Helmets

[The Iron Age center of Vače and its military elite] The graves of warriors with helmets from Vače are pre­ sented in the article. With the aid of the finds and their contexts a model was formed of the social structure, which at Vače was not based merely on the principle of ancestry. Chieftains had to exhibit other qualities (leadership ability, personal charisma, and heroic deeds), as can also be inferred from scenes of situla art. The place of Vače within the Lower Carniola Iron Age complex is analyzed. The economic prosperity of the center was enabled by the near vicinity of mines and the metallurgical activities related to them, while agrarian resources and the control of trade routes played a more minor role.

An examination and technical analysis of the so-called "Lion Helmet" in the collection of the Arms and Armor Department at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Dated to 1475-80, the helmet was made in Italy, and is comprised of a gilt copper shell over a steel helmet, with a textile lining. The article discusses the history, technical details of construction, and investigates the origins and changes to the helmet prior to acquisition.

In 1818 in a tumulus lying to the south-west of the oppidum of Larina, not far from Lyon, one of the richest Late La Tène graves ever found was excavated by the Count of Verna. The grave inventory belonged to the Verna private collection until 1995 when it was purchased by Hières-sur-Amby Maison du Patrimoine. It remained unpublished until 2002, when it was presented by Franck Perrin and Martin Schönfelder in the catalogue of the exhibition on the Allobroges. In 2003 the same authors edited an excellent publication of the grave. It contained, among other things, the remains of a four-wheel-chariot, weapons (a bronze casket, iron swords, spearheads and shield-bosses) and an extremely large set of Late Republican bronze vessels. The grave was assigned to the phase La Tène D1b and dated between 100 and 80 BC
Quite unusual for the period of discovery is the detailed documentation, prepared in 1818 by the director of the Museum of Lyon, François Artaud, and consisting of a report, several plates with drawings and a list of subscriptions. One of the drawings on plate 3 represents a bronze jug with handle and cover.
According to the author, the jug has all the characteristics of Ornavasso-type jugs. However, the handle on the drawing does not have the form of either of two types of handles that make it possible to subdivide Ornavasso-type jugs into subtypes Ruvo and Montefiascone. Obviously the original handle was not found by the excavator, but was replaced on the drawing by a handle of an Idrija type beaker, also belonging to the inventory.
The supposed cover consists of a round disk and an attachment with three protuberances, fastened onto the disk by bronze rivets with red enamel decoration. It can be compared with a very similar object, appearing on Artaud's plate 1, which still had its attachment, now lost, and several other badly preserved objects of the same form, only briefly mentioned by Artaud. They all belong to a small, but very typical, group of Late La Tène harness pendants.

A highly interesting helmet is deposited in the Historical Museum of Tsageri (Georgia). The closest counterparts of this battle headpiece is stored in the Wawel Palace in Krakow (Poland) and in the State Hermitage in Saint Petersburg (Russia). The strong similarity of all three helmets suggests that they were all produced in a single region within a relatively short period of time. Besides, a number of features common to the Wawel type of helmets is demonstrated by a battle headpiece from Rekom Sanctuary of (Northern Ossetia). Researchers date these combat headpieces differently - from the 13th to the 15th centuries. However, in our opinion this dating requires rectification. The ethnocultural affiliation of the Wawel type of helmets is also unclear, but there are reasons to consider particularly the Caucasus and Georgia as one of the regions where this type of combat headpieces could have been produced.

The work considers helmets of the spheroconical shape. Their evolution is traced in the article starting with the Iron Age and ending with the period of the Roman Empire. The specimens used in the Roman army of 2nd-3rd centuries demonstrate the continuity of the tradition of using in spheroconical helmets in the Mediterranean region, the earliest of which date back to the mid-2nd millennium B.C.

Simultaneity bias complicates the estimation of the causal effect of motorcycle helmet usage on fatalities. We overcome this obstacle by exploiting an exogenous variation in the enforcement of the motorcycle helmet usage law between two municipalities in Uruguay. We show evidence of a dramatic increase in helmet usage in one municipality after the law was enforced. In just one month, usage increased from less than 10% to more than 90%. Our difference in difference estimates show that helmet usage laws are associated with a significant decrease in injuries and fatalities.

The paper discusses a well-preserved helmet discovered in the vicinity of an Early Medieval cemetery in Silniczka near Radomsko. The helmet was made from two pieces of metal sheet, which were riveted together. In its upper part the presence of copper and gold sheets was noticed. The helmet can be dated to the 11th-first half of the 12th c. and it belongs to unique finds from the territory of Poland.

