78, Il. 3). Abroad, the helmet was studied by, for example, Beard (1922; 1935: 138), Gaerte (1924a), Gorelik (2002: Fig. XI-14.12), Hejdová (1964: 80), Kirpičnikov (1958: 54, Рис. 4.2; 2009: 16, Рис. 18.2, 22, 24), Nicolle (1999: Fig. 889) and Papakin (2017; 2019: 56, Il. 1.3-4; et al. 2017: № 13).
Generally speaking, it can be said that the literature mentioned above is overwhelmingly focused on the bare mention of the helmet, or possibly the size, approximate dating and a photo of the front and one of the side segments. We consider the most valuable works to be those of Poklewska-Koziełł – Sikora and Wyrwa, who collected all the current data and archival materials. The old drawings and photographs from the time when the helmet still had a socket, side tooth underlay and original eyelets are extremely valuable. In the article attached below, we will compare these with the current state of knowledge and bring a new perspective on the shape of the iron decorations. The current literature seems to agree on a dating to the 10th-11th century, but the place of origin has been the subject of protracted disputes in the past. Some older titles suggest a dating in the broad horizon of the 9th-14th century. The helmet is also often associated with the plundering of Giecz by Czechs in 1039.
Fig. 3: Archival photo of a helmet from the 20th century.
Source: Bocheński 1930: Tabl. II; Żygulski 1982: Tab. Il.3.
Fig. 4: Hensel’s drawn documentation.
Source: Hensel 1953: 23-4.
Fig. 5: Drawn and photographic documentation.
Source: Sankiewicz 2018: 220-1.
Fig. 6: Various helmet designs.
Source: Nadolski 1994: 63; Górewicz 2020: 481, Ryc. 10.31; Poklewska-Koziełł – Sikora 2018: 114.
Circumstances of the finding and place of storage
The helmet is a stray find, discovered in the mud under the acropolis of the Giecz hillfort (Środa County, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poland), probably in the vicinity of an original bridge. The find was probably found between June 1857 and August or September 1858. Given the age of the discovery, the exact location is unknown and there is no convincing documentation, but the Giecz hillfort was one of the most important centers of Greater Poland in the 10th-11th century, and it also appears in written sources (see Kara et al. 2016; Kurnatowska 2004), which makes the location credible. Three other finds of similar helmets are known within the 100 kilometer perimeter of the hillfort (Gniezno, Gorzuchy, Olszówka).
The helmet formally belongs to the Poznań Society of Friends of Sciences in Poznań (Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk w Poznaniu) and is on permanent loan to the Archaeological Museum in Poznań (Muzeum Archeologiczne w Poznaniu) with the inventory number MAP/TPN 1860:14. In the past, it was part of the collections of the Museum of Polish and Slavic Antiquities (Muzeum Starożytności Polskich i Słowiańskich), the Mielżyński Museum (Muzeum im. Mielżyńskich) and the Greater Poland Museum in Poznań (Muzeum Wielkopolskie w Poznaniu). A copy of the helmet can be found in the Museum of the Polish Army (Muzeum Wojska Polskiego) in Warsaw, the Museum of Polish Arms in Kołobrzeg (Muzeum Oręża Polskiego w Kołobrzegu) and the Museum of the Origins of the Polish State in Gniezno (Muzeum Początków Państwa Polskiego w Gnieźnie). The latter copy is relatively faithful and is often mistaken for the original, although it lacks key details that are only apparent upon personal inspection and that make the helmet worthy of study.
Map 1: Position of Giecz on the map of Europe.
Construction and metric data
The helmet from Giecz is one of the best preserved specimens of its kind. Although some of its parts have suffered, it still retains a high informative value and allows for a detailed reading of the structural elements. The most striking defects of the helmet include the almost missing iron applications (trident, rim, rosettes, socket). The iron core of the helmet is also fragmented, but fortunately the segments are not embedded in a thick layer of preservatives.
At the time of discovery, some fragile parts were still present and disappeared only during storage and exhibition: for example, the broken-off socket was lost in the years 1913-1930 and the trident underlay was still visible in the area of the side teeth during the first half of the 20th century. The oldest drawings and photographs from the 19th century show the presence of eyelets in the lower edges of the trident. The current appearance is partly the result of modern interventions that led to the strengthening of the entire structure – the missing rivets and eyelets were replaced by unsightly screws, thanks to which the dome is not susceptible to manipulation.
Fig. 7: Schematic view of all four sides of the helmet.
Author: Michal Havelka, baba_jaga_atelier.
Higher resolution here.
Fig. 8: View of all four segments of the Giecz helmet from the collections of the Archaeological Museum in Poznań.
Photo authors: Kristián Jócsik, Tomáš Vlasatý.
