Four silver Roman objects found in the Dutch peat-moors of de Peel

Four silver Roman objects found in the Dutch peat-moors of de Peel Contents Four silver Roman objects found in the Dutch peat-moors of de Peel...1 Abstract...1 1. Introduction...1 2. The Finds...2 2.1. Find 1, phalera...4 2.2. Find 2, umbo or De Sierschijf van Helden...5 2.3. Find 3, cassis or the Peel-helmet of Deurne,...7 The director A. Bos...7 The situation on Monday June 20 1910 was as follows:...8 The conference of June 23 1910...8 After June 23...9 Period until the death of A. Bos...9 Events after the death of A. Bos...11 A wine-vessel and a drinking-cup, a shield?...12 Presumption of the events after the death of Mrs Bos...12 Possible addresses of the Roman objects...12 Reconstruction of the finding-place...14 Contents of the find...14 2.4. Find 4, cantharus or 'de kantharos van Stevensweert', drinking-cup...15 3. Additional remarks and information...17 Leo Kluijtmans again...17 A drowned or dead knight in the moors?...17 Christianity...18 Unrelated finds in de Peel...18 Further searches...18 References...18 Paul Theelen Abstract Independently four extremely valuable silver objects from Roman origin have been found in the peat-moors of de Peel more than 100 years ago. The author argues that it is very unlikely that these objects found again are really independent, thus that they belong to each other. One of these finds was documented fairly well, especially as we combine the information from different sources. From these sources we can conclude that much more was dug up than only the helmet. All kinds of military equipment was found, equipment belonging to an infantry and cavalry soldier and to a horse. Dated is this treasure circa 320 A.D., the time of Constantine the Great. The objects were buried together in the inhabited area de Peel on one single place. Nowhere in Germania inferior this sort of silver-work has been found in our days, they were very exquisite in that time. In this article an inventory is made of the objects, finding conditions, properties. At last, the beginning of an explanation is given. Keywords: Peel, Helenaveen, Peel-helmet of Deurne, Sierschijf van Helden, cassis, umbo, phalera, cantharus 1. Introduction In a relatively small and very inhabitable area at the border of the Dutch provinces Noord-Brabant and Limburg, at least four Roman silver gilded objects have been found in the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. In fact probably a fifth has been found earlier, i.e. in the eighteenth century. The oldest finds are not, or badly documented, the place of the finds is not accurately known, and we only can be convinced that the so called Peel-helmet of Deurne (or Helenaveen) has been documented well enough to our modern standards. The kantharos of Stevensweert has developed a lot of rumor in the juridical world of the Netherlands in the nineteenfifties, but the exact finding place remains obscure. In 1837 in Deurne another find was made, a large burial site; finds from this site are not included in this article. Three of the four objects have been found in the neighborhood of the village 1

Helenaveen, though it did not exist when the first two were excavated from the peat. The helmet was found at the outskirts of Helenaveen. From the kantharos it is said that it was dragged from the river Maas (=Meuse), but that seems very unlikely when the reader knows how fragile it is. In this article we'll make an inventory of the objects, circumstances of the find and the properties of the silver-work. Around the Peel-helmet a lot of other objects have been found, all together the inventory of a Roman infantry soldier, cavalry soldier and his horse and maybe with a stableman. When we compare the properties of the four silver objects, we see striking parallels, namely figures of animals or other decorations driven in the silver plates with great craftsmanship. These objects were very exclusive, a common Roman soldier did not possess this kind of luxury armory, let alone a horse, decorated with silver phalerae; as a matter of fact they seemed to be in the possession of a extremely high-ranked officer. Because of the carefulness we'll give the objects their proper Latin name, though of course it is not known exactly whether these names should have been used in the Roman army in the fourth century AD: cassis, umbo, phalera and cantharus. All other objects found around the Peel-helmet are reconstructed, and some missing equipment mentioned. The peat-moor Peel is described in short during the period we consider. The reclamation of the grounds on a commercial scale started in 1853 by the Maatschappij Helenaveen. This is necessary to understand why the author presumes that the four objects belong to one single treasure. Arguments whether the object were dropped or concealed purposely in the peat-moor or that they were lost in a fight, will be discussed. All together these objects form one soldiers outfit, all parts concealed in the peat. Unfortunately a part of the outfit has been lost, all iron parts were dissolved in the peat in those 17 centuries, other parts were neglected and got lost; and a big part was bought by a private person, the director of a company that dug the peat at a large scale. The author has tried to follow the trace of the inheritance when the director died in 1931, but until this moment none of the lost objects could be retraced with certainty. Only one person, Leo Kluijtmans, living nearby in the village Grashoek, has gathered information locally about the helmet, and he himself has unearthed many, mainly stone objects that belonged to the treasure around the helmet. Moreover, the aforementioned director has written a letter to the museum in Leyden with more specific information about the other objects. But the museum has not used this information. In general it can be said that het Museum van Oudheden in Leyden has acted with an unbelievable non-carefulness in the case of the Peel-helmet. Probably because it was a find of other persons, not of the scientific staff of the museum. 2. The Finds 2.0. Find 0, a Roman sword and a golden shield? In a letter of 1840 Mr Wesselman from Helmond makes an inventory of all archaeological finds in his district, where Deurne Helenaveen does not exist yet belongs to. He was asked to do so, because the province of Noord-Brabant wanted to start and fill a new provincial museum in 's-hertogenbosch. He starts with the message that he could not find traces of a sword and shield, that should be in the possession of the peasant van de Mortel in Deurne Liessel. That is very interesting, because Liessel lies not far from the finding place of the helmet. The original text given in the letter is: 'Ik heb het berigt dat een landbouwer te Deurne Liessel in het bezit zoude zijn van een romeinsch zwaard en een gouden schild welk in den peel zoude zijn uitgegraven zeer betwijfeld, wijl ik er nooit iets van vernomen had. ook is mij bij onderzoek gebleken dat er niemand iets van weet, waarschijnlijk heeft men dit verward met hetgeen in de naburige gemeente Meyel heeft plaats gehad.' 2

