Elamite helmet with divine figures: A warrior king's 3 22%

By Kristina Killgrove15%

7/13/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Biased Writer Voice, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 27.7% saturation with 139 hits. Analysis detected 827 faulty-reasoning hits from 501 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.6% and a BS Rank of 22% (17,134 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.30% of the article peer group.

QUICK FACTS 
Name: Elamite helmet with divine figures 
What it is: A bronze helmet with gold decorations 
Where it is from: Southwestern Iran 
When it was made: Circa 1500 to 1100 B.C. 
This unique helmet comes from the Elamite culture, an ancient civilization that flourished for nearly three millennia in what is now Iran. 
Likely worn by a warrior king more than 3,000 years ago, the helmet has been decorated with a large bird of prey that is swooping down over three divine figures. 
The dome-shaped bronze helmet measures roughly 8.5 inches (21.6 centimeters) in diameter and has a thin, cutaway area on the front that would have gone over the wearer's eyebrows. 
Originally, a small projection would have extended down between them to cover the wearer's nose. 
Gold -covered silver studs line the edge of the helmet, and a bronze tube on the back likely once held a plume of feathers or hair. 
The helmet, which is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art , was made by a master artisan of the Elamite culture , one of the earliest civilizations of the ancient Near East. 
The Elamites lived in what is now southwest Iran, along the eastern Persian Gulf, from roughly 2700 B.C. until they were conquered by the Persian Empire in 539 B.C. 
Elam was frequently at war with neighboring Mesopotamian cities, including Ur and Babylon , and archaeologists have found numerous examples of the culture's elaborate weapons and armor. 
But this particular helmet is "a masterpiece of ancient art" that "has no parallels in either the representative art of the ancient Near East or from excavations," archaeologist Oscar White Muscarella wrote in a 1988 book about the ancient Near Eastern bronze and iron artifacts in The Met's collection. 
This helmet's unique shape and decorations make it stand out from other Elamite armor. 
On the front of the helmet are three gold deities: two females and one male. 
The male deity carries a vessel with water cascading out of it, suggesting he is an Elamite water god. 
The two identical goddesses wear horned headdresses and jewelry, and they are holding up their hands in a gesture of prayer. 
A raptor is positioned vertically over the water god, possibly symbolizing the bird of prey of the battlefield that awaits the victims of the warrior king who wore the helmet, Charles K. 
Wilkinson , curator emeritus of Near Eastern art at The Met, wrote in a 1965 study of the object. 
The helmet certainly would have been worn by someone of high rank in the Elamite culture, Muscarella and Wilkinson both wrote, but it was likely symbolic as well as functional. 
The representations of important deities were probably intended to ward off evil and conflict on the ancient battlefield. 
For more stunning archaeological discoveries, check out our Astonishing Artifacts archives. 
Sleep and Death Handle 
Byzantine Foot Lamp 
Mask of Mictlantecuhtli 
Can you put together last week's Astonishing Artifact ? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 4.1%Live Science: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 1.1%Live Science: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Kristina Killgrove: 2.7%Live Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.4%This article: 8.2%Kristina Killgrove: 2.1%Live Science: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic8.2%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.5%Live Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 23.6%Kristina Killgrove: 3.4%Live Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias23.6%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 1.5%Live Science: 3.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 2.7%Live Science: 3.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Kristina Killgrove: 1.3%Live Science: 1.2%Pessimism Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 1.5%Live Science: 3.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.3%Live Science: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.7%Live Science: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.3%Live Science: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Kristina Killgrove: 1.7%Live Science: 1.3%Halo Effect9.8%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.3%Live Science: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Kristina Killgrove: 0.7%Live Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect9.8%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.8%Kristina Killgrove: 5.0%Live Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority22.8%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 1.5%Live Science: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 6.4%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.4%Slippery Slope6.4%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.2%Kristina Killgrove: 4.9%Live Science: 3.8%Hasty Generalization8.2%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.5%Live Science: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 1.2%Live Science: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 3.8%Kristina Killgrove: 0.7%Live Science: 0.5%Begging the Question3.8%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 1.8%Live Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.4%Live Science: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.8%Live Science: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.4%Live Science: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 1.0%Live Science: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 27.7%Kristina Killgrove: 2.4%Live Science: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)27.7%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.3%Live Science: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.3%Live Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.8%Kristina Killgrove: 1.1%Live Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote9.8%This article: 9.8%Kristina Killgrove: 0.8%Live Science: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection9.8%This article: 12.4%Kristina Killgrove: 1.8%Live Science: 3.5%Biased Writer Voice12.4%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 1.0%Live Science: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Kristina Killgrove: 3.0%Live Science: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.0%

501 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.8%attributed speech482writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageThe Met • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Met

0%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words100% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.9 ptsWriter: 12.9%The Met: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-10.2 ptsWriter: 10.2%The Met: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.2 ptsWriter: 10.2%The Met: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%The Met: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.