IRON AGE HELMET

-70

Report compiled by Dr. Julia Farley of the British Museum:Iron Age copper alloy sheet fragment, gilded on one side and heavily corroded on the other. This was a decorative fitting which would have formed part of a larger object. The unusual green corrosion on the reverse may suggest that the backing was made from an organic material, perhaps leather.The sheet fragment is not entirely flat, but has a convex curvature to the gilded side. One long straight edge remains. The opposite edge, which also appears to be original, is inwardly curved, and is curled over, giving a slight lip to the edge on the ungilded side. The other two ends of the object between these edges are broken, making it difficult to establish the original form. There is an undecorated border along each original edge, delimited by a line of punched dots. Within the border along the straight-edge, on the gilded side, is an uneven line of fourteen small indentations. Some of these may be decorative, but at least two pierce through the sheet, perhaps to allow riveting or another form of attachment. On the curved edge there are nine small indentations within the area of the border, also on the gilded side. None of these appear to pierce through the object. Within the central area, between the two borders, pointille decoration has been used to outline curvilinear motifs. Positive motifs are picked out using textured areas of punched decoration. The 'negative' voids resolve into adjoining and interlocking circular, crescentic and serpentine motifs. Analysis revealed that the decoration was punched after the copper was gilded.Max. length: 104mm; Length of original straight edge: approx 75mm; Max. width: 49mm; Width of undecorated border along curved edge: approx. 7.5mm; Width of undecorated border along straight edge: approx. 9.7mm; Max. edge thickness: 2.8mm (along curved original edge); Max. overall thickness: approx 4.5mm; Weight: 21.6gDiscussion:This is an unusual piece. The punched motifs are distinctively Iron Age and support a first-century BC/AD date and insular origin for this object. Similar curvilinear motifs, incorporating contrast between carefully delimited voids and areas of texture, are common on a wide variety of Late Iron Age objects found in Britain. Parallels can be seen in mirrors (see Joy 2010), scabbards (e.g. Bugthorpe, Jope 2000, Plate 202), miniature shields such as those from the Salisbury hoard, and pairs of decorated spoons such as those from Crosby Ravensworth (Jope 2000, Plate 232a). Punched pointille decoration (whilst less common than the technique of cross-hatching) is reasonably well-represented at the end of the Iron Age, particularly during the Iron Age/Roman transition (Davis and Gwilt 2008, 166). This decorative technique is attested on a variety of metal objects, including terrets from the Polden Hills hoard (e.g Jope 2000, Plate 289 p & q), one of the Hod Hill tankard handles (Jope 2000, Plate 230g), a Late Iron Age sword from Congham in Norfolk and another from Bardney in Lincolnshire (Stead 2006, no.s 102-3), two pairs of ornate spoons thought to have been found in Ireland (Jope 2000, Plate 233, b, c, e, and f), and the Great Torc from Snettisham (Jope 2000, Plates 108-9). More locally to the Greens Norton find, dot-work was also preferred over hatching on much Late Iron Age pottery from Northamptonshire, including the use of 'berried-rosette' motifs and free dot-work within negative elements of the curvilinear design (Cunliffe 2005, 113, 637; Knight 2002). The mutual influence of decorative techniques used on ceramics and metalwork in this region has been previously noted by Elsdon (1976).Whilst the decoration of this piece thus places it firmly in the Late Iron Age, most likely the first century BC or AD, the form is harder to parallel. There is no precise parallel for an Iron Age object with one inwardly curved and one straight edge, and an overall convex form, which appears to have been affixed to some kind of organic backing. The closest match is a thin iron plate with traces of silver (according to Jope 2000, see Plate 221), found during excavations at Croft Ambrey hillfort in Herefordshire (Jope 2000, 283, Plate 221; Stanford 1974, 165-6). This find was interpreted as a helmet cheek-piece. The curvature of the edges of this object differs slightly from the Greens Norton piece, but the overall shape is similar. The Croft Ambrey fragment was embossed with a scroll design, perhaps representing an animal. The estimated date of the deposit from which it was recovered is given by the excavator as 70 BC-AD 48 (Stanford 1974, 165), comparable to the date assigned to the Greens Norton fragment on stylistic grounds.Whilst the Greens Norton object is similar in form and size to the iron fragment from Croft Ambrey, the identification of either of these as helmet cheek-pieces is somewhat speculative. Other interpretations of the Greens Norton fragment are certainly possible, and perhaps more likely. The pattern of breaks makes it difficult to establish the full original form of the object, but it is possible that it could have functioned as a decorative fitting on a vessel, wooden casket, or an item of military equipment.Sheet metal fittings for Late Iron Age vessels such as tankards or the Aylesford and Marlborough buckets (Jope 2000, Plates 134-8 and 146-8) generally take the form of parallel-sided strips or three-dimensional mounts. However, it is nevertheless possible that the Greens Norton fragment could have been associated with a vessel.The majority of Iron Age casket fittings (see Jope 2000, Plates 222-4) were flat decorative plaques or straight-sided rectangular panels, but elements of the set from Balmaclellan in Kirkcudbright, Scotland also show one curved and one straight edge (MacGregor 1976, no.s 346 and 347; Jope 2000, 285, Plate 224 f, g). These took the form of thin, flat, spandrel-shaped copper-alloy mounts enclosing large open ovals, with binding strips along the edges secured by rivets. Wooden caskets with metal fittings such as those from Balmaclellan were imported into Britain from the continent from at least the first century AD, and may also have been produced or refurbished in Britain (Jope 2000, 283).The form and size of the Greens Norton fragment can also be paralleled to some extent in a number of Late Iron Age shield fittings (though these tend to show curved rather than straight edges). These include the crescentic elements from larger panels on shields from Moel Hirradug hillfort (Brassil 1982, 38-9; Jope 2000, Plate 95 c, d, and e), possibly Tal-y-Llyn (Jope 2000, Plate 97g), and even the lower edges of the four bronze sheet pieces which make up the edging of the Battersea shield (Jope 2000, Plate 79d). However, it should be noted that gilding is not generally seen on Late Iron Age shields, or fittings on other military equipment such as scabbards. Imported gilded helmets are however known, for example the mid-first century AD example from Hallaton, Leicestershire (Hockey and James 2012).Although it is not possible to be sure of the exact nature of the larger object to which the Greens Norton fragment was once affixed, its form and decoration strongly suggest a Late Iron Age date. The closest parallels date to the first centuries BC or AD. The use of mercury gilding was rare during this period, but is attested in other Late Iron Age objects, including some of the Snettisham torcs. The combination of Iron Age decorative motifs and mercury gilding on the Greens Norton fragment is therefore of great archaeological interest.The object fulfils the Treasure Act (1996) in that it is prehistoric and part of it is precious metal.