figure 1: Part of the letter of Mr Wesselman 3

figure 2: The phalera of Starobêlsk 2.1. Find 1, phalera Mr Wesselman continues in his report that he has seen earlier a gold shield, in possession of the burgomaster of the neighboring village of Meijel, in the province Limburg. The burgomaster told him that this shield had been found in 1807 about 1.5 m (vijf voet) deep in the peat-moor, but the exact location is unknown. In this case the location thus also could be in Noord-Brabant, because it is known that just inhabitants of the villages of Meijel and Helden illegally dug peat in the other province, where there was no surveillance of Deurne. The given description is very interesting: 'hij vertoonde mij een schild welk in den peel in het jaar 1807 omtrent vijf voeten onder het onder de oppervlakte van den grond in den peel bij gelegenheid eener turfgraving gevonden was, hetzelve was van goud of althans zwaar verguld gedreven werk, op hetzelve waren hyroglyphen en andere figuren van leeuwen, tijgers &c gedreven, en had de vorm van een halve maan, veel gelekende naar een ringkraag.' Thus the shield was a gilded [silver] plate, decorated with unknown letters and figures of lions and tigers; it had the form of a half-moon, explained and translated as a ring-collar. Surprisingly, this gold shield equals nearly exactly the so mentioned Phalara from Starobêlsk, as figure 20 in the book Iranians and Greeks in South Russia. This figure is reproduced here. We'll call this silver plate phalera, though we do not know with certainty that it had this function, namely decoration of a horse or a soldier. The text with respect to this phalera, given by M. Roztovtzeff, is as follows: 'Others, at Starobêlsk for instance, bear figures of animals (fig. 20) or mythological scenes. The animals have nothing in common with the animals of Roman provincial art: a similar style prevails in the painted tomb discovered by Stasov at Kerch and presently to be described: a pure Iranian style; derived. as I have proved in my work on decorative painting, from the art of which one branch is Parthian art; and perhaps presenting a certain analogy with the earliest stages of the Ionian animal style, which was borrowed from the East. Two gilded silver plaques in the Cabinet des Médailles at Paris (pl. XXVII,1,2), which are said to have come from Pontus, although the provenience is not certain, show a style and a technique which are almost identical with those of the plaques from South Russia. The Oriental style of the Paris plaques was recognized, and their dates established, by Drexel and by Reinach, but neither scholar noted the numerous and convincing analogies from South Russia. It is well known that in their artistic development Pontus and South 4

Russia were always closely associated. But Constantinople, where they were purchased, This phalera is lost... But maybe Heer van With the second part of the preceding text it may be that the Paris plaques reached from South Russia.' Keverberg, sousprefet te Cleef knows more! we immediately arrive at 2.2. Find 2, umbo or De Sierschijf van Helden Though Find 2 also could be a phalera, we shall call it an umbo, to distinguish both silver plaques. And probably this plaques was an umbo, the circular knob on a shield. Given the four holes it could be nailed on the wooden underground of the shield. Roztovtzeff mentions in his book in the chapter THE SARMATIANS thus the aforementioned phalera and the phalara of Raermond as he calls it. We read: 'Finally, the same style and the same main ideas appear in certain finds from Germanic lands. I am thinking op the phalarae from Raermond in Holland (pl. XXVII,3), with a frieze of animals and a figure of Hercules strangling a lion which presents the same peculiarities beardlessness, local costume as the Hercules of Panagüríshte: and of the famous cauldron from Gundestrup.' The Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leyden possesses this umbo or phalera. After years of bidding, the museum acquired the plaque in 1890 from the inheritance of Charles Guillon, who died in 1873. De Grooth has written an article in OMRO (1987) in which she describes the umbo: 'Zilver (verguld). Ronde schijf of schild, gedreven en bijgegraveerd, in bijzonder hoog uitkomend werk, voorstellende in het midden een worstelaar, die op de knieën liggende, zijne armen om de hals van eenen door hem overmeesterden leeuw heeft gekneld. Rondom twee leeuwen die een ram bespringen en twee panters op elkaar toeloopende, tusschen hen een runderkop, de geheele voorstelling omringd van vier randen of banden, twee in de vorm van gedraaid koord, de derde eene golvende, de vierde of buitenste wederom van een gedraaid koord. Aan den buitenkant op gelijke afstanden vier openingen, in twee die openingen de knoppen, waarmee de schijf op eenig ander voorwerp bevestigd is geweest.' 5