The dome takes on a spheroconical shape with a total height of 20.55 cm today. The dome has an irregular cross-section, which was originally close to an oval and is now damaged. The current maximum external dimensions are 21 × 19 cm. The dome is made up of four triangular segments, with the front and rear segments overlapping the side ones. The length of the bases of the segments is different (S1 and S3: 17.5 cm, S2 and S4: 15.4 cm). The length of the overlap of the segments is 1-1.7 cm. Due to the damaged condition, the circumference is difficult to measure. The current internal circumference is close to 61 cm, from which it can be concluded that the helmet was suitable for a wearer with a head circumference of approximately 55-56 cm. The weight of the helmet in its current state is 0.817 kg.
The lateral edges of the front and rear segments are provided with four decorative lobes, while the edges of the side segments are left undecorated. The iron core of the segments is very corroded and almost immeasurable. The segments were covered with sheets of gilded copper alloy, which are chopped and bent around the iron core at uneven intervals inside the dome, with the folds extending to a distance of several millimeters. The only place where the coating is not bent around the edge is the upper edge of segment S2. The gilding is only partially preserved, usually in places of original iron applications and overlapping of parts. The copper alloy sheets are in relatively good condition, they are only broken at the edges in the rivet areas. The segments are 0.2-0.3 cm thick at the edges, which also requires taking into account the double-sided coating; the corners of the segments show the greatest strength, where the chopped bended cover parts are folded over each other. The thickness of the iron parts of the uncoated segments was certainly close to 0.1 cm. It is not true that the front segment was significantly thicker than the others. Nadolski’s statement of 0.35 cm thickness is somewhat misleading (Nadolski 1960: 105).
Fig. 9: Detail of the lobes and interlacing of the Giecz helmet from the collections of the Archaeological Museum in Poznań.
Photo authors: Kristián Jócsik, Tomáš Vlasatý.
There are holes in the lobes. All or most of the holes in the helmet were created from the outside inward and have a diameter of 0.29-0.33 cm. These holes were subsequently filled with rivets. There are two groups of randomly placed rivets on the helmet, all of which are mushroom-shaped. The first group of rivets has iron heads with a diameter of ca. 0.45 cm and a height of 0.25 cm. The second group seems to combine iron and copper alloy rivets and has heads with a diameter of 0.54-0.62 cm and a height of 0.32-0.49 cm. The copper alloy rivets are hammered flat inside the dome . The top row of rivets (N1, N5, N9, N13) is located at a height of 14.11-15.55 cm above the edge, the second row (N2, N6, N10, N14) is located 11.07-12.28 cm above the edge; the third row (N3, N7, N11, N15) occupies a level of 7.96-8.85 cm above the edge and the lowest set of rivets (N4, N8, N12, N16) is placed 4.63-4.96 cm above the edge. The edges of the segments are beveled. Before the final assembly, the overlap of the segments was interspersed with embossed strips of ungilded copper alloy, which copy the shape of the side edges of the segments and are also lobed. The width of these strips is relatively uniform, in the narrowest places they are 1.17 – 1.2 cm wide. The strips are not visible from the inside, they protrude from the outside by ca. 0.2-0.3 cm and are punched with a double-row dotting, which was made with a punch with two peaks with a spacing of ca. 0.1 cm. It can be assumed that the same punch was used to decorate all the helmet interlays and underlays.
The hole at the top of the helmet was originally covered by a massive, high and hollow socket, the torso of which was kept with the helmet until the period 1913-1930. In the oldest documentation from the 19th century, the socket is shown resting on the S2 segment, and it is therefore possible that it was still riveted with the N27 rivet. At the beginning of the 20th century, it is shown as a completely loose part, which is kept on a stand. The helmet had to reach a minimum height of 28-29 cm with the socket. The socket was undoubtedly decorated with a technique characteristic of this type: the iron base was covered with silver and perforated foil and the top was prolonged by a band of gilded copper alloy, on both tops of which rings of the same material were placed. The spacing of these rings seems to be close to 2-2.5 cm. Older photographs also suggest the possibility that parts of the underlays, which are no longer part of the object, have been preserved. Only an impression of the socket is visible today (on S1, an impression of the underlay with a two-point embossing is visible) and a set of four rivet holes (N26-N29), with which the socket was attached to the dome. None of the socket rivets have been preserved. When viewed from above, the base of the socket had the shape of a four-pointed, slightly oval star with a maximum size of 7.5 × 6.25 cm (calculated based on its impression). The distance of the holes for fixing the socket from the upper edges of the segments is 1.45-2.02 cm.
Fig. 10: Socket detail of the Giecz helmet from the collections of the Archaeological Museum in Poznań.
Photo authors: Kristián Jócsik, Tomáš Vlasatý.
Archive photo taken from Poklewska-Koziełł – Sikora 2018: Fig. 4.
