Sutton Hoo helmet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Sutton Hoo Helmet)
Jump to: navigation, search
Colour photograph of the Sutton Hoo helmet
1970–1971 (current) reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet

The Sutton Hoo helmet is a decorated Anglo-Saxon helmet discovered during the 1939 excavation of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial. Buried around 625, it is widely believed to have been the helmet of King Rædwald; for whom its elaborate decoration may have given it a secondary function almost akin to a crown.[1] The helmet is "the most iconic object" from one "of the most spectacular archaeological discoveries ever made," and one of the most important Anglo-Saxon artefacts ever found.[2] Its visage, with eyebrows, nose and moustache creating the image of a man who is then joined by a dragon's head to become a soaring dragon with outstretched wings, has become a symbol not only of the Dark Ages, but also "of Archaeology in general."[3] Excavated as hundreds of rusted fragments, the helmet was first displayed following an initial reconstruction in 1945–46, and then again, in its present form, after a second reconstruction in 1970–71.

Along with all the other finds from Sutton Hoo, the helmet was determined by a treasure trove inquest to be the property of the landowner of the site of the ship-burial, Edith May Pretty. She subsequently donated all the objects to the British Museum, where they were conserved and put on display; in 2017 the helmet was on view in Room 41.[4][5][6]

Background[edit]

Black and white photograph showing two excavators working in the ship impression at Sutton Hoo
The ship impression during the 1939 excavation

The helmet was buried among other regalia and instruments of power as part of a furnished ship burial, probably dating from the early 7th century. Although the man in the grave has not been identified, the contents of the grave point to its being that of a king.[7] It is generally thought most likely that Rædwald, the ruler of the East Angles, is the person buried in the ship, due to the proximity of the royal vill of Rendlesham[7] and as use of the site is believed to have been a time when he held power in England.

The ship had been hauled from the nearby river up the hill and lowered into a prepared trench.[8][9] Inside this, the helmet was wrapped in cloths and placed to the left of the head of the body.[10][11] An oval mound was constructed around the ship.[12] Long afterwards, the chamber roof collapsed violently under the weight of the mound, compressing the ship's contents into a seam of earth.[13]

It is thought that the helmet was shattered either by the collapse of the burial chamber or by the force of another object falling on it.[14][15] However, the fact that the helmet had shattered meant that it was possible to be reconstructed. Had the helmet been crushed before the iron had fully oxidised, leaving it still pliant, the helmet would have been squashed,[15][16] leaving it in a distorted shape similar to the Vendel[17] and Valsgärde[18] helmets.[19]

Design[edit]

Colour photograph of a modern replica of the Sutton Hoo helmet.
Replica helmet showing designs 1, 2, 4 and 5, located (1) above the eyebrows and on the cheek guard, (2) on the skull cap, (4) on the cheek guard[note 1] and skull cap, and (5) on the face mask

The Sutton Hoo helmet was made of iron and covered with decorated sheets of tinned bronze.[20][21] Fluted strips of moulding divided the exterior into panels, each of which was stamped with one of five designs.[22][21] Two depict figural scenes, another two zoophormic interlaced patterns; a fifth pattern, known only from seven small fragments and incapable of restoration, is known to occur only once on an otherwise symmetrical helmet and may have been used to replace a damaged panel.[23][24] The existence of these five designs has been generally understood since the first reconstruction, published in 1947.[25][note 2] The succeeding three decades gave rise to an increased understanding of the designs and their parallels in contemporary imagery, allowing possible reconstructions of the full panels to be advanced, and—through the second reconstruction—their locations on the surface of the helmet to be redetermined.[24][32][33][34] As referred to below, the designs are numbered according to Rupert Bruce-Mitford's 1978 work.[24]

Construction[edit]

The core of the helmet was constructed of iron and consisted of a cap from which hung a face mask and cheek and neck guards.[20][35] The cap was "beaten up out of a single piece of metal."[36] On either side of the cap were hung iron cheek guards,[37][38] deep enough to "completely protect the side of the face"[39] and curved inward "both longitudinally and laterally."[40] Two hinges per side—possibly made of leather—supported these pieces,[41] allowing them to be pulled flush with the face mask and "completely enclose" the face.[39] A neck guard was attached to the back of the cap and made of two overlapping pieces: a shorter piece set inside the cap, over which attached a "broad fan-like portion" extending downwards, "straight from top to bottom but curved laterally to follow the line of the neck."[42] The inset portion afforded the neck guard extra movement, and like the cheek guards was attached to the cap by leather hinges.[42] Finally, the face mask was riveted to the cap on both sides and above the nose.[43] Two cutouts served as eye openings,[44] while a third opened into the hollow of the overlaid nose, thereby facilitating access to the two nostril-like holes underneath;[45] though small, these holes would have been among the few sources of fresh air for the wearer's enclosed head.[45]

Atop the foundational layer of iron were placed decorative sheets of tinned bronze.[20][46] These sheets, divided into five figural or zoomorphic designs,[23][24] were manufactured by the pressblech process.[47][48][49] Preformed dies similar to the Torslunda plates (de)[50] were covered with thin metal which, through applied force, took up the design underneath;[51] identical designs could thus be "mass-produced" from the same die, allowing for their repeated use on the helmet and, perhaps, other objects.[47][note 3] Fluted strips of white alloyed moulding—possibly of tin and copper, and possibly swaged[22][56]—divided the designs into framed panels, held to the helmet by bronze rivets.[22][46] The two strips running from front to back alongside the crest were gilded.[57][58] The edges of the helmet were further protected by U-shaped brass tubing, fastened by swaged bronze clips[20][59] and themselves further holding in place the pressblech panels that shared edges with the helmet.[60]

A final layer of adornments added to the helmet a crest, eyebrows, nose and mouth piece, and three dragon heads. A hollow iron crest ran across the top of the cap and terminated at front and back.[37][36] It was made of "D-sectioned" tubing[37][36] and consisted of two parts, an inverted "U-shaped" piece into which a "flat bottom strip" was placed.[61] As no traces of solder remain, the crest may have been either forged or shrunk on to the cap.[62] From either end of the crest extended an iron tang, to each of which was riveted a gilded dragon head.[63] That on the front was made of cast bronze, while the one on the rear was made of "a different alloy, and now consists largely of tin oxide."[64] A third dragon head, also of cast bronze, faced upwards on the front of the helmet and broke the plane between face mask and cap;[65] its neck rested on the face mask, while under its eyes it was held to the cap by "a massive rivet shank."[66] To either side of the neck projected a hollow cast bronze eyebrow, into each of which was inlaid parallel silver wires[67][68][69][70] separated by niello.[67] Terminal boar heads were gilded, as were the undersides of the eyebrows,[71] where individual bronze cells held square garnets.[72][68][69] The eyebrows were riveted on, both to the cap at their outer ends and to the tang of a nose and mouth piece which extended upwards underneath the neck of the dragon head.[73] This tang was itself riveted to the cap,[74] one of five attachment points for the cast bronze[75] nose and mouth piece.[76] Both sides of the nose featured "two small round projecting plates,"[77] connected by fluted and swaged strips, and concealing rivets.[78] An inlaid strip of wire extended the length of the nasal ridge, next to which the "background was punched down" and filled with niello, leaving "triangles in relief" that were silvered.[75] A tracer (a "rather blunt chisel . . . used chiefly for outlining"[79]) was used to provide a grooved border on each side.[75] Running horizontally aside the nasal bridge were three punched circles per side, inlaid with silver and surrounded by niello.[75] Beneath these circles, also running horizontally from the center of the nose to its sides were chased[75] "alternate rows of plain flutings and billeted strips which run obliquely between the central strip and a billeted lower edge."[45] This same pattern is repeated in vertical fashion on the moustache.[75][80] The curve along the bevelled lower lip, in turn, repeats the circled pattern used on the nasal bridge.[81][82] Excepting the portions covered by the eyebrows and dragon head,[44] or adorned with silver or niello, the nose and mouth piece was heavily gilded,[75][80] which is suggested by the presence of mercury to have been "applied by the fire-gilding technique."[83]