figure 3: The Sierschijf van Helden The origin is the moor of de Peel, as written in the following article: 'Een merkwaardig stuk werd in 1844 in een moeras van de Peel, niet ver van het gehucht Maris gevonden, en bevindt zich thans in het Leidsch Museum Het is een medaillon van verguld zilver van ruim 21 cm. middellijn, dat in vrij hoog relief een voorstelling vertoont van in het midden een man, die een leeuw worgt, daaromheen dierengevechten, o.a. twee dieren, die elkander een runderkop betwisten; in den rand met geciseleerde lijstjes zijn vier gaatjes aangebracht om het medaillon misschien op een schild te hechten; in twee gaatjes zitten nog de nagels met ronde kopjes. Naar den stijl der figuren oordeelt men het stuk van Oost-Europeesche afkomst te zijn.' Thus four years after the description of Wesselman of Find 0 and Find 1, someone finds the umbo in the hamlet of Maris, part of the village Helden. De Grooth writes that the umbo is mentioned in 1845 for the first time in the book of Reuvens, Leemans and Janssen Alphabetische naamlijst,... 6

It is not sure that the umbo was found in 1844, but some years later it was in the possession of Charles Guillon. De Grooth tries to explain where the umbo actually was found, and she reaches the conclusion: West of de Houwenberg, in the moor of Helden with the name de Kesselsche velden. That is Nord-west of the hamlet Maris. There is uncertainty of the owner, three names are given: Engels from Helden, van der Steen from Meijel or Meijel from Kessel! But we may assume that one of these persons had bought the umbo from the unknown peat-digger. Further de Grooth writes: 'Bovenstaande gegevens leiden tot de conclusie dat de stukken waarschijnlijk in de tweede helft van de tweede of in de eerste helft van de eerste eeuw voor Chr. vervaardigd zijn en pas na een lange omlooptijd, zoals voor dit soort kostbaarheden gebruikelijk is, in de grond terecht gekomen is.' Note that it took nearly one century for the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden to write a serious research article about one of their most important items. 2.3. Find 3, cassis or the Peel-helmet of Deurne, 'de Gouden Helm' from Helenaveen and other finds Much better documented than the other Finds is the silver gilded helmet that was found on Wednesday June 15, 1910 by a small team of four persons that worked for an industrial company that leased the peat-field from Deurne, not far from the center of Helenaveen. One of those persons, Gabriel or Gebbel Smolenaars from Meijel, took the initiative and claimed to be the only possessor of the helmet. The author will document in brief the most important facts with respect to the Peelhelmet and the other finds. There is one important obstacle, namely a secret meeting outside Helenaveen op June 23, where supposedly the key players made secret agreements about the find items. Since the date of the find of the helmet, many more items were found, bronze coins and other bronze objects, many leather items as cloths and the cover on the horse-back. But only the helmet raised real interest with the turf-diggers. The leather products were discarded fully, because they should have no value. The peat is cut by the personnel in precise dimensions, large blocks like bricks. They are deposited in precise order on a special wheelbarrow, and by one of the persons brought to the drying place, large heaps of peat, that - dried - is sold as turf-brick several months later. The bricks become much smaller by the drying, but preserve dimensions in which smaller objects can be hidden, without a noticeable mark. The wet peat-bricks are dumped on the heaps in a precise order, too; that means that it is possible by trained personnel to sort out the drying peat-brick that potentially contain the smaller objects. For that the peat-brick must be broken up and is worthless thereafter. The local protestant clergyman in Helenaveen writes on Friday June 17 a letter to the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden with a short description of the finds, that arrives the next day. They send a telegram to their local correspondent, as this person is called. He, A.F. van Beurden from Roermond, travels the next day Sunday - to Meijel, where Smolenaars lives and he sends Monday-morning June 20 a telegram back to the museum with a short description. He ends the telegram that more scientific research is necessary. From both descriptions it is clear to the museum that the find of the helmet is very important. The director A. Bos More than one chapter could be devoted to the director of the N.V. Maatschappij Helenaveen, Adrianus Bos, who also lived in Helenaveen, in a large house, alone, though a few maid-servants (in Dutch dienstbode) and man-servants (knecht) also could live there. This Mr Bos is the boss of the village Helenaveen. In the 1800 fifties Deurne sold large areas of peat-grounds to some private persons, one of them Jan van de Griendt. The neighboring villages in Limburg, Venray, Horst, Sevenum, Helden and Meijel also sold hundreds of ha to the company Maatschappij Helenaveen. There is thus a very strange situation in Helenaveen: nearly all terrain, except some parcels as the churches and the local school, was in possession of the Maatschappij. At the knowledge of the author nowhere else existed this situation. The churches and the school also were dependent on the company: they had received the terrain free and the company paid a part of the salary of the priest, protestant clergyman and the schoolmaster too. This director was rich, very rich for the standards of the time. Proof is, for example, that to become director he was obliged to possess 30 shares of the company, with the nominal value of 15.000 guilder, an enormous sum in those days. Just some months ago he had gathered those 30 shares, only a small part of the nearly 900 7