The frontal segment (S1) was dominated by an iron reinforcement closely following the face – a trident with an oblong base and one central and two lateral teeth. The complexity of the reinforcement caused a high variability of the proposed reconstructions. The length of the base as the crow flies is approx. 11.7 cm, in the arc approx. 13 cm. The base was fixed at four points, with the outer holes (O1, O11) filled with eyelets, while the central holes (N24, N25) were filled with rivets. The position of the holes of the base of the trident is slightly asymmetrical. It is not clear whether the lower edge of the trident was equipped with a small arc that would fit into the space between the wearer’s eyes. All three teeth have approximately the same shape, with the central tooth being larger and extended by a dominant neck. The central tooth was fixed with three rivets and, with underlay, reached exactly half the height of the dome, 10.21 cm from the edge. The more subtle side teeth, reaching approximately 6.65 cm in height, are attached by pairs of rivets located at the tips of the teeth and on the necks. The lower set of rivets and eyelets (O11, N24, N25, O1) is located at a height of 1-1.6 cm, the second set of rivets in the necks of the teeth (N21, N22, N23) is located at a height of 2.6-3.13 cm above the edge, the third row (N18, N19, N20) reaches 5.98 cm above the edge and the highest rivet on the central tooth (N17) has a height of 9.26 cm above the edge.
The trident’s underlay is deliberately divided into three parts to simplify production, i.e. each tooth had its own underlay. As indicated by the preserved overlapped part, the underlay of the side teeth overlapped the underlay of the central tooth. The edge of the reinforcement is beveled and lined with a line, including the lower edge. The surface was covered with silver foil, which was secured with a grid of randomly punched pits made with a sharp tool. Traces of these holes are still visible, but spectrometric analysis did not reveal significant concentrations of silver. Our examination revealed that the trident was perforated in a number of places. There were three triangular holes at the base (one in the center, two on the sides), which were not lined by a copper alloy sheet and allowed for the contrast of the silver trident with the gilded coating. Early documentation suggests that the underlays of the side teeth were perforated with oval holes (not trilobal, as shown in the drawings), which points to relatively large oval or circular perforations in the side teeth of the trident. In the center of the central tooth, there is another small hole, which was lined by a copper alloy sheet with no opening. It can be assumed that all these intentional openings were surrounded by edging lines.
Fig. 11: Detail of the trident of the Giecz helmet from the collections of the Archaeological Museum in Poznań.
Photo authors: Kristián Jócsik, Tomáš Vlasatý.
The edge of the helmet was originally surrounded by a now almost unpreserved iron rim of an atypical shape, the ends of which were inserted under the trident and which was underlaid by an embossed copper alloy band. The torso of the rim is located on the edge of segments S2, S3 and S4 and we can also use the impression. The highest points of the rim with the underlay probably did not exceed a height of 2.5 cm above the rim. The iron fragment on segment S4 reaches a height of approximately 1.94 cm. In places, the eyelets still hold the copper alloy underlay, which exceeds a height of 2.1 cm. The fragment on segment S4 shows signs of being covered with silver foil attached by pits. The upper edge of the rim was certainly wavy, most likely it did not have sharp peaks, but rounded semicircles or similar shapes. This is evidenced by the edging line at the rounded fragment that is located on segment S4. The lower edge of the rim was straight. The rim was certainly pierced with circular or oval holes located in its widened parts.
The rim was fastened in eleven places (S1: 2 holes; S2, S3, S4: 3 holes) by means of eyelets, while the eyelets on the front segment (S1) also held the sides of the trident. Only 7 eyelets have survived to this day, while the missing pieces have been replaced by modern screws that imitate rivets. In addition to holding the rim in place, the eyelets also held a wire that carried the mail neck protection. The eyelets have a relatively regular spacing of 4.3-5.4 cm (the exceptions are the larger spacings between O1-O2 and O10-O11). The holes are located a few millimeters above the edge, which suggests that the rim could have been divided into an upper part decorated with foil and a lower undecorated part. The eyelets are not made of omega-shaped twisted wire, as is usual, but of a more massive piece of copper alloy, forming a circle with a shaft (⚲). The eyelet rings have a rhombic cross-section and the shafts are hammered flat inside the dome. The height of the eyelets is 0.66-0.75 cm, the thickness of the material used is 0.23-0.3 cm. The diameter of the eyelets is able to accommodate wire with a thickness greater than 0.1 cm. The side segments (S2 and S4) are equipped with additional pairs of holes, which are located approximately below the rosettes, at the same level as the eyelets. The author interprets these holes as being aligned with the perforations in the rim and serving to attach the chin straps. The eyelets O1 and O11, which hold the trident and the rim at the same time, are located higher than the remaining eyelets, which necessarily means that the rim must have reached its maximum height at these points.
Fig. 12: Edge details of the Giecz helmet from the collections of the Archaeological Museum in Poznań.
Photo authors: Kristián Jócsik, Tomáš Vlasatý.