Breaking the symmetry of the helmet are subtle differences in the two eyebrows, and in the methods employed to fashion the cloisonné garnets. The dexter and sinister eyebrows, though at first glance identical, may have been "manufactured in different ways while being intended to look essentially the same."[84] The dexter brow is approximately 5 millimeters shorter than the sinister, and contained 43 rather than 46 inlaid silver wires and one or two fewer garnets.[85][note 4] Gilding on the dexter eyebrow was "reddish in colour" against the "yellowish" hue of the sinister,[87] while the latter contains both trace amounts of mercury and a tin corrosion product which are absent from its counterpart. Moreover, while the individual bronze cells into which the garnets are set, both on the dexter brow and on three of the four remaining dragon eyes, are underlain by small pieces of "hatched gold foil,"[72][85] those on the sinister side, and the sinister eye of the upper dragon head, have no such backing.[88] The gold backing served to reflect light back through the garnets, increasing their lustre and deepening their colour.[89] Where this backing was missing on the sinister eyebrow and one dragon eye, the luminosity of the garnets would be "substantially dimmed" by direct placement against the bronze.[90]

Dragon motifs[edit]

Black and white line drawing of the winged dragon motif from the front of the helmet, composed of four fragments: a dragon head, the two eyebrows forming the wings, and the nose and moustache piece forming the body and tail respectively.
The winged dragon motif from the front of the helmet, with eyebrows for wings and the nose and mouth piece for body and tail

Three dragon heads are represented on the helmet. Two bronze-gilt dragon heads feature on either end of the iron crest running from the front to the rear of the skull cap.[61] The third sits at the junction between the two eyebrows, facing upward and given fuller form by the eyebrows, nose and moustache to create the impression of a dragon in flight.[85] There it soars upwards in the "central and most dramatic feature of the entire helmet," baring its teeth at the "snake-like dragon" flying down the crest.[91]

To the extent that the helmet is jewelled, such decoration is largely confined to the elements associated with the dragons.[92] Convex garnets sunk into the heads give the dragons red eyes.[67][93] The eyebrows are likewise inlaid with square garnets on their under edges, continuing outwards on each side to where they terminate in gilded boars' heads;[72][68][69][94] in addition to their secondary decorative function as wings, the eyebrows may therefore take on a tertiary form as boars' bodies.[95] The subtle differences between the eyebrows, the sinister of which lacks the gold foil backing employed on the dexter, may suggest an allusion to the one-eyed god Odin;[96] seen in low light, with the garnets of only one eye reflecting light, the helmet may have itself seemed to have only one eye.[97][note 5]

More gold covers the eyebrows, nose and mouth piece, and dragon heads, as it does the two fluted strips that flank the crest.[65] The crest and eyebrows are further inlaid with silver wires.[100][101][102][103] Combined with the silvery colour of the tinned bronze, the effect was "an object of burnished silvery metal, set in a trelliswork of gold, surmounted by a crest of massive silver, and embellished with gilded ornaments, garnets and niello—in its way a magnificent thing and one of the outstanding masterpieces of barbaric art."[104]

Design 1: the dancing warriors[edit]

Black and white photograph showing one of the four Torslunda plates
One of the four Torslunda plates, showing a horned figure similar to those in design 1. His missing left eye suggests that he is Odin.[note 6]

The dancing warriors scene is known from six fragments and occurs four times on the helmet.[106] It is seen on the two panels immediately above the eyebrows, accounting for five of the fragments. The sixth fragment is placed in the middle row of the dexter cheek guard, on the panel closest to the face mask;[106][107] the generally symmetrical nature of the helmet thus implies the design's position on the opposite side as well.[27][108][109] None of the six pieces show both warriors, although the "key fragment" depicts their crossed wrists.[110][111] A full reconstruction of the scene was inferred after the first reconstruction, when Rupert Bruce-Mitford spent six weeks in Sweden and was shown a nearly identical design on the then unpublished Valsgärde 7 helmet.[26][112][113][114][115][116]

Design 1 pictures two men "in civilian or ceremonial dress"[111] perhaps engaged in a spear or sword dance[117][118] "associated with the cult of Odin, the war-god."[119][120] Their outer hands each hold two spears, pointed towards their feet,[110] while their crossed hands grip swords.[26] The depiction suggests "intricate measures," "rhythm," and an "elasticity of . . . dance steps."[121] Their trailing outer legs and curved hips imply movement towards each other,[122][123] and they may be in the climax of the dance.[123] The prevalence of dance scenes with a "similarity of the presentation of the scheme of movement" in contemporary Scandinavian and Northern art suggests that ritual dances "were well-known phenomena."[124] Sword dances in particular were recorded among the Germanic tribes as early as the first century AD, when Tacitus wrote of "[n]aked youths who practice the sport bound in the dance amid swords and lances," a "spectacle" which was "always performed at every gathering."[125][126][121] Whatever the meaning conveyed by the Sutton Hoo example, the "ritual dance was evidently no freak of fashion confined to a particular epoch, but was practised for centuries in a more or less unchanged form."[127]

While many contemporary designs portray ritual dances,[128] at least three examples show scenes exceptionally similar to that on the Sutton Hoo helmet and contribute to the understanding of the depicted sword dance. The same design—identical but for a different type of spears held in hand,[129] a different pattern of dress,[130] and a lack of crossed spears behind the two men[117]—is found on the Valsgärde 7 helmet, while a small fragment of stamped foil from the eastern mound at Gamla Uppsala is "so close in every respect to the corresponding warrior on the Sutton Hoo helmet as to appear at first glance to be from the same die," and may even have been "cut by the same man."[131] The third similar design is one of the four Torslunda plates (de),[132] discovered in Öland, Sweden, in 1870.[105] This plate, which is complete and depicts a figure with the same attributes as on design 1, suggests the association of the men in the Sutton Hoo example with "the cult of Odin."[119][120] The Torslunda figure is missing an eye, which laser scanning revealed to have been removed by a "sharp cut, probably in the original model used for the mould."[133] Odin too lost an eye, thus evidencing the identification of the Torslunda figure as him, and the Sutton Hoo figures as devotees of him.[119][120][133]

Design 2: rider and fallen warrior[edit]

Colour photograph showing the gold Pliezhausen bracteate, which depicts a scene nearly identical to design 2.
The Pliezhausen bracteate shows a scene nearly identical to design 2.

Eight fragments represent all known instances of the second design, accounting for its placement on a like number of panels.[134] It is surmised to have originally appeared twelve times on the helmet,[135] although this theory assumes that the unidentified third design—which occupies one of the twelve panels—was a replacement for a damaged panel.[136] Assuming so, the pattern occupied eight spaces on the lowest row of the skull cap (i.e., all but the two showing design 1), and two panels, one atop the other rising towards the crest, in the centre of each side.[137][138][139] All panels showing design 2 appear to have been struck from the same die.[140] The horse and rider thus move in a clockwise direction around the helmet, facing towards the rear of the helmet on the dexter side, and towards the front on the sinister side.[140]

Design 2 shows a mounted warrior, spear held overhead, trampling an enemy on the ground.[141] The latter leans upwards and, grasping the reigns in his left hand, uses his right hand to thrust a sword into the chest of the horse.[141] Atop the horse's rump kneels a "diminutive human, or at least anthropomorphic figure."[141] The figure is stylistically similar to the horseman. Its arms and legs are positioned identically, and, together with the rider, it clutches the spear with its right hand.[141]

As substantial sections of design 2 are missing, particularly from the "central area,"[142] reconstruction relies in part on continental versions of the same scene.[143] In particular, similar scenes are seen on the Valsgärde 7[144] and 8[145] helmets, and on the Pliezhausen bracteate.[146] The latter piece, in particular, is both complete and nearly identical to the Sutton Hoo design. Although a mirror image, and lacking in certain details depicted in design 2 such as the sword carried by the rider and the scabbard worn by the fallen warrior,[147] it suggests other details such as the small shield held by the kneeling figure.[148]

Design 3: unidentified figural scene[edit]

Black and white line drawings of the seven fragments that do not correspond to any known design on the helmet.
The seven unidentified fragments

Seven small fragments suggest a third figural scene somewhere on the Sutton Hoo helmet. They are nevertheless too small and ambiguous to allow for the reconstruction of the scene.[31] Its presence is suggested "not more than four times, and perhaps only once";[136] because other fragments demonstrate the occurrence of design 1[149] or design 2[150] on all seven available panels on the sinister side of the helmet, and on the forwardmost two panels on the dexter side (in addition to on the highest dexter panel), placement of design 3 "must have occurred towards the rear of the helmet"[136] on the dexter side.