shares could be bought at the Incourante market. Bos lived and acted since the summer of 1906 in Helenaveen as factual director, but in April 1910 he could mentioned himself fully the director of a large company. In June 1910 at least 200 person were on the payroll of the N.V. Maatschappij Helenaveen. The company has been transformed from only turf winning to especially horticulture. Just in these years they developed large terrains, built large farms-houses and sought tenant-farmers for these circa 20 ha-farms. The leasing of the land and the farms was much more difficult than expected, because the prices were considered to be too high. This is the situation as in May 1910 Bos has a meeting with van Beurden. Van Beurden, the correspondent of the museum in Leyden, was conveyor for the Land-registry (kadaster) in Roermond. Van Beurden was surveying de Driehonderd Bunders, a large area peat-ground in possession of the Maatschappij Helenaveen. Strictly accidentally they met each other again, but both in another position. In May van Beurden was the surveyor on the premises of the company and Bos was the commissioner. In June they meet each other on the 23th, van Beurden in his role as correspondent of the museum and Bos as a private person, interested in antique objects, found on the terrains of a concurring company, Steegh & Esser. For Smolenaars and the others worked in service of Steegh & Esser, not on the terrains of the N.V. Maatschappij Helenaveen. The situation on Monday June 20 1910 was as follows: From two independent sources, the clergyman (dominee Broer de Jong) and the correspondent (van Beurden), the Museum van Oudheden had received similar information about a treasure from Roman times. In the newspaper of June 18 a small article had been appeared with the contents of that treasure, too. Burgomasters of villages were by law obliged to direct information on finds just to the museum in Leyden. In this case that did not happen, the museum itself knew of the finds before the mayor of Deurne had reported the finds. The mayor of Meijel did know about the finds, he was present when on June 19 van Beurden visited Smolenaars in Meijel. And in the mean-time Smolenaars exhibited the helmet the other objects were already lost in that sense that other persons had taken possession of them and that no official notes about the objects had been made. Also in the mean-time Bos gathered those other objects. He writes this explicitly in a letter of December 9, 1911 - thus one-and-a-half year later - to the museum. It is also said that Bos himself searched the place on Sunday-morning. Nearly all inhabitants were in the churches at that time. As a professional Bos tried to trace back those peat-bricks that could contain the smaller objects. Of course he did not disclose his findings openly, but we know that other people offered him their findings. Bos was not in Helenaveen on June 15 and 16; we know that he visited the Ruhr-area just those two days with some other directors around the company Heidemij. He had three days to gather objects from other persons, before the museum could take serious action to gather the objects itself. But they lived far away from Helenaveen, and did not have the specialized knowledge about the peat-winning. The conference of June 23 1910 In that period a conference is planned; subject should be the surveying of de Driehonderd Bunders. In the administration of the Maatschappij it is called reception (Onkosten, receptie direct). The conference took place on June 23, probably in a restaurant in Venlo; present probably were the burgomasters of Meijel and Deurne, Smolenaars and his companions, Bos. There they discussed undoubtedly what to do with future finds. For it could be expected that in the peat-bricks many more objects were stored. Moreover, the turfdiggers had found objects immediately after June 15 that were not mentioned in the reports. Bos can have argued that he personally would buy all objects that were offered him. As a matter of fact, the administration contains that line, dated June 28, that the 'onkosten' were 100 guilder, a formidable amount for a reception. Bos declares in this way the costs to the company. On June 23 we see the another line 'Onkosten mt reisk. directeur f30.-' Those two lines are the only indication in the books of the Maatschappij Helenaveen along with the letter of December 1911 that something had been arranged. On this date, June 23, Deurne sends a report of the findings, but to the wrong address: instead to the museum in Leyden, it is sent to the Minister of Interior and the Depute of the province Noord-Brabant. The next day the burgomaster of Meijel sends his report to the good address though it was the task of his colleague of Deurne. Van Beurden writes an article in the magazine BUITEN of July 2 about the helmet with 8

some drawings of the objects; Sunday June 19 he had made a sketch for the museum, that was returned somewhat later. In fact two drawings were made by van Beurden, one is used in BUITEN, the other in color was found, surprisingly, in the archive of the Maatschappij Helenaveen. In the books and articles from the hand of van Beurden we nowhere find an indication of his share in the documentation of the helmet. In his own hand-written biographical notice for his children, written in 1931, he does not mention at all his role with the find of the Peel-helmet. figure 4: Receipt of the conference of June 23 1910 After June 23 July 9, Saturday, the adjunct-director of the museum comes to Deurne. Smolenaars also goes to Deurne with the helmet. Probably there is an agreement then that the museum can buy the items from the list of Deurne. The adjunct-director probably knows or he can suspect that there were considerably more objects. At a much later date, August 31, the sale is made definitive and then all objects, including the helmet, move to Leyden. There they discover that one cheek-part is missing... In April 1911 Evelein writes a scientific article in OMRO, again emphasizing the helmet, but yet with a clear description of the coins and the leather items. Period until the death of A. Bos Between 1910 and the death of Bos in March 1931, the objects were stored in a secret wardrobe or cabinet in the GENA-villa, the residence of the director. The author has found the probable location of the cabinet in one of the bedrooms, behind a common wardrobe under the staircase to the second floor. There is nothing known about the Roman objects in that period, but we have one clue 9

from a local maid-servant, Jo van de Bovenkamp, who served in the villa around 1930. Once, A. Bos has showed her the cabinet and has said: Here, Jootje, are the Roman objects I acquired. This story was told by her to Leo Kluijtmans, who wrote this down later. On July 1, 1910, just two weeks after the find, a regular meeting of the board (Raad van Commissarissen) had been scheduled. Nothing is found in the minutes of this meeting, but we can expect that the events in the peat-fields were on the tongue of the men. At the end of 1930 there were complaints from some share-holders, who tried to sell their shares, that they did not get confirmation. Probably the director fell sick at that time, and in March 1931 he died. figure 5: The helmet of Deurne or Peel-helmet 10

