In the same deposit as the helmet were found an extensive collection of Roman pottery fragments, including colour-coated vessels from the nearby Hadham Kilns at Harston Obelisk near Much Hadham, and a large two-handled flagon with a face-mask emblazoned upon it. The find context also included three coins – one of indeterminable nature, and one each for the House of Probus (276-282 AD) and the House of Constantine (336-341 AD). The finds from two pits do sadly appear to have been mixed together by the excavator, which foxes the dating profile somewhat, however it seems we can comfortably date the find to the mid-4^th Century – perhaps even later depending on when exactly the fort was no longer solely in Roman use.  

Heavily fragmented, the helmet’s remaining parts can be pieced together to form a four-part bowl with bronze connecting rivets; as with the Deurne helmet of last week, two side ribs running perpendicular to the central ridge give the appearance of a six-part bowl. As with all Berkasovo-type helmets, the Burgh Castle features a base rim “headband”, to which are affixed the remains of a nasal bar and neckguard.

Of worthy note is that the central ridge is unusually flat, taking the appearance almost of a sharp-edged crest running down the central spine of the helmet bowl. Whether this is decorative or not is uncertain, although highly unlikely as we see a similar trend in the Intercissa III (to be discussed later) and the Concesti (discussed a few weeks ago) – it is seemingly just a different style of central ridge; despite the unusually thin appearance, the metal folds out into a flange by which the bowl segments are held together with the aforementioned bronze rivets, implying this is simply a different method of forming the crucial adjoining ridge. 

Unlike our previous examples, the Burgh Castle helmet does not appear to feature any elaborate design or reposse work across either the plates or the base rim (although given the quality of the find such additions are certainly not rendered unlikely) with one possible exception; near the centre of one of the bowl plates, now assumed to be the front of the helmet (and visible in the images below), is an eye-shaped break approximately 5cm above the rim and across from the central ridge. All four helmets from Intercissa have a decorative eye featured on the bowl in this location, a feature shared by both the Berkasovo I (albeit with decorative stones) and a helmet worn in a coin-portrait of Valentinian I. It has therefore been suggested that the Burgh Castle originally had a similar eye decoration in the same place as those on the Intercissa, and the decorative element caused a weakness in the metal which led to a collapse of the “eye”, leaving an almost perfect shadow behind. 

Other pieces of ironwork were discovered with the helmet, as featured in the image below, although we cannot confirm that any were part of the helmet itself (some clearly being designed for another purpose). In order; (a) a flat iron plate originally attributed to an ear-guard but the shape seems incorrect, (b) a pendant loop, (c) an iron spike, (d) two flat plates of iron joined by a third piece sticking up at an angle, a ring attached to a hook, and (f) an iron finial that has been suggested as part of a helmet decoration (although it is rather crudely made and does not fit any of the surviving helmet pieces). 

A curiosity of the Burgh Castle is the previously-mentioned lack of decoration compared to other extant examples; chiefly, the lack of silver or gilt covering. Miks suggests this may be partially why the helmet is so damaged – a poorly-conducted removal of the precious metals left the helmet badly broken before being thrown into an infill deposit. Given the helmet’s lack of decoration bucks the traditional trend of Late Roman helmets, this seems plausible – particularly when one takes into account the bronze rivets used to hold the pieces together. Other helmets tend to feature silver rivets (used to help adjoin the silver coating to the helmet bowl) or simple iron rivets which cannot be seen beneath the decorative sheeting. It is therefore a possibility that the distinctly different finish to the Burgh Castle’s rivets (being bronze) marks them out as a form of decorative addition, a suggestion which certainly bears weight when considering the pattern of rivets down the two transverse ribs; running in threes, parallel to each other, these rivets were clearly designed to form a decorative pattern. 

Whether decorated or not, the Burgh Castle is another great example of late Roman helmet construction and a superb choice for any re-enactor representing a legionary stationed permanently on Britannia’s southern shores. 

Images courtesy of Christian Miks and Stephen Johnson.