That which remains of design 3 may suggest that a "variant rider scene" was employed to fix damage to a design 2 panel,[136] similar to how a unique pressblech design on the Valsgärde 6 helmet was likely used in repair.[151] Fragment (a) for example shows groups of parallel raised lines running in correspondence "with changes of angle or direction in the modelled surface, which on the analogy of the Sutton Hoo and other rider scenes in Vendel art, strongly suggest the body of a horse."[152] Though smaller, fragment (d) shows similar patterns and suggests a similar interpretation.[136] Fragment (b), meanwhile, shows "two concentric raised lines two millimetres apart," and "appears to be a segment of the rim of a shield which would be of the same diameter as that held by the rider in design 2."[153]

The theory of design 3 as a replacement panel gains some support from damage towards the back of the helmet, yet is contradicted by the placement of fragment (c). The crest, complete for 25.5 cm (10.0 in) from front to back, is missing 2 cm (0.79 in) above the rear dragon head.[154] This head is itself mostly missing, and was entirely omitted from the 1945–46 reconstruction.[155][156][157] These missing portions are offered by Bruce-Mitford as a possible indication that the helmet at one time suffered damage necessitating the restoration of at least one design 2 panel with a new equestrian scene.[158] This theory does not explain why the rear crest and dragon head would not have been themselves repaired, however, and it is not helped by fragment (c). This fragment is an edge piece placed in the 1970–71 reconstruction on the dexter rear of the helmet at the bottom left of a panel where either design 2 or design 3 is expected, yet is "an isolated element quite out of context with any other surviving fragment and with what appears to be the subject matter of the design 3 panel."[153] Bruce-Mitford suggests that as it is an edge piece it may have originally been a scrap placed under another piece to fill a gap, for it is "otherwise inexplicable."[153][note 7]

Design 4: the larger interlace[edit]

Occurring on the cheek guards, the neck guard and the skull cap,[139] the larger interlace pattern was capable of a complete reconstruction.[160] Unlike the two identified figural scenes, partial die impressions of design 4 were used in addition to full die impressions.[160] Blank spaces on the skull cap and neck guard, devoid of decorative designs, allowed for impressions of design 4 "that are either complete or nearly so."[161] On the cheek guards, by contrast, which are irregularly shaped and fully decorated, "the interlace designs are trimmed and sometimes turned on edge to fill awkward spaces."[162]

Design 4 depicts "a single quadruped in ribbon style."[163]

Design 5: the smaller interlace[edit]

The smaller interlace pattern covered the face-mask, was used prominently on the neck guard, and filled in several empty spaces on the cheek guards.[160] It is a zoomorphic design, like the larger interlace, and shows "two animals, upside down and reversed in relation to each other, whose backward-turning heads lie towards the centre of the panel."[164]

Context and parallels[edit]

Unique in many respects, the Sutton Hoo helmet is nevertheless inextricably linked to its Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian contexts. It is one of only six known Anglo-Saxon helmets—joined by those found at Benty Grange, Coppergate, Wollaston, Shorwell, and Staffordshire—yet is closer in character to those from Vendel and Valsgärde. At the same time, the helmet shares many parallels with those characterised in the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf, and, like the Sutton Hoo ship-burial as a whole, has had a profound impact on modern understandings of the poem.

Helmets[edit]

Within the corpus of sixth and seventh century helmets, the Sutton Hoo helmet is broadly classified as a "crested helmet,"[165][166] distinct from the continental spangenhelm[167][168] and lamellenhelm (de).[169][170] Nearly 50 helmets are so classified,[165][171][note 8] although barely more than a dozen are capable of reconstruction.[177] Excepting an outlier fragment found in Kiev;[178] all crested helmets originate from England or Scandinavia.[179][180]

Of the crested helmets the Sutton Hoo helmet belongs to the Vendel and Valsgärde class, which themselves derive from the Roman infantry and cavalry helmets of the fourth and fifth century Constantinian workshops.[181] Helmets were found in graves 1, 12, and 14 at Vendel (in addition to partial helmets in graves 10 and 11), and in graves 5, 6, 7, and 8 at Valsgärde.[131] The Sutton Hoo example shares similarities in design, yet "is richer and of higher quality" than its Scandinavian analogues;[182] its differences may reflect its manufacture for someone of higher social status, or its closer temporal proximity to the antecedent Roman helmets.[183]

Helmet Location Completeness References
Sutton Hoo England: Sutton Hoo, Suffolk Helmet
Coppergate England: York Helmet
Benty Grange England: Derbyshire Helmet
Wollaston England: Wollaston, Northamptonshire Helmet [184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191]
Staffordshire England: Staffordshire Helmet [192][193][194]
Guilden Morden England: Guilden Morden, Cambridgeshire Fragment (boar) [195][196][197]
Caenby England: Caenby, Lincolnshire Fragment (foil) [198][199][200][201][166][202]
Rempstone England: Rempstone, Nottinghamshire Fragment (crest) [203]
Asthall England: Asthall, Oxfordshire Fragments (foil)
Icklingham England: Icklingham, Suffolk Fragment (crest) [171]
Tjele Denmark: Tjele, Jutland Fragment (eyebrows/nose)
Gjermundbu Norway: Norderhov, Buskerud Helmet
Øvre Stabu Norway: Toten, Oppland Fragment (crest)
By Norway Fragment
Vestre Englaug Norway Fragment
Nes Norway Fragment
Lackalänga Sweden Fragment
Sweden Sweden: Unknown location (possibly central) Fragment (crest) [204][173][205][206]
Solberga Sweden: Askeby, Östergötland
Gunnerstad Sweden: Gamleby, Småland Fragments
Prästgården Sweden: Prästgården, Timrå, Medelpad Fragment [207][208][166]
Vendel I Sweden: Vendel, Uppland Helmet
Vendel X Sweden: Vendel, Uppland Fragments (crest/camail) [209][210][211][205][212][173][166]
Vendel XI Sweden: Vendel, Uppland Fragments [213][214][215][216][205][217][173][206]
Vendel XII Sweden: Vendel, Uppland Helmet
Vendel XIV Sweden: Vendel, Uppland Helmet
Valsgärde 5 Sweden: Valsgärde, Uppland Helmet
Valsgärde 6 Sweden: Valsgärde, Uppland Helmet
Valsgärde 7 Sweden: Valsgärde, Uppland Helmet
Valsgärde 8 Sweden: Valsgärde, Uppland Helmet
Gamla Uppsala Sweden: Gamla Uppsala, Uppland Fragments
Ultuna Sweden: Ultuna, Uppland Helmet
Vaksala Sweden: Vaksala, Uppland Fragments [218][219]
Vallentuna Sweden: Vallentuna, Uppland Fragments [220][208][166]
Landshammar Sweden: Landshammar, Spelvik, Södermanland Fragments
Gotland (1) Sweden: Lokrume, Gotland Fragment
Gotland (2) Sweden: Hög Broa, Halla, Gotland Fragment
Gotland (3) Sweden: Endrebacke, Endre, Gotland Fragment
Gotland (4) Sweden: Barshaldershed, Grötlingbo, Gotland Fragment
Gotland (5) Sweden: Hellvi, Gotland Fragment
Gotland (6) Sweden: Unknown, Gotland Fragment
Gotland (7) Sweden: Hallbjens, Lau, Gotland Fragment
Gotland (8) Sweden: Unknown, Gotland Fragment
Gotland (9) Sweden: Grötlingbo(?), Gotland Fragment
Gotland (10) Sweden: Gudings, Vallstena, Gotland Fragment
Gotland (11) Sweden: Kvie and Allekiva, Endre, Gotland Fragment
Uppåkra Sweden: Uppåkra, Scania Fragment (eyebrow/boars) [221][222][223]
Desjatinna Ukraine: Kiev Fragment (eyebrows/nose) [224][225]