11

Events after the death of A. Bos Mrs C.E.A. Bos-van Gilse van der Pals was the only living family member of his generation. She had a son, Cor, and a daughter, Johanna or Annie, and probably these three persons, together with the spouse of the daughter, R.W.C. van Boetzelaer, were in Helenaveen to empty the GENA-villa. The shares of the company and other securities had a considerable value, moreover they will have taken out the Roman objects from the secret cabinet. We can assume that all the papers and important items move to 's-gravenhage. Maybe the sister-in-law of A. Bos divided those items, also the Roman objects, under both children. They undoubtedly knew that some of the objects were extremely valuable. The author thinks that the missing cheek-plate was bought by Bos, for it was known it was written in the newspapers that another worker (i.e. than Smolenaars) had found this plate. Attempts of the museum later to find and buy the plate wrecked. For that purpose, the museum consulted the mayor of Deurne, but he declared an active search off. Now we can understand why. A wine-vessel and a drinking-cup, a shield? Leo Kluijtmans mentions in his writings a wine-vessel and a drinking-cup. Both will have belonged to the equipment of a regular Roman soldier. But these were undoubtedly the luxurious versions of it. A. Bos mentions in his letter of December 1911 several items that he had seen: but those lie in front of him. Especially interesting is the leather of a shield, as the author thinks: colorful leather, the wood mouldered, no umbo on it. The umbo disappeared earlier, when it lost its connection with the wooden shield, drifted upwards and away in the wet peat in many years and was found by a peat-digger in the nineteenth century. Can we prove this theory? No, of course not, but it could happened that way. Presumption of the events after the death of Mrs Bos -van Gilse van der Pals In April 1936 Mrs Bos-van Gilse van der Pals dies. The inheritance of A. Bos comes in the possession of the son and the daughter. Son Cor Bos moves from Zeist to the house of his mother, single. In this house there should be no Roman objects, no one can remember seen them. A more likely candidate is the couple R.W.C. Baron van Boetzelaer and his wife Johanna, who married in 's-gravenhage in August or 1927. They separated immediately after the death of her mother, December 30, 1936. He marries for the second time in 1938 Catharina Maria Jordens, and Johanna marries March 7, 1939 A.W. Groote in Hilversum, so she is known as J. Groote-Bos. J. Groote-Bos remains the most important shareholder of the N.V. Maatschappij Helenaveen. In the 1900 eighties assurance company AMEV, now ASR Nederland, buys all shares from the existing share-holders. J. Groote-Bos regularly returned to Helenaveen; the author does not expect that she possessed the Roman artifacts. Now we focus on Baron van Boetzelaer:in the years 1939-1945 he had different jobs or hobbies with the Gooi-reservaat, Volksuniversiteit Laren-Blaricum and different functions in the Gooisch Museum, for example as adjunct-conservator until September 1944. He dies in Laren, June 29, 1979. Possible addresses of the Roman objects If we presume that the objects are in the possession of Mrs Bos-van Gilse van der Pals and later of her son, daughter and (ex-)son-in-law we can set up a list with addresses and events. Maybe later with this list some theories can be proved, when new evidence emerges. March 6 1899: birth of Rutger Wessel Carel van Boetzelaer in Amerongen June 2, 1900: birth of Johanna Bos April 5 1917: birth of Catharina Maria Jordens November 5 1921: [ ] publiek verkoopen: de villa Casa Cara met grooten tuin aan den Jacobus Pennweg 14 te Hilversum, Sectie C. no. 2823, groot 19 are, 40 centiare. [...] August 16 1927 (two weeks after): marriage of J. Bos Neuhuyskade 8 's-gravenhage and R.W.C. van Boetzelaer Jacobus Pennweg 14 Hilversum May 4 1928: Te koop een zware Hit met tuig en twee wagentjes op gummi. Jacobus Pennweg no. 14 te Hilversum. April 30 1929: Gevestigd: WILLEM KNIKKER [ ] Casa-Cara Jac. Pennweg 14, Hilversum April 25 1930: Opgaaf gevraagd voor het schilderen van een Villa. Jacobus Pennweg 14, Hilversum 12