In 2010, seven years ago, the second volume of the publication of the Hallstatt period barrows from Stična, the studies, was published in Ljubljana by the National Museum of Slovenia (Narodni muzej Slovenije): Stična II/2, Katalogi in monografije 38. The first volume, the catalogue, appeared in 2006: Stična II/1, Katalogi in monografije 37. The main chapters in the second volume were written by Stane Gabrovec (born in 1920) and Biba Teržan (born in 1947), both professors at the University of Ljubljana and ordinary members of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
The chapter by Gabrovec (pp. 7-60) gives an overview dealing first with the history of research of tumulus 48, tumulus 5 and some others (especially those excavated by the Duchess of Mecklenburg), as well as describing the topography of the tumulus cemetery of Stična. In the second part of this chapter Gabrovec writes about the burial rite, stratigraphy and chronology of barrow 48. For several reasons everyone expected that his study would provide a clear picture of the interments in tumulus 48, which contained almost 200 graves. It was expected that he would provide correct dates for all the datable graves, with a detailed analysis of the burial rite and the grave architecture (e. g. the dimensions of the grave pits) and describe in detail the range of objects found in the graves: fibulae, weapons, belt fittings, ring ornaments, glass and amber beads, ceramics and bronze vessels.
We should not forget that barrow 48 is of crucial importance for understanding the evolution of the Dolenjska group of the Hallstatt culture from the 7th to the 5th centuries BC, because the grave groups from Magdalenska gora and Stična in the Mecklenburg Collection are mixed and useless for scientific research, and because the hundreds of graves excavated before 1914, mostly by Jernej Pečnik and Ferdinand Schulz for the museums in Ljubljana and in Vienna at different sites of the Dolenjska group, are often not reliable at all.
Gabrovec’s first chronology of the Dolenjska group was already created in 1963. The last two phases, the Certosa and Negova phases, were convincingly subdivided into two sub-phases in 1976 by his student Biba Teržan in her study of the Certosa type fibulae. In the last extensive presentation of this group, published in 1987 in volume 5 of The Prehistory of Yugoslav Lands (Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja), Gabrovec devoted a lot of space to the chronology. He divided the whole time span of the Dolenjska group into five main phases: Podzemelj, Stična, Serpentine, Certosa and Negova. The main types of each of these phases were presented separately in six figures. If we take, for example, fig. 4 on p. 57 illustrating objects of the Serpentine phase (stupanj zmijolikih fibula), there are about one third which are in reality earlier, from the Stična phase, or later, from the Certosa phase. Earlier are the serpentine fibula no. 8 (cf. grave 48/27 from Stična) and the bracelet no. 14 (a thick solid bracelet with overlapping tapering ends, which is decorated with groups of transverse incisions or narrow ribs). To the types, which appear only in the Certosa phase and not before, belong the double-crested helmet, the pottery with indented walls (nos. 17, 18 and 21), the footed vase of type 10 after Dular (no. 20), and as well very probably the decorated rectangular bronze belt plate no. 16. The rest of the fibulae (nos. 6, 7, 9-13: serpentine fibulae with a saddle-shaped bow, leech fibulae, serpentine fibulae with wings, fibulae with a ribbed bow and a long foot, serpentine fibulae with plates, and band bow fibulae), the spiral band earrings (no. 12), the ribbed bracelets and anklets with overlapping tapering ends (no. 13) and the red-and-black vessels (nos. 22 and 23: the footed vase of type 9 after Dular and the situla with horizontal ribs) are without any doubt typical of the Serpentine phase!
In his study from 2010 Gabrovec ascribed a limited number of graves from barrow 48 to four stratigraphic and chronological phases: I, II, III and IV (pp. 46 and 55-56, fig. 21 on p. 40 and fig. 23 on p. 50).
Among the graves of phase I appears grave 19-22, a supposed central chamber, which did not exist and was a pure fabrication by Biba Teržan (cf. https://www.academia.edu/29260635 and https://www.academia.edu/11505808, Abstract). Gabrovec assigned to phase II not only graves of the Stična 2 phase, but also several graves of the following Serpentine phase (e. g. nos. 136, 147 and 151). Similarly, he ascribed to phase III not only graves of the Serpentine phase, but also one grave of the Stična 2 phase (no. 74) and two from the Certosa phase (nos. 85 and 99). Finally, in his list of graves of phase IV, not only graves from the Certosa phase, but also some of the preceding Serpentine phase appear (e.g. nos. 44 and 171). That means that graves from the Serpentine phase with their typical inventory (serpentine, leech and band bow fibulae, ribbed bracelets and anklets with overlapping tapering ends, spiral band earrings, red-and-black pottery) were ascribed by him to three chronological phases, which is completely wrong.
Especially poor is his presentation of the last phase IV. Although he first assigned to it no less than 97 graves (p. 44) and then (p. 55) about 19 graves with fibulae (13 serpentine, 19 Certosa, two animal-shaped and one three-knobbed), in the table on fig. 21 with typical graves of the four chronological phases (I-IV) there are only 10 graves of phase IV (cf. p. 47, Mit Beginn). They are all female and only two contain fibulae (nos. 8 and 36). All male graves of the Certosa phase and almost all graves with fibulae of this phase have simply disappeared!!?
To emend this false picture, I have written a study for the journal Prilozi 33, published by the Institute of Archaeology in Zagreb, in which I ascribed to Phase IV (= Certosa phase) 36 graves and presented also 36 metal (iron and bronze), glass, amber and pottery objects, which are typical for it.
The chapter by Gabrovec on the Hallstatt barrows from Stična, especially the sub-chapter on the chronology (pp. 46-55), is unfortunately, contrary to expectation not a scientific work. Had its author been a student of archaeology, in no way could he get a positive mark for it.
The publication of the Stična II/2 volume was made possible by Biba Teržan, the main co-author, and by the two reviewers, Janez Dular and Mitja Guštin. They are all students of Gabrovec and they all got the prize of the Slovenian Archaeological Society for their life’s work. This prize is given to those archaeologists, who contributed through their main achievements to the development of Slovenian archaeology and to the growth of its reputation at home and abroad. Stična II/2 volume has thrown a shadow on the work of Gabrovec in 2010, when the late professor reached 90 years. The duty of Teržan, Dular and Guštin was simply to emend it very much or not to include it in the publication. As a member of the editorial board I had no possibility to react, because the chief and responsible editor Peter Turk, who did his job in an extremely poor way, did not allow sight of the submitted texts and illustrations to three members of it (Istenič, Knific and me). The volume with studies on the Stična Hallstatt barrows (Stična II/2) has very much diminished the reputation not only of the publisher (The National Museum of Slovenia in Ljubljana), but also of the whole of Slovenian Early Iron Age archaeology.