Anglo-Saxon[edit]

Although the Staffordshire helmet, currently undergoing research and reconstruction, may prove to be more closely related, the four other known Anglo-Saxon helmets share only minor details in decoration and few similarities in construction with the example from Sutton Hoo. In construction its cheek guards and crest link it to its Anglo-Saxon contemporaries, yet it remains the only helmet to have a face mask, fixed neck guard, or cap raised from a single piece of metal. Decoratively it is liked by its elaborate eyebrows, boar motifs, and wire inlays. but is unparalleled in its extensive ornamentation and pressblech patterns. The similarities likely reflect "a set of traditional decorative motifs which are more or less stable over a long period of rime";[226] the differences may simply highlight the disparity between royal and patrician helmets, or may indicate that the Sutton Hoo helmet was more a product of its Roman progenitors than its Anglo-Saxon counterparts.[183]

The primary structural similarity between the Sutton Hoo and other Anglo-Saxon helmets lies in the presence of cheek guards, a feature shared by the Coppergate, Wollaston and Staffordshire helmets,[227][228][229] yet generally missing from their Scandinavian counterparts.[230] The construction of the Sutton Hoo helmet is otherwise largely distinguished from all other Anglo-Saxon examples. Its cap is unique in having been raised from a single piece of iron.[231] The caps of the other helmets were each composed of at least eight pieces. On the iron Coppergate, Shorwell and Wollaston helmets, a brow band was joined by a nose-to-nape band, two lateral bands, and four infill plates,[232][233][234][228] while the Benty Grange helmet was constructed from both iron and horn. A brow band was joined both by nose-to-nape and ear-to-ear bands and by four strips subdividing the resultant quadrants into eighths.[235] Eight pieces of horn infilled the eight open spaces, with the eight joins each covered by an additional strip of horn.[236] The Sutton Hoo helmet is also the only known Anglo-Saxon helmet to have either a face mark or a fixed neck guard;[230] the Coppergate and Benty Grange helmets, the only others to have any surviving form of neck protection,[note 9] used camail and horn, respectively,[242][243] and together with the Wollaston helmet protected the face by use of nose-to-nape bands elongated to form nasals.[244][245][246][239]

The decorative similarities between the Sutton Hoo helmet and its Anglo-Saxon contemporaries are peripheral, if not substantial. The helmets from Wollaston and Shorwell were designed for use rather than display;[247][248] the latter was almost entirely utilitarian, while the former, "a sparsely decorated 'fighting helmet,'"[239] contained only a boar crest and sets of incised lines along its bands as decoration.[249][250] Its boar crest finds parallel with that atop the Benty Grange helmet,[251] the eyes on which are made of garnets "set in gold sockets edged with filigree wire . . . and having hollow gold shanks . . . which were sunk into a hole" in the head.[252] Though superficially similar to the garnets and wire inlays on the Sutton Hoo helmet, the techniques employed to combine garnet, gold and filigree work are of a higher complexity more indicative of Germanic work.[252] A helmet sharing more distinct similarities with the Sutton Hoo example is the one from Coppergate. It features a crest and eyebrows, both hatched[253] in a manner that may reflect "reminiscences or imitations of actual wire inlays" akin to those on the Sutton Hoo helmet.[254][255] The eyebrows and crests on both helmets further terminate in animal heads, though in a less intricate manner on the Coppergate helmet,[256] where they take a more two-dimensional form. These similarities are likely indicative of "a set of traditional decorative motifs which are more or less stable over a long period of rime," rather than of a significant relationship between the two helmets.[226] Compared with the "almost austere brass against iron of the Coppergate helmet," the Sutton Hoo helmet, covered in tinned pressblech designs and further adorned with garnets, gilding, and inlaid silver wires, radiates "a rich polychromatic effect."[226] Its appearance is substantially more similar to the Staffordshire helmet, which, while still undergoing conservation, has "a pair of cheek pieces cast with intricate gilded interlaced designs along with a possible gold crest and associated terminals."[257] Like the Sutton Hoo helmet it was covered in pressblech foils,[258] including a horseman and warrior motif so similar to design 3 as to have been initially taken for the same design.[194]

Scandinavian[edit]

Significant differences in the construction of the Sutton Hoo and Scandinavian helmets belie significant similarities in their designs.

The Scandinavian helmets that are capable of restoration were constructed more simply than the Sutton Hoo helmet. None has a face mask,[230] solid neck guard,[259] or cap made from one piece of metal,[230] and only two have distinct cheek guards.[230][260] The neck guards "seem without exception to have [been] either iron strips or protective mail curtains."[261] The helmets from Ultuna, Vendel 14 and Valsgärde 5 all used iron strips as neck protection; five strips hung from the rear of the Vendel 14[262][263] and Valsgärde 5[264] brow bands,[265][266] and though only two strips survive from the Ultuna helmet,[267][268] others would have hung alongside them.[269] Camail was used on the remaining helmets, from Valsgärde 6,[270][271][261][272] 7[273][274][272] and 8,[261][272] and from Vendel 1[275][276][270][272] and 12.[277][278][273][261][272] Fragmentary remains from Vendel 10[273][261] and 11,[279] and from Solberga,[205][272] likewise suggest camail. In terms of cheek protection, only two helmets had something other than continuations of the camail or iron strips used to protect the neck.[230][260] The Vendel 14 helmet had cheek guards, but of "a differing version well forward on the face" of those on the Sutton Hoo helmet.[230] Though "difficult to reconstruct,"[280] fragments from the Broa helmet suggest a configuration similar to those on the Vendel 14 helmet.[281] Finally, the widely varying caps on each Scandinavian helmet all share one feature: None is similar to the cap on the Sutton Hoo helmet.[230] The basic form of the helmets from Vendel, Valsgärde, Ultuna and Broa all started with a brow band and nose-to-nape band. The Ultuna helmet had its sides filled in with latticed iron strips,[282][283] while each side on the Valsgärde 8 helmet was filled in with six parallel strips running from the brow band to the nose-to-nape brand.[284][285] The remaining four helmets—excepting those from Vendel 1 and 10,[286] and Broa,[287] which are too fragmentary to determine their exact construction—all employed two lateral bands and sectional infills. The Vendel 14 helmet had eight infill plates, one rectangular and one triangular per quadrant;[288] that from Valsgärde 7 helmet used four infill plates, one for each quadrant;[289][285] the one from Valsgärde 6 also used identical infills for each quadrant, but with "elaborate"[290] Y-shaped iron strips creating a latticed effect;[291][285] and the Valsgärde 5 example filled in the back two quadrants with latticed iron strips, and the front two quadrants each with a rectangular section of lattice work and a triangular plate.[292][293]

The decorative and iconographic similarities between the Sutton Hoo and Scandinavian helmets are remarkable; they are so pronounced as to have helped in the reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet's own imagery, and to have fostered the idea the the helmet was made in Sweden, not Anglo-Saxon England.