March 23 1931: death of Adrianus Bos in Helenaveen March 23 1931: Cor Bos lives in Zeist, J. van Boetzelaer-Bos in Hilversum March 1931 - April 1936: Neuhuyskade 8 's-gravenhage with Mrs Bos-van Gilse van der Pals and later C. Bos May 20 1931: Cor Bos becomes member of the board of the Maatschappij Helenaveen July 31 1931: Dienstbode Jo van de Bovenkamp gets work in Wassenaar. Later she will return a few times from Helenaveen. May 11 1932: Baronesse van Boetzelaer, Beethovenlaan 7, Hilversum, vraagt met 1 Juli een net Meisje alleen P.G., zelfst. kunn. koken en werken September 20 1932: Holl. of Duitsche Dienstbode gezocht voor Delft, per 1 Oct., in klein gezin, goed kunn. koken. Aanmelden Mevr. de Groot, Beethovenlaan 7, Hilversum. April 4 1933: Parkaanleg en natuurschoon VAN BOETZELAAR. Hilversum, Beethovenlaan 7 September 12 1934: Gevraagd voor 17 Sept. of 1 October Meisje-alleen voor Eindhoven in klein gezin. Aanm. Woensdag of Donderdagavond 7-8 uur Beethovenlaan 7, Hilversum. January 1 1935: R.W.C. van Boetzelaer possesses 17 shares of the Maatschappij Helenaveen January 1 1935: J. van Boetzelaer-Bos possesses 40 shares of the Maatschappij Helenaveen January 1 1935: C. Bos possesses 20 shares of the Maatschappij Helenaveen January 1 1935: C.E.A. Bos-van Gilse van der Pals possesses 30 shares of the Maatschappij Helenaveen April 21 1936: death of C.E.A. van Gilse van der Pals, Neuhuyskade 8 's-gravenhage April 21 1936: number of shares from A. Bos 70, from B. Bos 75, from J. Bos 50, from herself 30, and from J.A. and J.W. Bos each 1 share, in total 227 shares June 28 1935: Arnhem. Eindexamen HBS voor Meisjes C. M. Jordens December 16 1936: Utrechtscheweg 36 Hilversum, address of R.W.C. van Boetzelaer December 30 1936: divorce of J. Bos and R.W.C. van Boetzelaer January 16 1937: Mevr. J. Bos, Beethovenlaan 7, Hilversum, vraagt een Keukenmeisje en een Tweede Meisje January 9 1938: Gevraagd zeer zelfstandig MEISJE of HUISHOUDSTER, intern, bij echtp. z.k. Pr. get. aanb. Herdersweg 8, Laren na 8 uur. March 28 1938: meeting of the board, with member C. Bos April 23 1938: marriage of R.W.C. van Boetzelaer and C.M. Jordens October 27 1938: Puister, P. J., zonder beroep, Jacobus Pennweg 14, van Coevorden; March 7 1939: marriage of J. Bos Beethovenlaan 7 Hilversum and A.W. Groote Blijdensteinlaan 7 Hilversum April 30 1939: gift to Gooisch Museum of Gezigt van het uyttrekken van Amsterdamsche burgers naar Muyden and Het Slot Kroonenburg aan de Vecht bij R.W.C. van Boetzelaer August 12 1939: Ter overname groote Schotsche Haard (wapenblank), 1 seizoen gebruikt, pr. f60. Herdersweg 8, Laren October 4 1939: [ ] aan den leider van het sub-comité voor den ophaaldienst: A. W. Groote, Beethovenlaan 7, tel. 8041, na kantoortijd tel. 5553 [...] November 16 1939: Herdersweg 8 Laren address of R.W.C. van Boetzelaer December 19 1939: R.W.C. van Boetzelaer member of the Commission of Propaganda of the Gooisch Museum December 23 1939: Gevr. in kl. gez., weg. huw. der tegenw. Dagmeisje van 9-7 uur. Aanm. Herdersweg 8, Laren April 27 1940: Wordt gevraagd met Mei deg. Meisje alleen in klein huish. Den Haag, netjes kunn. werken en v. z. g. m. get.vz. f35 p. m. Br. Mevr. SINÉMUS, Neuhuyskade 8. July 9 1941: 'Men heeft nu waarschijnlijk wel de laatste verrassende ontdekking gedaan. In aanwezigheid van de heren Van Boetzelaer en Rust, van het Gooise Museum, dat reeds veel waardevols uit de collectie-heek kon overnemen wij noemen slechts de collectie Perk en meer dan duizend oude prentkaarten, [...]' September 8 1942: Gevestigd te Laren Herdersweg 8 Drs. E. Inglis Arkell [ ] March 22 1943: Mevr. J. GROOTE-BOS, Beethovenlaan7, Hilversum zoekt een Meisje alleen boven 25 j., P. G., 13

