1st century BC helmet found near Canterbury
By Andrew Richardson
In 1986 I attended a WEA class at the Roman Painted House in Dover, taught by Brian Philp. My first foray into the world of archaeology began with Brian describing Caesar’s expeditions to Kent of 55 and 54 BC. He told us that no direct archaeological evidence for either of those expeditions has ever been found, despite the fact that in 54 BC Caesar was accompanied by four legions (about 20,000 men) and that he fought several engagements. I’ve always remembered that first lesson and have, like many colleagues, been skeptical of any suggestion that a particular site or find might be linked to Caesar in Britain. So in recent weeks I’ve been surprised to have found myself involved with a discovery that just might be such a find.
In October I received a phone call from a metal detectorist, known from my time as Finds Liaison Officer (FLO) for Kent. This detectorist said he had made a ‘significant discovery’. In my line of work, both formerly as FLO and today at Canterbury Archaeological Trust (CAT), receiving such a call is not unusual. But the finder stated that he had found what he believed to be a ‘Celtic bronze helmet’. That did get my attention. I knew of no such helmets from Kent; the famous ‘Deal warrior’ excavated by Keith Parfitt had a bronze head-dress, but that was not a helmet as such. Even for Britain as a whole, I knew such a find would be incredibly rare. However, the finder was very specific, saying that it appeared to be a ‘Mannheim’ type helmet. I also knew him as an experienced detectorist, so I arranged to visit him first thing next morning.
The following day I was astonished to see that he had indeed found a Late Iron Age helmet, made of copper alloy, along with a brooch in very good condition and a small spike made out of rolled copper alloy sheet. A fragment of burnt bone had been found together with the helmet and brooch; more bone had been observed but had not been removed. It therefore seemed probable that the finds were derived from a cremation burial. We agreed that it would be best to carry out excavation of the find spot as soon as possible to learn about the context of what was indeed a ‘significant find’.
The finding of two prehistoric base metal objects together in the same place made them potential Treasure under the terms of the Treasure Act (1996), so I reported the discovery to the Coroner, Kent’s FLO and the Treasure Registrar at the British Museum. Discussion with CAT colleagues and with the landowner, tenant, FLO, British Museum and others followed; all agreed that speedy excavation of the immediate find spot was needed.
In late October, a team drawn from CAT and Dover Archaeological Group carried out the excavation, opening a 2m2 square trench centered on the finder’s original excavation. This revealed no elaborate chiefly burial, but rather a small oval pit, cut into the natural chalk, which had just been missed by deep plough furrows to either side. Had the helmet not been found there can be little doubt that it would have suffered further plough damage, leading ultimately to its fragmentation, dispersion and effective destruction. Cutting into this oval pit the recovery pit could be reliably identified as a roughly circular hole about 0.35m in diameter. Careful removal of its filling yielded a moderate quantity of cremated bone and a few small fragments of copper-alloy sheet derived from the corroded top of the helmet.
At the base of the excavation, the lower half of the helmet’s oval outline was preserved as a near perfect cast in the surrounding undisturbed soil. In places, this outline was stained green from the corroded metal, enabling accurate recording of its original shape. From this it was possible to estimate the helmet’s original height, width and length. Comparison with similar helmets found elsewhere in Europe, notably at Mannheim in Germany, confirmed it as belonging to the ‘Mannheim’ type, dating from the 1st century BC. These helmets were usually worn by Celtic or Gallic warriors and are extremely rare finds in Britain.
copper-alloy composition of the helmet, and a few further fragments of copper-alloy sheeting remained on the base.
The overall form of the burial can be reconstructed with some confidence. A shallow circular pit had initially been cut into the natural chalk into which the inverted helmet had been placed. It was positioned in the eastern half of the pit, orientated NNE by SSW, with its projecting rear neck-guard at the NNE end. Either just before or just after the helmet had been put into the ground, a quantity of cremated human bone had been placed within it.
The brooch recovered was contained within the upper part of the bone deposit. It is likely that the cremated bone had originally been held within some sort of cloth or leather bag/container, closed at the top by the brooch. The whole had then been placed within the inverted helmet, in this case serving as an ‘urn’. The pit was then backfilled with relatively clean soil and chalk, with no surviving evidence to suggest that the spot had been permanently marked in any way. No evidence for any other interments was discovered; it would seem that the helmet burial was either an isolated one or formed part of a cemetery with widely spaced burials.
The finds are now undergoing specialist study at the British Museum. In addition, the helmet has been carefully scanned by archaeologists at the University of Kent using state-of-the-art technology. Using a contactless scanner, with a resolution better than 0.08mm, the team has been able to see small hammer indentations in the helmet. The scanner also produces digital pictures, helping to reveal intricate details often hidden by colour variations on the surface.
Problematic is the interpretation of this, for Britain, unique burial. The only British parallel in terms of the type of helmet is an example (albeit in much poorer condition) from a rich inhumation grave, c.50 BC, excavated in 2008 near Bognor Regis by Thames Valley Archaeological Services. As for cremation burials in a helmet, at the time of writing I am aware of a 1st century AD burial in a legionary helmet from Poland and am following up a lead on similar burial(s) from Belgium (Steve Willis pers. comm.). The Canterbury helmet itself does seem best paralleled by helmets of the ‘Coolus-Mannheim’ type, as the finder originally suggested. Such helmets have been found across Gaul, with others from Germany and Italy. They are generally regarded as being Republican Roman equipment, although it has been suggested to me that such helmets were also used by Caesar’s Gallic opponents (Julia Farley pers. comm.). The brooch found with the helmet dates to c. 90-50 BC and could have been in Britain or on the Continent.
What can we say at this stage about the meaning of this remarkable find? It seems reasonable to set it in the context of the turbulent middle decades of the 1st century BC and Caesar’s Gallic wars. But it is tempting to go further than this and see it as that much sought after evidence of Caesar’s expeditions to Kent. The helmet appears of the correct design and the findspot lies along the probable route of advance in 54 BC. But there are problems. Even if this was the helmet of one of Caesar’s soldiers, it could have arrived at its final resting place in various ways. The person (or persons?) whose remains are buried in it need not be its original owner. A warrior of the Cantiaci, returned from fighting in Gaul with a trophy, is one possibility; a Gallic refugee is another. Or the helmet could have been handed down and buried years later (although the brooch suggests burial is unlikely to date much later than 50BC). The brooch is not convincing as a piece of Roman military equipment, but since it was probably being used as a fastener for a cloth bag, rather than as a dress fastener, its connection to the deceased is no closer than that of the helmet. And was this an isolated burial, or part of a cemetery, perhaps attached to a nearby settlement?
The different possibilities got me thinking again about my first class in archaeology. I was reminded why Caesar’s expeditions to Kent, major military undertakings though they were, have proven so elusive in archaeological terms. Even if we were to find such evidence, could we be sure of linking it to such specific events and times, given the uncertainties associated with most forms of archaeological evidence and given the imprecision of most dating methods? We will learn more about this find, but we may also have to face up to never knowing either way whether it really is evidence of Caesar’s expedition of 54 BC. Indeed, it has provided an object lesson in how difficult it can be to link archaeological evidence to historical events, no matter how tempting it may be to try!
I’d welcome comments and debate about the helmet. Twitter - @AFatCAT or our CAT Facebook page - http://www.facebook.com/CanterburyArchaeologicalTrust