Beowulf[edit]

Understandings of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial and Beowulf have been intertwined ever since the 1939 discovery of the former. "By the late 1950s, Beowulf and Sutton Hoo were so inseparable that, in study after study, the appearance of one inevitably and automatically evoked the other. If Beowulf came on stage first, Sutton Hoo was swiftly brought in to illustrate how closely seventh-century reality resembled what the poet depicted; if Sutton Hoo performed first, Beowulf followed close behind to give voice to the former's dumb evidence."[294] The connection between the two "has almost certainly been made too specific."[295] Yet "[h]elmets are described in greater detail than any other item of war-equipment in the poem,"[296] and some specific connections can be drawn. The boar imagery, crest and visor all find parallels in Beowulf, as does the helmet's gleaming white and jeweled appearance. Though the Sutton Hoo helmet cannot be said to fully mirror any one helmet in Beowulf, the many isolated similarities help ensure that "despite the limited archaeological evidence no feature of the poetic descriptions is inexplicable and without archaeological parallel."[297]

Colour photograph of the Benty Grange helmet, which has a freestanding boar atop its crest
The Benty Grange Helmet exhibits the other style of boar motif mentioned in Beowulf

Helmets with boar motifs are mentioned five times in Beowulf,[298][299][300][301] and fall into two categories: those with freestanding boars and those without.[302][303][304] As Beowulf and his fourteen men disembark their ship and are led to see King Hrothgar, they leave the boat anchored in the water:

Gewiton him þa feran, flota stille bad,
seomode on sale sidfæþmed scip,
oa ancre fæst. Eoforlic scionon
ofer hleorbergan gehroden golde,
fah ond fyrheard, ferhwearde heold
guþmod grimmon.
[305]

So they went on their way. The ship rode the water,
broad-beamed, bound by its hawser
and anchored fast. Boar-shapes flashed
above their cheek-guards, the brightly forged
work of goldsmiths, watching over
those stern-faced men.[306]

Such boar-shapes may have been like those on the Sutton Hoo helmet, terminating at the ends of the eyebrows and looking out over the cheek guards.[302][68][69] Beowulf himself dons a helmet "set around with boar images" [307] (besette swin-licum[308]) before his fight with Grendel's mother; further described as "the white helmet . . . enhanced by treasure" (ac se hwita helm . . . since geweorðad[309]), a similar description could have been applied to the tinned Sutton Hoo example.[68][310][311][312][313] (The two helmets would not have been identical, however; Beowulf's was further described as "encircled in lordly links"[314]befongen frea-wrasnum[315]—a possible reference to the type of chain mail on the Valsgärde 6 and 8 helmets that provided neck and face protection.[316][317]) The other style of boar adornment, mentioned three times in the poem,[318] appears to refer to helmets with a freestanding boar atop the crest.[319][303][304] When Hrothgar laments the death of his close friend Æschere, he recalls how Æschere was "my right hand man when the ranks clashed and our boar-crests had to take a battering in the line of action."[320][321] These crests were probably more similar to those on the Benty Grange and Wollaston helmets,[319][303][304] a detached boar found in Guilden Morden,[195][196][197] and those seen in contemporary imagery on the Vendel 1 and Valsgärde 7 helmets and on the Torslunda plates.[322][323]

Black and white line drawing of the crest and eyebrows from the Vendel 1 helmet. The crest contains chevron patterns imitating the inlaid silver wires on the Sutton Hoo helmet.
The crest of the Vendel 1 helmet contains "reminiscences or imitations of actual wire inlays,"[254][255] the wirum bewunden found on the helmets of Beowulf and Sutton Hoo.

Alongside the boar imagery on the eyebrows, the silver inlays of the crest on the Sutton Hoo helmet find linguistic support in Beowulf. The helmet presented to Beowulf as a "victory gift" following his defeat of Grendel is described with identical features:

no he þære feohgyfte
for sceotendum scamigan ðorfte.
Ne gefrægn ic freondlicor feower madmas
golde gegyrede gummanna fela
in ealobence oðrum gesellan.
Ymb þæs helmes hrof heafodbeorge
wirum bewunden wala utan heold,
þæt him fela laf frecne ne meahton
scurheard sceþðan, þonne scyldfreca
ongean gramum gangan scolde.
[324]

It was hardly a shame to be showered with such gifts
in front of the hall-troops. There haven't been many
moments, I am sure, when men exchanged
four such treasures at so friendly a sitting.
An embossed ridge, a band lapped with wire
arched over the helmet: head-protection
to keep the keen-ground cutting edge
from damaging it when danger threatened
and the man was battling behind his shield.[325]

Guessed at before,[note 10] the meaning of "the notorious wala"[336] was only properly determined after the Sutton Hoo helmet was first reconstructed.[337][338] The term is generally used in Old English to refer to a ridge of land, not the crest of a helmet;[339] metaphorically termed wala in the poem, the crest is furthermore wirum bewunden, literally "bound with wires."[340][341][342] It therefore parallels the silver inlays along the crest of the Sutton Hoo helmet.[337][343] Such a crest would, as described in Beowulf, provide protection from a falling sword. "A quick turn of the head as the blow fell would enable the wearer to take it across the 'comb' and avoid its falling parallel with the comb and splitting the cap."[254][344] The discovery has led many Old English dictionaries to define wala within the "immediate context" of Beowulf, including as a "ridge or comb inlaid with wires running on top of helmet from front to back," although doing so "iron[s] out the figurative language" intended in the poem.[339] The specific meaning of the term as used within the poem is nevertheless explicated by the Sutton Hoo helmet, in turn "illustrat[ing] the intimacy of the relationship between the archaeological material in the Sutton Hoo grave and the Beowulf poem."[254][345]

A final parallel between the Sutton Hoo helmet and those in Beowulf is the presence of face masks, a feature which makes the former unique among its Anglo-Saxon and East Scandinavian counterparts.[346][156][230] The uniqueness may reflect that, as part of a royal burial,[230] the helmet is "richer and of higher quality than any other helmet yet found."[182] In Beowulf, "a poem about kings and nobles, in which the common people hardly appear,"[347] compounds such as "battle-mask" (beadogriman[348]), "war-mask" (heregriman[349]), "mask-helm" (grimhelmas[350]), and "war-head" (wigheafolan[351]) indicate the use of visored helmets.[352][353] The term "war-head" is particularly apt for the anthropomorphic Sutton Hoo helmet. "[T]he word does indeed describe a helmet realistically. Wigheafola: complete head-covering, forehead, eyebrows, eye-holes, cheeks, nose, mouth, chin, even a moustache!"[354]

Discovery[edit]

Black and white photograph taken before the second reconstruction, showing hundreds of fragments laid out individually and randomly on a white background.
The Sutton Hoo helmet in its fragmentary, unreconstructed state

The Sutton Hoo helmet was discovered over three days in July and August 1939, with only three weeks remaining in the excavation of the ship-burial. It was found in more than 500 pieces,[355] which would prove to account for less than half of the original surface area.[16] The discovery was recorded in the diary of C. W. Phillips as follows:

Friday, 28 July 1939: "The crushed remains of an iron helmet were found 4 feet [1.2 m] east of the shield boss on the north side of the central deposit. The remains consisted of many fragments of iron covered with embossed ornament of an interlace with which were also associated gold leaf, textiles, an anthropomorphic face-piece consisting of a nose, mouth, and moustache cast as a whole (bronze), and bronze zoomorphic mountings and enrichments."

Saturday, 29 July: "A few more fragments of the iron helmet came to light and were boxed with the rest found the day before."