zelfst. kunn. koken en werken. March 23 1943: M. J. Dorré, Arnhem, Beethovenlaan 7; August 30 1943: speech in the Gooisch Museum by R.W.C. van Boetzelaer on Albertus Perk February 2 1944: 'Voorts werd het door omstandigheden aftreden van baron van Boetzelaer als adjunct-conservator gememoreerd; deze blijft echter als penningmeester in functie.' September 16 1944: R.W.C. van Boetzelaer stops his work as adjunct-conservator of the Gooisch Museum September 11 1947: VERLOREN gouden schakelarmband fietsende van Middenweg, Heuvellaan, Jac. Pennweg, Dennenlaan, Beethovenlaan half een, 10 Sept. Terugbez. tegen beloning Beethovenlaan 7, Hilversum October 1 1947: 'In de vacature [van het Gooi-reservaat] van het aftredend lid, de heer R. W. C. van Boetzelaer [...]' April 20 1971: Death of Arnold Willem Groote Palestrinalaan 2 Hilversum June 29 1979: Vinkebaan 6 Laren death of R.W.C. van Boetzelaer January 2 1984: death of C.M. Jordens May 9 1990: death of Johanna Groote Bos, Palestrinalaan 2 Hilversum Alternatives of the family Bos as inheritance of the Roman objects When we assume that the message of Leo Kluijtmans is correct other persons could be in the possession of the objects, for example Mr Royaards/Roijaards or Kretschmar van Veen, but there are no signs that they could have received these after the death of Bos. Reconstruction of the finding-place The years after the huge and long-during peat-fire in de Peel of 1959, Leo Kluijtmans used his spare time to search the surroundings once again. He found some arrow-heads, the bit belonging to the horse-harness, and at least 10 large stones, some were throw-stones and a grain-mill. Some years later the terrain and thus the findingplace was demolished completely during extensive reconstruction works. In 1910 and 1911 some remarks were made, again the notes of A. Bos are very valuable. 'De voorwerpen werden in de bovenste lagen van t zwart veen aangetroffen bijna op den overgang van t grauwveen. De dikte van t aanwezige zwartveen was te groot dan dat de personen, die daar verongelukten te paard hadden kunnen zitten, met paarden kan men niet over zulke veenlagen rijden. Bij t leer waren de resten van twee mooi bewerkte schoenen, een derde schoen zeer eenvoudig gemaakt werd op ongeveer 15 M. van de eerste vindplaats met t geld en t leer waarschijnlijk van een lederen zakje aangetroffen.' Clergyman de Jong remarks: 'De vondst strekt zich over eenige meters veengrond uit; op ±1 Meter diepte werd een en ander aangetroffen. Veel veen is er op deze plaats niet. 1 Meter z. g. grauwveen, dan de voorwerpen, vervolgens ±30 c. M. zwart veen, en dan reeds de vaste zandgrond.' Probably more interesting than the depth is the distance that Bos mentions. There seemed to be a central spot, but one shoe was found drifted 15 m away. We can compare this with the phalera: 'hij vertoonde mij een schild welk in den peel in het jaar 1807 omtrent vijf voeten onder de oppervlakte van den grond bij gelegenheid eener turfgraverij [...]' Small and flat plates as the umbo and the phalera could drift easily in all those centuries away from the original place in these very watery environments. Probably these plates also find the surface than more heavy objects. Thus The finding-place of the umbo and phalera could be at the large distance. Not that one shoe was found at a distance of 15 m. There is no reason to believe that this remark from Bos does not tally. Contents of the find They found all kind of Roman war equipment; the list has been composed from all different sources: - the only proven silver gilded object is the helmet; the iron inner helmet was nearly completely disappeared - composite bow, arrows and some other material, stone arrow-heads, quiver - lance or spear, hollow, with a grooved surface, wood type was unknown, cut in pieces of 15 cm - several types of clothing of textile and leather, several sandals or shoes, fibulae with leather fragments - remainders of a sword in a peat-brick. 14

- bronze coins in a leather bag; these coins date the find to circa 320 A.D. - all ingredients of a complete horse harness: leather straps, bronze connection rings, leather cover, halter, bit - throw-stones (found by Leo Kluijtmans) - stone grain-mill (found by Leo Kluijtmans) - missing is an intact shield, though Bos makes a remark in his letter that points to a shield - also missing are all iron objects as armor-plating and coat of mail In short, all equipment a Roman infantry or cavalry soldier is equipped with. Much later, Leo Kluijtmans writes in one of his booklets that there was also found a silver drinking cup with a hook and a small wine-vessel. The vessel was gone... the cup should be in the possession of a member of the board of the Maatschappij, living in a hunting-lodge in Loosdrecht. 2.4. Find 4, cantharus or 'de kantharos van Stevensweert', drinking-cup The supposed finder of the cantharus has given at least three different years (1939, 1942, 1943) in which he should have found the cantharus; and also on three different places. First it happened on a dredger in the Maas, later it was at different places on the banks of the river. In 1966 the director of Rijksmuseum Kam in Nijmegen tried, together with the local burgomaster, for once and for always to hear the ins and outs of the affair out of the mouth of the supposed finder. The burgomaster afterwards should have heaved a sigh and have said that he was a liar. In short, it is nearly impossible that a so weak object, made out of several parts, could have survived in the circumstances sketched by the supposed finder completely without signs of damage. That said, the finding-place lies open again. The cantharus has no ears, though it is clear that it possessed two ears after manufacturing in the East of the Roman Empire. It is one sample of two, given the weight inscription of the silver. It could be the equivalent as the drinking-cup that Leo Kluijtmans mentions in his writing WITTE MAGIE: 'Een zilveren beker is ook nog gevonden, voorzien van een haakje om hem aan het getuig te hangen. Dit moet nog ergens particulier aanwezig zijn in een jachtslot in Loosdrecht, dat toebehoord heeft aan de toenmalige directie van de Mij. Helenaveen.' This sentence contains a lot of information: the first part explains that the ear(s) is used as a hook, to connect with the horse-harness. The hunting-lodge in Loosdrecht could not be found, one possibility is Sypesteyn in Loosdrecht, but this has no connection with the Maatschappij Helenaveen. But when we read Laren instead of Loosdrecht, it directs us to the already mentioned R.W.C. van Boetzelaer, who lived at several addresses in very large dwellings in Hilversum and later in Laren. 15