The side segments were decorated with iron rosettes, originally apparently covered with silver foil, of which only the torso in the form of a underlays and rivets has survived to this day. The shape of the rosettes resembled a four-pointed star. The underlays are made of copper alloy and are stamped along the edges with the same stamp as mentioned for the previous components of the helmet. The center of the left (from the wearer’s perspective) rosette is located 7.9 cm above the edge, the center of the right rosette at a height of 7.55 cm. The rosettes were almost regular and their underlays had dimensions of 4.9 × 5.1 cm. The rosettes hold central rivets with a pointed head with a round or slightly oval base with a diameter of 1.06-1.1 cm. The height of the rivet heads reached 0.95-1.02 cm above the surface of the rosettes, while the tapered crowns are 0.62-0.68 cm long. The rivets are made of copper alloy, but their bases are golden in colour. According to spectrometric analysis, in addition to copper, zinc is also present, so it would be possible to speak of a surface finish close to brass. The question is whether the entire heads had this finish, or whether the rivets were divided by colour. The rivets were equipped with long shafts, which were hammered flat inside the dome and still hold firmly until this day. The rivet of the left rosette still holds the iron core of the rosette, which is approx. 0.18 cm thick.
Fig. 13: Rosettes details of the Giecz helmet from the collections of the Archaeological Museum in Poznań.
Photo authors: Kristián Jócsik, Tomáš Vlasatý.
It follows from the text that all the iron details riveted to the dome were of similar thickness and were covered with silver foil and underlaid with embossed strips. The materials were intentionally layered to create maximum contrast.
Fig. 14: A graphic reconstruction of the approximate appearance of the helmet.
Author: Michal Havelka, baba_jaga_atelier.
Higher resolution here.
Appendices
Appendix 1: All photographs of the Giecz helmet from the collections of the Archaeological Museum in Poznań taken during the documentation.
Appendix 2: Results of spectrometric analyses of the cover, trident and rosettes.
Appendix 3: Photograph of a copy kept in the Museum of the Origins of the Polish State in Gniezno (Muzeum Początków Państwa Polskiego w Gnieźnie). Photographs taken by B. Ligocki (Pracownia Projektów Historycznych).
Comparison with analogies
The helmet from Giecz can be easily assigned to helmets of the so-called Black Mound type, as suggested by Papakin (2017; 2019; et al. 2017), or Kirpičnikov type II (Kirpičnikov 1958; 1971; 2008; 2009). In the total number of approximately 70 pieces and fragments from the area from Poland to the Urals, from Novgorod to Bulgaria and the North Caucasus, the helmet is one of the best preserved specimens of this type and some of its iron parts are extremely beneficial for the study of this type. We can note that the Giecz find is the westernmost known occurrence of this type.
The dome construction can be considered standard among gilded helmets in all respects. The use of copper alloy rivets is notable, which is not very common, but not unknown (e.g. Papakin et al. 2017: Fig. 6). As for the trident, a prominent central tooth surrounded by smaller teeth is a typical feature of this type. Each trident is quite unique, so finding a direct parallel is an impossible task. In terms of shape, we see a certain similarity with the tridents of the helmets from the Black Mound, Ukraine (Kovalenko et al. 2020; Samokvasov 1916: 4-36), Gorzuchy, Poland (Vlasatý 2022a), Groß Friedrichsberg, former Eastern Prussia (Gaerte 1923; 1924a; 1924b: 135-141) and the helmet from the unlocated site of Walric (Beard 1922; 1935), which are wavy at the upper edge. The trident of the Giecz helmet has the largest number of fixation points within the entire corpus and their distribution most resembles the helmet from Olszówka, Poland (Vlasatý 2022b). The openwork decoration, which has so far remained unnoticed, is also relatively abundant in gilded helmets of this type. Triangular and rhombic perforations are known from only a few pieces, namely helmets from Gorzuchy, Poland and Mykolaiv Oblast, Ukraine (Kainov 2018: 48-9, Fig. 3), theoretically also from Groß Friedrichsberg, Prussia. Perforation of the side teeth is known from at least five other helmets, namely from Olszówka, Poland (Vlasatý 2022b), from Brodiv District, Ukraine (Vlasatý 2020), from Mokre, Ukraine (Vlasatý 2022c), from Gelendzhik, Russia (Gelendzhik Museum of Local Lore, inv. no. A-2776) and from Leninskij Puť, Russia (Šišlov et al. 2020).
Fig. 15: Trident impression of the Gorzuchy helmet and its approximate reconstruction.
Source: Vlasatý 2022a.