Tuesday, 1 August: "The day was spent in clearing out the excavated stern part of the ship and preparing it for study. Before this a final glean and sift in the burial area had produced a few fragments which are probably to be associated with the helmet and the chain mail respectively."[356][14]

Black and white drawing showing the position of the objects as found in the burial chamber. Whereas fragments of objects such as the shield are individually marked, the helmet is noted only by a circle with the words "nucleus of helmet remains."
The helmet fragments were neither photographed nor recorded in situ, leaving only their general location known.[357][358]

Although the helmet is now considered to be one of the most important artefacts ever found on British soil,[16][359] its shattered state caused it to go at first unnoticed. No photographs were taken of the fragments in situ, nor were their relative positions recorded,[16][15][14] as the importance of the discovery had not yet been realised.[20] The only contemporary record of the helmet's location was a circle on the excavation diagram marked "nucleus of helmet remains."[357][358] When reconstruction of the helmet commenced years later, it would thus become "a jigsaw puzzle without any sort of picture on the lid of the box,"[16][15] not to mention a jigsaw puzzle missing half its pieces.

Overlooked at first, the helmet quickly gained notice. Even before all the fragments had been excavated, the Daily Mail spoke of "a gold helmet encrusted with precious stones."[360] A few days later it would more accurately describe the helmet as having "elaborate interlaced ornaments in silver and gold leaf."[361] Despite scant time to examine the fragments,[362][363] they were termed "magnificent";[364] "crushed and rotted"[365] and "sadly broken" such that it "may never make such an imposing exhibit as it ought to do,"[366] it was nonetheless thought the helmet "may be one of the most exciting finds."[365] The stag found in the burial—later placed atop the sceptre—was even thought at first to adorn the crest of the helmet,[366][367][368][369] in parallel to the boar-crested Benty Grange helmet. This theory would gain no traction, however, and the helmet would have to wait out World War II before reconstruction could begin.

Excavations at Sutton Hoo came to an end on 24 August 1939, and all items were shipped out the following day.[370] Nine days later, Britain declared war on Germany. The intervening time allowed "first-aid treatment of fragile objects and perishables," and for "the finds to be deposited in security."[371] Throughout World War II the Sutton Hoo artefacts, along with other treasures from the British Museum such as the Elgin Marbles,[372][373] were stored in Aldwych tube station.[4][359] Only at the end of 1944 were preparations made to unpack, conserve and restore the finds from Sutton Hoo.[116]

First reconstruction[edit]

Colour photograph, taken from the front against a white background, of the first reconstruction of the Sutton hoo helmet.
The 1946 restoration of the Sutton Hoo helmet was displayed for more than 20 years.

The helmet was first reconstructed by Herbert Maryon from 1945 to 1946.[374][375] A retired professor of sculpture and authority on early metalwork, Maryon was specially employed as a Technical Attaché at the British Museum on 11 November 1944.[376] His job was to restore and conserve the finds from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial, including "the real headaches – notably the crushed shield, helmet and drinking horns."[116] Maryon's work on the Sutton Hoo objects continued until 1950,[377][378] of which six months "full-time and continuous" work was spent reconstructing the helmet.[379] Stalled for years by World War II and still in the fragmentary state in which it had entered the war, by the time it reached Maryon's workbench the "task of restoration was thus reduced to a jigsaw puzzle without any sort of picture on the lid of the box,"[16] and, "as it proved, a great many of the pieces missing."[21]

Efforts on the first reconstruction began with a "process of familiarisation"[380] with the various fragments;[20] each piece was traced and detailed on a "piece of stiff card", until after "a long while" reconstruction could commence.[20] For this, Maryon sculpted "a head of normal size" from plaster, then "padded the head out above the brows to allow for the thickness of the lining which a metal helmet would naturally require."[104] The fragments of the skull cap were then initially stuck to the head with Plasticine, or, if thicker, placed into spaces cut into the head. Finally, "strong white plaster" was used to permanently affix the fragments, and, mixed with brown umber, fill in the gaps between pieces.[104] Meanwhile, the fragments of the cheek guards, neck guard, and visor were placed onto shaped, plaster-covered wire mesh, then affixed with more plaster and joined to the cap.[381]

Though visibly different from the current reconstruction, "[m]uch of Maryon's work is valid. The general character of the helmet was made plain."[29] The 1946 reconstruction identified the designs recognised today, and similarly arranged them in a panelled configuration.[37] Both reconstructions composed the visor and neck guards with the same designs: the visor with the smaller interlace (design 5), the neck guard with a top row of the larger interlace (design 4) above two rows of the smaller interlace.[382][383][384][139] The layout of the cheek guards is also similar in both reconstructions; the main differences are the added length provided by a third row in the second reconstruction, the replacement of a design 4 panel with the dancing warriors (design 1) in the middle row, and the switching of sides.[382][383][384][139]

Criticism[edit]

Colour photograph of the first reconstruction, dexter side.
Criticisms of the first reconstruction noted its small size, seen by the projecting face mask; the unprotected jaw; the hole left between nose and crest; the plaster used to lengthen the crest; and the fixed neck guard.

The first reconstruction "was soon criticised, though not in print, by Swedish scholars and others."[16][385][note 11] A "basic fault" was the decision to arrange the fragments around the mould of an average man's head, possibly inadvertently predetermining the reconstruction's size.[341][388] Particular criticisms also noted its exposed areas, and a neck guard that was fixed rather than movable.[389][390][391] Though envisioned as similar to a "crash helmet of a motor cyclist" with padding of about 38 inch (9.5 mm) between head and helmet,[20] its size allowed for little such cushioning;[388][341][391] one with a larger head would have had difficulty just getting it on.[391] The "cut-away" at the front of each cheek piece left the jaw exposed,[388][392] there was a hole between eyebrows and nose, and the "eye holes were so large" as to "allow a sword to pass through."[391] Meanwhile, as noted early on by Lindqvist,[386] the "angle of the face mask looked strange, not least because it rendered the wearer's nose vulnerable in the event of a blow to the face."[391]

A final issue raised by Maryon's construction was the use of plaster to elongate the crest by approximately 4 12 inches (110 mm).[30][340][341] The crest had largely survived its millennium of interment, perhaps given durability by the inlaid silver wires.[30][340][341] The need to replace missing portions was thus questioned;[30][340][341] it was thought that either Maryon had reconstructed the crest "to an undue length", or that original portions had been overlooked during the 1939 excavation.[30] When the ship-burial was re-excavated in the 1960s, one of the objectives was thus to search for more fragments, the absence of which could be treated as evidence that the crest had originally been shorter.[393]

Re-excavations at Sutton Hoo, 1965–70[edit]

Close-up colour photograph of two joining fragments on dexter cheek guard which together complete a hinge. The fragment on the left was discovered in 1967 during re-excavations at Sutton Hoo.
Discovered in 1967, the fragment on the left completed a hinge on the dexter cheek guard

Numerous questions were left unanswered by the 1939 excavation at Sutton Hoo, and in 1965 a second excavation began. Among other objectives were to survey the burial mound and its surrounding environment, to relocate the ship impression (from which a plaster cast was ultimately taken[394][395][396]) and excavate underneath, and to search the strata from the 1939 dumps for any fragments that may have been originally missed.[397][398][399] The first excavation had been effectively "rescue dig" under the threat of impending war,[400][401] creating the danger that fragments of objects might have been inadvertently discarded;[398][402] a gold mount from the burial was already known to have nearly met that fate.[403] Additional fragments of the helmet could hopefully shed light on the unidentified third figural design, or buttress Maryon's belief that 4 inches (100 mm) of the crest were missing.[30] To this end, the excavation sought "both positive and negative evidence."[404] New crest fragments could go where Maryon had placed plaster, while their absence could be used to suggest that the crest on the first reconstruction was too long.[393]

Four new helmet fragments were discovered during re-excavation.[405] The three 1939 dumps were located during the 1967 season, and "almost at once" yielded "fragments of helmet and of the large hanging bowl ... as well as fragments of shield ornaments and a tine from the stag."[400][406] The finds were so plentiful that a single three foot by one foot section of the first dump contained sixty cauldron fragments.[407] The four pieces of the helmet came from the second dump, which only contained items from the ship's burial chamber.[407] They included a hinge piece from the dexter cheek guard,[405] a "surface flake" from the crest,[407] a small piece of iron with fluted lines, and a small piece of iron edging showing part of the larger interlace design.[405]

The most important helmet finds from the re-excavation at Sutton Hoo were the piece from cheek guard, and the lack of any substantial crest piece. The fragment of the cheek guard joined another found in 1939,[405] together completing "a hinge plate for one of the moving parts of the helmet, which could not be done previously."[408] Meanwhile, although a "surface flake" from the crest was discovered, its placement did not affect the overall length of the crest.[409] The lack of significant crest finds instead "reinforce[d] scepticism of the long plaster insertions in the original reconstruction."[407]

Current reconstruction[edit]

Black and white photograph taken during the second reconstruction, showing the fragments positioned on a head-sized block of plaster and supported with pins
The helmet while being assembled for the second time. A dragon head has been positioned facing upwards so as to create the image of a dragon in mid-flight.