The abstract was kindly proof read by John Collis from the University of Sheffield (UK).

Avče in the Soča Valley, May 2, 2017 (Tuesday)

В люнета на централната камера на гробницата, намиращ се над фриза от триглифи и метопи, е представена фигурална композиция. Тя е разположена на северозападната стена. Централната сцена в живописта е висока женска фигура – богиня, която поднася венец на царя-конник. Зад богинята са изобразени четири жени, носещи различни предмети, докато зад конника са представени две мъжки фигури с елементи на нападателно и защитно въоръжение. В настоящата статия детайлно е разгледано и интерпретирано изображението на първата фигура зад владетеля и по-конкретно – изобразеният предмет върху главата му (обр. 1). Анализирани са също така и отделните мнения за нападателното въоръжение, изобразени като атрибути на мъжа зад царя-конник, като авторът се съгласява с някои от изказаните хипотези, докато за други изказва аргументирани възражения.
Върху главата на фигурата зад царя-конник е представен предмет, който е акцентът в настоящата статия. Предметът е определен като шлем от М. чичикова, която не се ангажира с описание, следователно не го свързва с някои от известните типове шлемове и не се аргументира за така изказаната хипотеза. Позовавайки се на мнението на М. чичикова, Т. Стоянов пише Ако е шлем, такъв висок, килнат назад, би могъл да бъде коринтски или халкидски .... Авторът не изключва и възможността да е хибриден тип, като посочва пример от Казанлъшката гробница и отбелязва, че този вариант е бил не особено популярен в Тракия и в Егейския басейн. Въпреки това, Т. Стоянов смята, че е изобразена „висока шапка, с високо обърната долна част”, която заедно с дрехата има паралели на изток, а самата фигура е ...с евентуален анатолийски или изотчен произход. Според Сh. Webber мъжът носи странна шапка, която може да бъде шлем или островърха шапка тип пилос. Той също не прави описание на шлема и не го причислява към някой от известните типове, а и най-вероятно мнението му, че е изобразен шлем, е възприето от М. чичикова, защото в реконструкцията му върху главата е представена по-скоро шапка, която няма нищо общо с оригиналното изображение и която е определена като петасос от Т. Стоянов (обр.3). Въпреки, че Ch. Webber смята, че може да е изобразена шапка тип пилос, в реконструкцията му, изображението няма нищо общо с този тип шапки. За автора на настоящата статия няма никакво съмнение, че е изобразен шлем върху главата на пехотинеца зад царя-конник. Съвсем ясно се вижда, че е шлем и последвалото описание със снимки и графична реконструкция, което се прави за първи път в научната литература и доказва по-един убедителен начин така поставената интерпретация (обр. 4). Шлемът е изобразен с пластично представена ивица, която разделя калотата от долната част (отвесните части). Тя се съединява в остър връх в средата на челната част, като върхът е представен надолу (обр. 4–2). Самата калота е издължена конусовидно (обр. 4–2). Изображението е толкова добре запазено, че могат да се посочат и отделни детайли от шлема, като пластично представената (релефна) вежда, предадена реалистично с фината си извивка и която почти незабележимо се стеснява към долния си край (обр. 4–3), като масивния наносник (обр. 4–4) и десния набузник, който в предната част е оформен зигзаообразно, като декоративен елемент и леко заоблен в задната си част (обр. 4–5). Представеният по-този начин набузник е идея, заимствана от реално съшествуващ образец. В известните шлемове от България подобно оформяне на предната част на набузниците има при три екземпляра от колективната находка при с. Юделник, Русенско. Най-близкият топографски паралел на назъбения набузник от изображението в Свещарската гробница е от шлема при с. Лъвино, Исперихско. Друга група шлемове, при които лицевата страна на набузниците е оформена зигзагообразно, са парадните шлемове от Перету и Аджигьол, докато при тези от Железни врата (сега в Detroit Institute of Arts) самата предна част е изрязана зигзагообразно (обр. 6–7). Самото оформяне на набузниците при шлема от Железни врата е много сходно