The rim, which is inserted under the trident and which is held by eyelets, is a common phenomenon in the set of gilded helmets. However, the shape of the rim is atypical. The closest shape parallels are the openwork rims of helmets from Walric, Brodiv District and theoretically also Opava-Jaktař (Kouřil 1994: 46, Fig. 24.10; Moravec 2012), which are provided with arches on both sides. The shape similarity is also shown by the rim of the helmet from Manvelivka, Ukraine (Čurilova 1986; Ščedrina 2022), which is straight on the lower side and equipped with arches on the upper side. The fastening of the rim with copper alloy eyelets is a unique feature for which we know of no analogy. Similar eyelets were discovered during the examination of the helmet from Gorzuchy, where, however, they are not riveted; The installation of eyelets on the Gorzuchy helmet could very likely occur during the 19th-20th century and was almost certainly inspired by the Giecz helmet. It is possible that the copper alloy eyelets riveted inside the dome follow the firm fixation of the fragile rim and are an alternative to the complicated solution seen in the helmets from Walric and Brodiv District: in these helmets the eyelets do not pass through the rim, but only hold the rim by being located between its lower arches, while the rivets pass through the upper part. As for the holes preserved at the level of the rim or slightly above it, at least six other helmets with similar holes are known from the Black Mound type – Brodiv District, Babrujsk, Gorzuchy, Makariv District, Olszówka and Walric. At least two other helmets in the corpus are equipped with rivets located in the same place – Rajkovetskoe fortress (Gončarov 1950: 97, Tabl. XV.2-4) and the find from the bank of the Krasnodar reservoir (Kirpičnikov 2009: 26, Fig. 37-9). All holes are circular and have a maximum diameter of approximately 0.5 cm. It is not possible to exclude that these holes originally participated in the attachment of padding, but their location in the ear area is a good assumption for the theory that this is a method of attaching chin straps.
Fig. 16: Detail of an openwork rim from a helmet from the Brodiv District.
Source: Vlasatý 2020.
Iron, silver-foiled rosettes are not unknown among analogies – apart from the find from Giecz, we have eleven finds – Black Mound, Groß Friedrichsberg, Babrujsk, Gorzuchy, Olszówka, Szurpiły (Engel – Sobczak 2019: 71-2, Fig. 4.1) and three detector finds from Ukraine (Kirpičnikov 2009: 26, Fig. 17; Kainov 2018: 50, Fig. 5.1). The potential two-coloured rivet of the rosette is known from only one other helmet, the find from Olszówka (Vlasatý 2022b). The preserved socket is a rare find in the corpus of helmets of the Black Mound type, and in general it can be said that the height and shape of the socket of the discussed helmet rank it among typical specimens, but due to the small number of preserved sockets, the search for parallels is limited. Close analogies include helmet sockets from Black Mound, Groß Friedrichsberg, Babrujsk (Ovsejčik 2021), Gorzuchy, Olszówka and unknown Russian sites (Kirpičnikov 2009: 6-8, Fig. 1-4). The multi-part construction of the socket is particularly evident on helmets from Black Mound, Gorzuchy and Groß Friedrichsberg, the last two of which were equipped with a gilded band. Overall, the helmets that use the most similar shapes of applied elements appear to be those from Olszówka, Gorzuchy, Groß Friedrichsberg and the Brodiv District, i.e. helmets geographically not too far from Giecz. These helmets are so close in design and craftsmanship that they could have been created in one workshop, which we cannot locate at the moment.
Fig. 17: Rosette detail of the helmet from Olszówka and its approximate reconstruction.
Source: Vlasatý 2022b.
The dating of the helmet from Gorzuchy and its nearest gilded parallels is difficult, as the finds come largely from disturbed and archaeologically undocumented situations or from settlement strata. Based on the helmet from the Black Mound, it is generally believed that helmets of this variant can be dated to the last quarter of the 10th and first quarter of the 11th century (Kainov 2022; Lušin 2019; Šišlina et al. 2017; Vasjuta 2016). The Ekritten helmet was discovered in a grave that is clearly dateable to the 11th century (Vlasatý 2023). Settlement finds occur as a destroyed torso or as a remodeled helmet until the 13th century (Kainov – Kamenskij 2013). In the context of today’s Poland, in which we know at least 7 helmets of this type or their fragments (Gorzuchy, Giecz, Gniezno, Olszówka, Szurpiły, Walric?), most of the finds are concentrated in the area of Greater Poland. In the 1030s, the use of one-piece conical helmets is already assumed in Poland, which are represented by two water finds from the Lednica and Orchowo lakes (Sankiewicz 2018). For this reason, the most logical focus of gilded helmets in Greater Poland seems to be the period of the reign of Bolesław the Brave (992-1025), alternatively the last quarter of the 10th and the first quarter of the 11th century. The archaeological context in Giecz does not exclude this assumption.
The contribution of the helmet from Giecz
The helmet played a central role in shaping opinions on the historical role of Greater Poland and its rulers and was one of the main arguments in support of the now obsolete Greater Poland theory of the origin of the Black Mound type helmets (e.g. Nadolski 1960). The informative possibilities for historical science are currently more or less exhausted, but for archaeology they are far from exhausted. The main value of the Gorzuchy helmet lies in its relatively good state of preservation, which contributes to the knowledge of its details. Unique details such as the unusually shaped rim, the use of rivets and eyelets made of copper alloy expand the awareness of the variability of gilded helmets around the turn of the millennium. The damage allows us to understand the method of overlapping in the underlay of iron applications, which in the future will help to reveal the same solutions in helmets that are better preserved and do not reveal these details.