The current reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet was completed in 1971, following eighteen months work by Nigel Williams.[388] Williams had joined the British Museum in his teens after studying at the same Central School of Arts and Crafts as Maryon,[410][411][412] yet in contrast to Maryon, who completed the first restoration in his 70s and "with the use of only one eye,"[413] Williams reconstructed the helmet while in his mid-20s.[410]

In 1968, with problems evident in the first reconstruction that were left unresolved by the re-excavations at Sutton Hoo, the decision was made to reexamine the evidence.[391] "After several months' consideration" it was decided to disassemble the helmet and construct it anew.[391] The cheek guards, face mask and neck guard were first removed from the helmet and x-rayed, revealing the wire mesh covered in plaster and overlaid by fragments.[381] The wire was then "rolled back like a carpet", and a saw used to separate each fragment.[414] The remaining plaster was chipped away with a scalpel and needles.[414] The final piece of the helmet, the skull cap, was next cut in half by pushing off the crest with "long pins" inserted through the bottom of the plaster head and then slicing through the middle of the head.[415] The "central core of plaster" was then removed, and the remaining "thin skin of plaster and iron" separated into individual fragments "in the same way as the ear flaps, neck guard and face mask."[355] This process of separation took four months and left the helmet in more than 500 fragments.[355] "One of only two known Anglo-Saxon helmets, an object illustrated in almost every book on the early medieval period, lay in pieces."[355]

After four months of disassembly, work began on a new construction of the helmet.[355] This work was advanced largely by the discovery of new joins, marked by several breakthroughs in understanding.[137][416] "Almost all" of the new joins were found by looking at the backs of the fragments, which retained "a unique blackened, rippled and bubbly nature,"[417][418] "wrinkled like screwed up paper and very black in colour."[380] The distinctive nature is thought to result from a "disintegrated leather lining permeated with iron oxide"[417][28]—indeed, this is the evidence substantiating the leather lining in the Royal Armouries replica[419]—and allowed for the fragments' wrinkles to be matched under a microscope.[107] In this manner the skull cap was built out from the crest, aided by the discovery that only the two fluted strips bordering the crest were gilded; the six fragments with gilded moulding were consequently found to attach to the crest.[107] The cheek guards, meanwhile, were shaped and substantially lengthened by joining three fragments from the sinister side of the first reconstruction with two fragments from the dexter side.[420] The exposed areas by the jaw left by the first reconstruction were only eliminated near the end of the second, when an expert on arms and armour advised that the cheek guards should simply switch sides.[421]

When a "reasonable picture of the original helmet" was in view, more than nine months of work into the second reconstruction, the repositioned fragments were placed against a "featureless plaster dome."[422] This dome was itself built outwards with "oil-free plasticine" to match the original dimensions of the helmet.[422] The fragments were held in place with "long pins" until a mixture of jute and adhesive was molded to the shape of the missing areas, and adhered to the fragments.[423] The edges of the fragments were then coated with water-resistant resin,[424] and plaster was spread atop the jute to level and smooth the helmet's surface.[423] The plaster was painted light brown to resemble the colour of the fragments while allowing the fragments themselves to stand out;[425] lines were then drawn to indicate the edges of the panels.[91] The result was a hollow helmet in which the backs of the fragments remain visible.[424][425] On 2 November 1971,[426] after eighteen months of time and a full year of work by Williams, the second and current reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet was put on display.[388][392][427]