с представения набузник от изображението в Свещарската гробница. В изображението на шлема от Свещарската гробница, ивицата, която разделя калотата от отвесните части и там, където тя се съединява, е представена с обърнат връх, докато в екземплярите от този тип тя (или отстъп) отново се съединява в средата на челната част, само че като остър връх (фронтон) и се явява характерна черта при шлемовете от халкидския тип. Като пример ще посоча само коментирания тук шлем от Лъвино (обр. 8). В екземплярите от халкидски тип, пластично представената вежда в изображението на шлема от гробницата, е типичен елемент за отразяването на тази част от лицето. Наносникът от изображението, като при повечето шлемове от халкидски тип, също е отличителен белег. В шлемовете, където той е запазен, е изработен от метален лист с дебелина от 1 до 2 мм по-дебел, в сравнение с останалите части от шлема. Изключение прави само задтилника. Масивност, отразена и в изображението от Свещарската гробница. Формата на изобразения шлем, присъствието и анализа на предадените с голяма точност характерни детайли, са основание да причислим изобразения шлем от Свещарската гробница към групата на халкидския тип и по-точно към неговия по-късен вариант – втората половина на ІV в. пр. Хр. (обр. 4–6; 4–7). Изображението на шлем от Свещарската гробница е единственият, за сега, сигурен елемент от въоръжението в сцената, който е идентифициран и е определен типологически. Считам, че не подлежи на съмнение и на нови интерпретации.

Our work with Nikolaev A.V. (main author) on the main types of helmets of the infantry of the Holy Roman Empire in the first third of the 16th century.

Work was released on the IX international Research-to-Practice Conference "War and Weapons” St. Petersburg, 15.05-19.05.2017.

The article is dedicated to a helmet from a destroyed nomadic burial near Semenovod village in Stavropol Krai. The burial is considered an early Mongol site. Of special interest is the rare type of helmet with a half-mask, supposedly allowing to reconsider the perception of several design features of a series of helmets from Eastern Europe crafted as late as in Golden Horde period.

Background: Motorcycles have a higher rate of fatality than cars within the same distance travelled. Head injuries are the main causes of death in motorcycle crashes. The objective of this study is to investigate intrinsic motivation and psychological factors on use of a helmet among motorcyclists in Gorgan City, Iran, in 2016.
Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional survey was conducted among motorcycle riders at randomly selected areas such as fuel stations and service complexes in Gorgan City, Iran, in 2016. The questionnaire was composed of two parts, and 393 people were fully responsive to all questions. The first part included social demographic questions such as age, gender, education, income and marital status. The second part was consisted of questions measuring the intrinsic motivation of incentives and barriers, perceived benefits and barriers, perceived behavioral control, and behavior.
Results: Based on both Pearson correlation and Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA), the correlation of intrinsic motivation incentives with perceived benefits under the influence of respect for the law was statistically significant (χ2 = 68.751, P < 0.010), (r = 0.491, P < 0.010) which would greatly increase helmet use. Intrinsic motivation barriers with perceived benefits was more influenced by the importance of appearance for drivers with a significant correlation (χ2 = 40.655, P < 0.010), (r = 0.281, P < 0.010), this factor was found to reduce the use of helmets among motorcyclists.
Conclusions: In this study, care for appearance is regarded as an intrinsic motivation which has a significant correlation in almost all psychological factors and finally leads to the use or not use of a helmet. Another key factor which persuades the riders to wear a helmet is respect to the traffic regulations; thus, enforcing the law may be a fundamental strategy for increasing helmet use.