figure 6: The kantharos 'van Stevensweert' Is there a connection between the drinking-cup and the cantharus? There is no direct testimony or proof that both objects are the same. But the theory of the author is that van Boetzelaer inherited the Roman objects around 1935 and that he knew that those were of the utmost importance for the archaeological world. But he could not get rid of it in an easy way... When the Second World War started, one of the first stipulations of the occupier in this field was the set-up of lists with archaeological finds. That could become disastrous for the reputation of himself but also for the family Bos. He devised a trick as if the cantharus was found in the Maas, surely not unthinkable. He found someone who promised that he would present after a certain period of times the cantharus as found in the Maas, or immediately afterwards with the message that he had found it about ten years earlier. In February 1950 they found about 100 skeletons in the area Galgengriend, a part of the Koeweide near Stevensweert were it is said that the cantharus was found. However, these human remains are from more recent date. Given the articles in the newspapers from circa 1950 to 1960 it appears that the 16

alleged finder made his find public in a very small circle in his family around 1949. In August 1951 his brother-in-law made on behalf of the alleged finder a notarial statement in which the events are described. This statements has provable faults and perversions of the fact. Once again, the finder did not find the cantharus in the way as he described it in the publications. The mayor called him openly a liar in 1966. In his own family J. Bongers was mentioned a fantasist! No people have been found who can declare with certainty that he found the drinking-cup and that it was shelved at his home. What happened in reality with the cantharus between 1940 and 1950? The author supposes the following scenario unrolled: The owner of the cantharus, probably R.W.C. van Boetzelaer with the knowledge of his ex-wife Johanna Bos wanted to get off at least the drinking-cup, but so, that it would come into circulation later. Dredging in the Maas would be a attractive manner to try to bring the drinking-cup up to the surface again. With the help of a simple member of a dredging vessel, that was arranged, paying of course a sum for the work... One of the conditions was of course that he would never give the names of the supplier. But things went terribly wrong, in that sense that it became a juridical feud between the following owners. Note that during these fights this Bongers never was questioned about the case! 3. Additional remarks and information Next of kin A large part of this article is based on assumptions... It is clear that both A. Bos and the people who got his inheritance, tried to conceal the Roman objects which Bos had acquired successfully and legally. He probably did not negotiate about the price in the way as the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden did and he was always present for the peat-diggers in Helenaveen. Moreover, he was the boss of nearly all people living in the village. When Johanna Groote-Bos died, there were no direct relatives who inherited her belongings, the house, money and equity. The two sisters of her mother, van Gilse van der Pals, were married with Dyserinck and Kolff. The sisters spawned different children, later with names as Meerten, Henny and Helb. These persons have no knowledge about Roman objects. Mrs Meerten-Kolff looked after the interest of Mrs Groote-Bos. Persons with the aforementioned names played an important role in the Maatschappij Helenaveen after the Second World War. Did the couple van Boetzelaer-Jordens have children? The author could not find an indication, but seen the age of the bride at her wedding, it is not unlikely that there are children living at this moment. Leo Kluijtmans again Quite a lot of people did know what happened after the first find was done, but nearly nothing was written down in sources like newspapers or magazines. It seemed as if the find of the Peel-helmet had been erased from the collective memory of the population of the village. Only one person, besides Bos, tried to gather more information about the objects, Leo Kluijtmans. But it was in a later period. He himself has found much later the heavier items, like throw-stones, which were hidden in the peat. All iron objects were lost, for example the inner-helmet, and probably other items like armor-plating was lost in the same way. A drowned or dead knight in the moors? A controversy in the group of the interested persons is going on for many years now the helmet is back in the news and the collective memory seems to be filled again whether there is a Roman drowned in the moor or that he lost his life in a fight. For the author is crystal clear: There were no person or persons and a horse drowned or killed in the moor. It should be very unlikely, for they found no trace of a body of a man or horse. When someone died accidentally or in a fight, the family or adversaries should have taken away all valuable materials. There is no other indication that there was a fight in these peat-moors, it was impossible to ride a horse there, as Bos explains in 1911. Only one explanation holds out: a very rich Roman or Romanized person, probably a high-rank officer, buried the whole spectrum of arms of a soldier and a horse and his household utensils in the unaccessible Peel. But as written earlier the silver objects were very valuable, thus the person knew that he lost a considerable amount by losing these items. 17

Christianity Maybe there is connection with the transition to Christianity, that took place just in that period. Leo Kluijtmans may have had the same feelings when he met Basilios in his dreams! Unrelated finds in de Peel Later, in 1931, they found a sword, 'het zwaard van Kronenberg', that has no connection with the Peel-helmet. As mentioned earlier, the graveyard in Deurne also has no connection with the Peel-helmet. In inscriptions in the cassis and cantharus do not show any connection with Germania inferior where yhey are found. Further searches With the research done by the author it is maybe possible to regain - virtually or actually - some of the objects that director Bos had gathered. The give names, notes and addresses, mainly in the area het Gooi, could be the clues to search further. References Evelein, M.A. 1911, Een Romeinsche helm uit de Peel, Oudheidkundige Mededeelingen van het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden, OMRO V Gerhartl-Witteveen, A.M. 2006, De Kantharos van Stevensweert Kluijtmans, H. 2010, E palude emergo Kluijtmans, L. 1970, Witte Magie Pouls, J.H., Crompvoets, H.J.G. 2006, De Gouden Helm uit de Peel Roztovtzeff, M. 1922, Iranians and Greeks in South Russia. See www.theelen.info Theelen, L.J.C. 2013, Het archief van de N.V. Maatschappij Helenaveen. See www.theelen.info 18