As the oldest helmet of the Black Mound type, the Giecz helmet became a kind of reference find, which was referred to with each new discovery of an analogical piece. Compared to other Polish gilded helmets, the Giecz helmet also made the greatest impact on 19th-20th century art (see Wyrwa 2018: 99-105). We see direct inspiration in the graphics of Aleksander Lesser (1814 – 1884) and Ksawery Pillati (1843 – 1902), who placed a helmet similar to the Giecz find on the head of Prince Władysław II the Exile (1105 – 1159). However, the most famous is the pen drawing by Jan Matejko (1838 – 1893), who had the opportunity to personally examine the helmet and who placed it on the head of Prince Bolesław III the Wrymouth (1086 – 1138). Matejko’s drawing was widely copied and, in addition to colour versions, found application on anniversary coins and stamps. However, the helmet of Giecz is a source of inspiration even in the present, as evidenced by the statue of Bolesław I the Brave, installed in the center of Gniezno in 2015-2018.
Fig. 18: Artistic adaptations of the Giecz helmet.
Left: Aleksander Lesser: Władysław II, King of Poland, Prince of Silesia (1860).
Right: Ksawery Pillati: Władysław II the Exile (1888).
Fig. 18: Artistic adaptation of the Giecz helmet.
Jan Matejko: Bolesław III Wrymouth (1890-1892).
Rafał Nowak : Bolesław I the Brave (2015-2018).
Author: Sebastian Ucinski, gniezno.eu.
Acknowledgment
The documentation of the helmet was made possible thanks to the Archaeological Museum in Poznań (Muzeum Archeologiczne w Poznaniu) and the Poznań Society of Friends of Sciences in Poznań (Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk w Poznaniu), namely we would like to thank Mrs. Magdalena Poklewská-Koziełł, Mr. Michał Brzostowicz, Mr. Piotr Majorek, Mr. Jarosław Jaskulak and Mrs. Martyna Żurańska. We would like to thank our friend and colleague Kristián Jócsik, who took the photographs of the helmet. We must mention Michal Havelka (baba_jaga_atelier) and Diego Flores Cartes, who are the authors of the drawn diagrams, and Kateřina Slováková, who helped with the editing of the photographs.
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
Antoniewicz, Włodzimierz (1929). Archeologja Polski : zarys czasów przedhistorycznych i wczesno-dziejowych ziem Polski, Warszawa.
Beard, C. R. (1922). Ein Helm des 11. Jahrhunderts vom Schlachtfeld zu Walric. In: Zeitschrift für Historische Waffen- und Kostümkunde, B. 9, H. 6/7, Dresden, 217.
Beard, C. R. (1935). The Joseph Mayer Collections, Part I. In: Connoisseur 95/404, 135-138.
Beyer, Karol (1859). Album fotograficzne wystawy starożytności i zabytków sztuki urządzonej przez c.k. Towarzystwo Naukowe w Krakowie 1858 i 1859 r., Warszawa.
Boeheim, Wendelin (1890). Handbuch der Waffenkunde, Leipzig.
Bocheński, Zbigniew (1930). Polskie szyszaki wczesnośredniowieczne, Kraków.
Bocheński, Zbigniew (1935). Nowe materjały do zagadnienia polskich szyszaków wczesnośredniowiecznych. In: Sprawozdania z Czynności i Posiedzeń Akademii Umiejętności w Krakowie, T. 40, Nr. 9, Kraków, 319-321.
Bochnak, Adam – Pagaczewski, Julian (1959). Polskie rzemiosło artystyczne wieków średnich, Kraków.
Čurilova 1986 = Чурилова, Л. Н. (1986). Погребение с серебряной маской у села Манвеловки на Днепропетровщине // СА, № 4, 261–266.
Eljasz-Radzikowski, Walery (1879). Ubiory w Polsce i u sąsiadów. T. 1, Cz. 1, Od IX do końca XIII wieku. Do końca XI wieku, Kraków.
Engel, Marcin – Sobczak, Cezary (2019). Ozdobne okucia hełmów wczesnośredniowiecznych z zespołu osadniczego w Szurpiłach. In: Acta Militaria Mediaevalia XV, Kraków – Sanok – Wrocław, 65-84.
Dziewanowski, Władysław (1935). Zarys dziejów uzbrojenia w Polsce, Warszawa.
Gaerte, Wilhelm (1923). Ein altpreußischer Helm. In: Zeitschrift für historische Waffen- und Kostümkunde, Neue Folge, B. 1, H. 2/3, 41-2.
Gaerte, Wilhelm (1924a). Ein altpreußischer Helm — Nachtrag. In: Zeitschrift für historische Waffen- und Kostümkunde, Neue Folge, B. 1, H. 5, 137–138.