In conjunction with its development of high performance air bags for small cars in the early 1970's, Minicars, Inc. attempted to provide truly passive protection in all accident modes. The passive interior concept was epitomized in the design for NHTSA of the Minicars Research Safety Vehicle (RSV) (1,2), the Large Research Safety Vehicle (3), then applied to the Chevrolet Citation in the Modified Production Vehicle program (MIV) (4) and incorporated and publicized to some extent in General Motors X and J cars (5) in the late 70's and early 80's.

THE PRESLAV INSCRIPTION
The foundations of the Preslav Fortress were laid and it was built by Khan Omurtag. During the design and construction of the fortress, a special building with suitable premises with wooden racks for storage and conservation of protective equipment or of the disbanded and dismissed people's militia, or of Bulgarians who died in one of the battles with the Romans, or on the other hand, protective equipment collected from one of the nearby battlefields, but most likely equipment originating from all three of these situations. Khan Omurtag personally assigned the task of collecting and storing this protective equipment to his Ichergu-Boila Jivko of Slavic origin, and to his supreme commander, in his absence, the commander-in-chief of his army, the proto-Bulgarian Turtun, who worked on the case with the prefect, i.e. the regional governor of Pliska. These officials must not only organize and manage the collection and retrieval of protective equipment, but also control and be responsible for it subsequently. For this purpose, a one-storey building was built of "narrow elongated and undivided corridors", in front of the entrance of which stands a special marble column, on which in capital Greek letters in Proto-Bulgarian is carved the relevant military inventory, which not only indicates the names or positions of the responsible persons, but also the type and quantity of the protective equipment itself.

Three hoards of tools and weapons from the Iron Age and the Roman period, discovered in the 19th century. Critical reading of the literature, evaluation of the sources and the reconstruction of the contents
A public test lecture for the election in the title Associate professor for the field of archaeology
http://iza.zrc-sazu.si/Si/Splet_publ/Dragan_zakladi.html

The article introduces into scientific discourse another military burial from Keliya burial ground of the Golden Horde period located in mountain Ingushetia. The helmet lying alongside the buried in a stone box is represented by a specimen made entirely of chain mail, which was worn on the head. A finial on top of the helmet featured an image of four griffons. The front side of the combat headpiece had sub-rectangular cutouts for the eyes. Whereas the helmet does not have direct and exact counterparts, although in terms of structure it can be related to the ‘mail caps’ from the North-Western Caucasus, the bronze finials have exact counterparts on several helmets from the nomadic burials of the Golden Horde and New Sarai. The counterparts have allowed not only to date the helmet, but also to make several assumptions making it possible to consider it a possible prototype of later headpieces - the so-called ‘misyurkas’.

The present work deals with the geometrical development of the existing helmet using CAD software tool and then the structural analysis of the existing model using ANSYS workbench linear analysis and the results, deformation, stress, strain plots was been compared with well established results. Then the alternative model with other combinations was been developed and analyzed for the structural analysis and the results was been compared with the existing helmet. At the end the helmet with superior strength, characteristics with low material cost will be achieved through the research.

V zadnjih štirih stoletjih pred našim štetjem so se v Posočju spojile tri kulture: domača posoška kultura starejše železne dobe, ki jo najbolje poznamo na podlagi velikega grobišča in naselja na Mostu na Soči, italska kultura z Apeninskega polotoka in keltska iz srednje Evrope. Pestre najdbe iz tistega časa so odkrili zlasti na grobiščih, od katerih je najpomembnejše na Idriji pri Bači, in v svetiščih, na primer nad Kobaridom in na Šentviški planoti.
Izstopajo predmeti z venetskimi in italskimi napisi, srebrne pletene ovratnice, za Posočje značilne fibule z živalsko glavico, raznovrstne bronaste posode, konjska in konjeniška oprema in železno poljedelsko orodje (na primer kose, lemeži, črtala in koničaste kopače), najdeno v grobovih in zakladih.