Gaerte, Wilhelm (1924b). Die Besiedlung und Kultur Königsbergs und seiner Umgebung in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit. In: Altpreußische Forschungen, Jg. 1, H. 1., Königsberg, 97-144.
Gončarov 1950 = Гончаров, В. К. (1950). Райковецкое городище, Киев.
Gorelik, Michael (2002). Arms and armour in South-Eastern Europe in the Second Half of the First Millenium AD. In: Nicolle, David (ed.). Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour, Woodbridge, 127–147.
Górewicz, I. D. (2020). O broni Słowian. Na wojnie i w kulturze, Szczecin – Poznań.
Hejdová, Dagmar (1964). Přilba zvaná „svatováclavská“. In: Sborník Národního muzea v Praze, A 18, no. 1–2, 1–106.
Hensel, Witold (1953). Studia i materiały do osadnictwa Wielkopolski wczesnohistorycznej, T. 2, Poznań.
Kainov 2018 = Каинов, С. Ю. (2018). Деталь шлема из Плиски (A helmet detail from Pliska) // Военни експедиции, въоръжение и снаряжение (античност и средновековие). Acta Musei Varnaensis. X–2, Варна, 47-52.
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.
Kainov – Kamenskij 2013 = Каинов, С. Ю. – Каменский, А. Н. (2013). О неизвестной находке фрагмента шлема с Дубошина раскопа в Великом Новгороде // Новгород и Новгородская земля. История и археология. Вып. 27, Великий Новгород, 179-189.
Kara, Michał et al. (2016). Gród piastowski w Gieczu. Geneza – funkcja – kontekst, Poznań.
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.
Kohte, Julius (1896). Verzeichnis der Kunstdenkmäler der Provinz Posen, Bd. II, Berlin.
Kouřil, Pavel (1994). Slovanské osídlení českého Slezska, Brno – Český Těšín.
Kovalenko et al. 2020 = Коваленко, Е. С. et al. (2020). Рентгеновская, синхротронная и нейтронная визуализация металлических артефактов из кургана Черная Могила // Российские нанотехнологии, том 15, № 5, 56–68.
Kurnatowska, Zofia (2004). The stronghold in Giecz in the light of new and old research. In: Urbańczyk, Przemysław (ed.). Polish Lands at the Turn of the First and the Second Millennia, Warszawa, 207-222.
Lušin 2019 = Лушин, Виктор (2019). К вопросу о дате Чёрной Могилы // История. Археология. Культура. Материалы и исследования. Отв. ред. М. Г. Моисеенко, Е. П. Токарева, Зимовники, 21-33.
Moravec, Zbyněk (2012). Část přilby z Opavy-Jaktaře / Bits of helmet from Opava-Jaktař. In: Černý, Pavol (ed.). Cesta ke zlaté bule sicilské : usilování o královskou korunu, Ostrava, 53.
Nadolski, Andrzej (1954). Studia nad uzbrojeniem polskim w X, XI, XII wieku, Łódź.
Nadolski, Andrzej (1960). Uwagi o wczesnośredniowiecznych hełmach typu wielkopolskiego. In: Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi. Seria archeologiczna 5, 99–124.
Nadolski, Andrzej (1994). Polska technika wojskowa do 1500 roku, Warszawa.
Nicolle, David (1999). Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, 1050-1350. Western Europe and the Crusader States, London – Mechanicsburg.
Nowakowski, Andrzej (1991). Uzbrojenie średniowieczne w Polsce (na tle środkowoeuropejskim), Toruń.
Ovsejčik 2021 = Овсейчик, Инна (2021). Раритеты по мировым меркам. Предметы вооружения Х–ХIII веков из собрания Бобруйского краеведческого музея // Беларускі музей – навукова-папулярны часопіс, № 1, 2 (5, 6), 17-21.
Pajzderski, Nikodem (1913). Zabytki Wielkopolskie, z. 2: Epoka romańska, Poznań.
Pajzderski, Nikodem (1922). Poznań, Lwów – Warszawa.
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.
Poklewska-Koziełł, Magdalena – Sikora, Mateusz (2018). Szyszak z Giecza — szczegółowa inwentaryzacja obiektu i stan badań / Helmet (szyszak) from Giecz. A Detailed Inventory and the State of Research. In: Sankiewicz, P. – Wyrwa, A. M. (eds). Broń drzewcowa i uzbrojenie ochronne z Ostrowa Lednickiego, Giecza i Grzybowa, Lednica, 109-122.
Przezdziecki, Aleksander – Rastawiecki, Edward (1860–1869). Wzory sztuki średniowiecznej i z epoki odrodzenia po koniec wieku XVII w dawnej Polsce, serya Trzecia, Warszawa.
Rajewski, Zdzisław (1973). O niektórych hełmach wczesnośredniowiecznych. In: Wiadomości archeologiczne XXXVIII, 349-360.
Rychter, M. R. – Strzyż, Piotr (2016). A forgotten helmet from Silniczka in Poland. In: Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae 29, 105-113.
Rychter, M. R. – Strzyż, Piotr (2019). Hełm z Silniczki w świetle rekonserwacji i badań metaloznawczych – A helmet from Silniczka in the context of re-conservation and metallographic examination. In: Wiadomości Konserwatorskie – Journal of Heritage Conservation 58, 23-32.
Sadowski, J. N. (1877). Wykaz zabytków przedhistorycznych na ziemiach polskich, Zeszyt I: Porzecza Warty i Baryczy, Kraków.
Samokvasov 1916 = Самоквасов, Д. Я. (1916). Могильные древности Северянской Черниговщины, Москва.
Sankiewicz, Paweł (2018). Katalog uzbrojenia ochronnego / Armour Finds. Catalogue. In: Sankiewicz, P. – Wyrwa, A. M. (eds). Broń drzewcowa i uzbrojenie ochronne z Ostrowa Lednickiego, Giecza i Grzybowa, Lednica, 217-252.
Schwartz, Wilhelm (1875). Materialien zur prähistorischen Kartographie der Prov. Posen (Zusammenstellung der Funde und Fundorte), Posen.
Sikora, Mateusz (2013). Helm No 497. In: Stiegemann, Ch. – Kroker, M. – Walter, W. (eds.). CREDO: Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter, Bd. II: Katalog, Petersberg, 561-2.
Sikora, Mateusz (2015). Paradehelm. In: Cottin, M. – Filip, V. V. – Kunde, H. (eds.). 1000 Jahre Kaiserdom Merseburg, Bd. III: Katalog, Petersberg, 245–246.
Sommerfeld-Sarnowska, Wanda (1948). O tzw. szyszakach wczesnośredniowiecznych. In: Wiadomości archeologiczne XVI, 316–322.
Starzyński, Bolesław (1875-1900). Broń zaczepna i odporna w Polsce. T. 1, Zbroje i części uzbrojenia, rukopis uložený v Biblioteka Jagiellońska, BJ Rkp. 7003 III t. 1.
Sulimirski, Filip et al. (1881). Słownik geograficzny Królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich, t. II, Warszawa.
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.
Šišlina et al. 2017 = Шишлина, Н. И. et al. (2017). Радиоуглеродное AMS-датирование экспонатов Исторического музея: результаты и обсуждение // Известия Самарского научного центра Российской академии наук, Т. 19. № 3 (2). Отв. ред. Ю.П. Аншаков, Самара, 398– 405.
Šišlov et al. 2020 = Шишлов, А. В. – Колпакова, А. В. – Федоренко, Н. В. (2020). Средневековый могильник Ленинский путь-3 в Приморском районе г. Новороссийска // X Анфимовские чтения по археологии Западного Кавказа. Отв. ред. Р. Б. Схатум, В. В. Улитин, Краснодар, 400-407.
Vasjuta 2016 = Васюта, Олег (2016). Курган Чорна Могила в історичних дослідженнях минулого та сучасності // Сіверянський літопис, № 6, 3-18.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2020). Přilby typu „Černá mohyla“ : nové nálezy a problém původu. In: Projekt Forlǫg: Reenactment a věda [online]. [2024-09-11]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/prilby-typu-cerna-mohyla/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022a). The helmet from Gorzuchy, Poland. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2024-09-11]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-helmet-from-gorzuchy-poland/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022b). The helmet from Olszówka, Poland. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2024-09-11]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-helmet-from-olszowka-poland/.
Vlasatý, Tomáš (2022c). The helmet from Mokre, Ukraine. In: Project Forlǫg – Reenactment and science [online]. [2024-09-11]. 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]. [2024-09-11]. Available from: https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/the-helmet-from-the-prussian-site-of-ekritten/.
Wyrwa, A. M. (2014). Gdecz – Giecz. Scire est reminisci. Krótka historia wydobywania z zapomnienia rezydencji piastowskiej, Dziekanowice – Lednica.
Wyrwa, A. M. (2016). W poszukiwaniu zaginionej świetności. Spojrzenia „starożytników” i pierwsze naukowe refleksje nad piastowskim grodem w Gieczu (1810–1924). In: Kara, Michał et al. (eds.). Gród piastowski w Gieczu. Geneza – funkcja – kontekst, Poznań, 27-57.
Wyrwa, A. M. (2018). Historia odkrycia szyszaka znalezionego „w bagnie” koło Giecza i jego miejsce w kulturze. In: Sankiewicz, P. – Wyrwa, A. M. (eds). Broń drzewcowa i uzbrojenie ochronne z Ostrowa Lednickiego, Giecza i Grzybowa, Lednica, 109-122.
Żygulski, Zdzisław (1982). Broń w dawnej Polsce: na tle uzbrojenia Europy i Bliskiego Wschodu, Warszawa