In popular culture[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ The impression of design 4 on the top left corner of the replica cheek guard is actually upside down.
  2. ^ With that said, the evidence for the unidentified design has changed over time, from one piece which later turned turned out to be part of design 2, to the seven pieces recognised today. Maryon suggested an unidentified design because of a single piece showing "a solitary leg, from knee to foot, about 12 inch [13 mm] high."[26] Williams's reconstruction moved this piece "from the bottom edge of the cap at the rear up to a position against the crest at top centre," where it was revealed to be a part of the second design after all.[27][28] The existence of an unidentified pattern was thus putatively eliminated when Bruce-Mitford claimed in his 1972 article on the new reconstruction that there were only four designs.[29] Even in the first volume of The Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial, published in 1975, he referred to the unidentified scene in the past tense, stating that "at the time of the re-excavation [1965] it was believed that there was a third figural scene on the helmet."[30] Indications of a third scene did not return until volume two of the same work, published in 1978, where seven small fragments were discussed as being incapable of placement within the four known designs.[31]
  3. ^ This technique is distinguished from repoussé work, a much more labor intensive process. Repoussé work uses small punches to raise individual details from behind a metal sheet,[52][53] which are then refined from the front by chasing,[52] whereas pressblech work raises a design in one operation from a single die.[51] Permutations of pressblech work involving multiple operations do, however, exist. The die used for design 5 on the Sutton Hoo helmet, for example, appears to have had a billeted border on only one each of its long and short sides,[54] while on the neck guard the design is seen with borders along both long sides.[55] "If the die was applied not one impression at a time but as seen on the face-mask, as a continuous series of impressions carefully juxtaposed, on a large sheet of foil, this could be cut in such a way as to leave the pattern with double borders down each side. It seems that this was the method used on the neck-guard."[55]
  4. ^ Bruce-Mitford suggests there were 23 garnets in the dexter eyebrow and 25 in the sinister,[85] but a technical report appending the chapter posits 21 and 22 respectively.[86]
  5. ^ An alternative theory suggests that the discrepancy between eyebrows is the result of a repair job.[98] "That the absence of foils might result from a repair," however, "and presumably therefore a shortage of gold, seems unlikely in view of the minute quantities needed. Additionally, given the evident skill required to shape the gold cell walls and cut the garnets so precisely, the decision to omit the gold foils on the left eyebrow appears all the more deliberate."[84] The repair theory also fails to account for the absence of gold foil behind one of the garnet dragon eyes.[84] On the other hand, a repair could explain the other subtle differences between the eyebrows, such as their slightly different lengths and colours, which are not addressed by the theorized allusion to Odin.[99]
  6. ^ Although the image shows the figure's right eye—i.e., that which is furthest from the animal-like figure—as missing, it is a mirror image of how the design would actually be seen. The Torslunda plates are bronze dies from which "impressions were struck in sheet bronze" and subsequently "mounted on helmets."[105] In this final form, the left eye would be seen to be missing.
  7. ^ Bruce-Mitford appears reluctant to even acknowledge fragment (c) as part of Design 3. Despite writing in 1978 that "[t]he fragment is mounted in the present helmet reconstruction on the right side towards the back,"[153] in 1982 he wrote that "none of the fragments that show portions of Design 3 are mounted in the helmet. Since we know neither what this scene depicted, nor how many times it was employed, to place such fragments in the reconstructed helmet could give a false impression both of the subject and of the position it may have occupied in the decorative layout of the helmet."[159] These contradictory statements would be reconciled by accepting Bruce-Mitford's theory that fragment (c) was a scrap, and not meant to be seen.
  8. ^ This number consolidates the work of multiple scholars. Steuer numbers the helmets from 1 through 30,[172] although he groups the five Vendel examples—three whole, two fragmentary—as #13, and the four Valsgärde examples as #15.[173] His list thus truly encompasses 37 helmets. Tweddle adds six to Steuer's list[174]—a seventh turned out not to be the 10th century helmet that he suggested, but rather a World War II Luftwaffe helmet manufactured by Siemens[175][176]—but makes no mention of the fact that Steuer grouped nine helmets into two spots on his list. Tweddle's addition therefore makes 44 (37+6)—not the 37 (30+7) that he claimed.[174] To these may be added the subsequent discoveries from Wollaston, Staffordshire, Uppåkra, and Inhåleskullen, along with the boar from Guilden Morden, for a total of 48 known crested helmets.
  9. ^ The Wollaston helmet, which was designed similarly to the Coppergate helmet,[237][238][239] may have originally had some form of neck protection. Ploughing of the field in which it was buried, however, destroyed much of the helmet, including most of the dexter side.[240] "The rear edge of the helmet's brow band is almost entirely lost through ploughing but the short section that did survive, when x-rayed, appeared to have part of at least 2 possible perforations on its damaged edge. The purpose of perforations in this position could only be to fix a neck guard of some type."[241] The remaining section of the rear edge of the brow band is only 26 mm long, however, rendering "[t]he purpose, and on such a small length the existence, of the perforations . . . uncertain."[241]
  10. ^ In 1882, for instance, wala was defined as "some part of a helmet,"[326] with the particular lines in Beowulf only partially translated as "about the helm's top a 'wal' wire-girt guarded on the outside the head's defense (i.e. the helmet)."[326] By 1916 it was termed a "rib, comb (of helmet),"[327] and in 1922 it was said that "[t]he exact nature of a wala, which seems to be an ornamental as well as useful part of the helmet, is not known."[328] This confusion led to incorrect or speculative translations of the relevant lines, such as (1837) "[a]bout the crest of the helm, the defense of the head, it held an amulet fastened without with wires";[329] (1855) "[a]round the helmet's roof, the head-guard, with wires bound round";[330] (1914) "[r]ound the crown of the helm, as guard for the head, without, ran a rib to which plates were made fast";[331] (1921) "[a]bout the roof of that helmet / his head's safety, With wires ywounden, / a wreath guarded without";[332] and, by J. R. R. Tolkien in 1926, "[r]ound the helmet's crown the wale wound about with wire kept guard without over the head."[333] Despite the many mistranslations, a correct interpretation of the use of the word wala was theorized at least twice before the discovery of the Sutton Hoo helmet. With the Vendel 1 helmet, which had a crest with "reminiscences or imitations of actual wire inlays on earlier or richer helmets,"[254][255] as his inspiration, Knut Stjerna suggested in 1912 that the "helmet had a rib or comb running up to it to its whole height and down again at the back, and this must have been the part of the helmet which is spoken of as the walu."[334] Elizabeth Martin-Clarke posed a similar idea during a 1945 lecture, stating that "probably here we may have a reference to a special part of the helmet also which resists the sword cut . . . well represented in the picture of a reconstructed helmet from Vendel [1]."[335][336]
  11. ^ The only published criticism may have been that of Sune Lindqvist (sv), who wrote that the reconstruction "needs revision in certain respects."[386][387] Lindqvist's only specific criticism, however, was that the face-mask was "set somewhat awry in the reconstruction."[386] Bruce-Mitford was undoubtedly aware of Lindqvist's criticism when he wrote that the first reconstruction was not criticised in print, for he was the English translator of Lindqvist's article. He was thus likely referring to the more substantial criticisms of the reconstruction, such as its gaps in afforded protection, which indeed do not seem to have been published.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Steuer 1987, p. 200 n. 32.
  2. ^ Google Arts & Culture.
  3. ^ Richards 1992, p. 131.
  4. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. xxxvii.
  5. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 718–731.
  6. ^ British Museum a.
  7. ^ a b Ruffin 2006, p. 43.
  8. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 176–180.
  9. ^ Evans 1986, pp. 32–40.
  10. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 138–231.
  11. ^ Evans 1986, pp. 46–49.
  12. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 144, 156.
  13. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 488–577.
  14. ^ a b c Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 138.
  15. ^ a b c d Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 198.
  16. ^ a b c d e f g Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 120.
  17. ^ Lindqvist 1950, pp. 3–4, 24.
  18. ^ Arwidsson 1942, pp. 30–31.
  19. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 138 n.2.
  20. ^ a b c d e f g h Maryon 1947, p. 137.
  21. ^ a b c Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 140.
  22. ^ a b c Maryon 1947, p. 138.
  23. ^ a b Maryon 1947, pp. 137–140, 143.
  24. ^ a b c d Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 146–150, 186–202.
  25. ^ Maryon 1947.
  26. ^ a b c Maryon 1947, p. 139.
  27. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 128.
  28. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 207.
  29. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 121.
  30. ^ a b c d e f Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 232.
  31. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 197–199.
  32. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1949, p. 47–50.
  33. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1972, pp. 121–122, 128–130.
  34. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 199–200, 207–208.
  35. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 140–146.
  36. ^ a b c Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 152, 203.
  37. ^ a b c d Maryon 1947, p. 140.
  38. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 171.
  39. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 204.
  40. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 172.
  41. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 171–172.
  42. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 174.
  43. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 163–164.
  44. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 163.
  45. ^ a b c Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 167.
  46. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 146, 204.
  47. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1949, p. 47 n.194.
  48. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1982, p. 220.
  49. ^ Coatsworth & Pinder 2002, pp. 109–110.
  50. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1968b, p. 233.
  51. ^ a b Coatsworth & Pinder 2002, pp. 109–114.
  52. ^ a b Maryon 1971, pp. 113–116.
  53. ^ Coatsworth & Pinder 2002, pp. 108–109.
  54. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 201–202.
  55. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 202.
  56. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 111 n.1, 226–227.
  57. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 150, 205, 227.
  58. ^ Williams 1992, pp. 80–81.
  59. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 146, 227.
  60. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 146.
  61. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 152.
  62. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 158, 203.
  63. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 152–155.
  64. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 159.
  65. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 205.
  66. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 161.
  67. ^ a b c Maryon 1947, p. 141.
  68. ^ a b c d e Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 122.
  69. ^ a b c d Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 200.
  70. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 168–169.
  71. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 169, 228–230.
  72. ^ a b c Maryon 1947, pp. 141–142.
  73. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 163–164, 168–169.
  74. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 164.
  75. ^ a b c d e f g Maryon 1947, p. 142.
  76. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 164–167.
  77. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 165.
  78. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 165–167.
  79. ^ Maryon 1971, p. 120.
  80. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 167–168.
  81. ^ Maryon 1947, pp. 142–143.
  82. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 168.
  83. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 231.
  84. ^ a b c Price & Mortimer 2014, p. 521.
  85. ^ a b c d Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 169.
  86. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 229–230.
  87. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 229.
  88. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 160, 169.
  89. ^ Coatsworth & Pinder 2002, pp. 141–142.
  90. ^ Price & Mortimer 2014, p. 520.
  91. ^ a b Williams 1992, p. 86.
  92. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 204–205.
  93. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 160, 205.
  94. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 169, 204–205.
  95. ^ Newton 1993, p. 37.
  96. ^ Price & Mortimer 2014, p. 532.
  97. ^ Price & Mortimer 2014, p. 522.
  98. ^ Marzinzik 2007, pp. 29–30.
  99. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 239.
  100. ^ Maryon 1947, pp. 140, 144.
  101. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1972, pp. 122, 124.
  102. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 200, 204.
  103. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 155, 158, 169, 205.
  104. ^ a b c Maryon 1947, p. 144.
  105. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 214.
  106. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 186–189.
  107. ^ a b c Williams 1992, p. 80.
  108. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 207.
  109. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 172–173.
  110. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1949, p. 50.
  111. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 187.
  112. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1948, p. 6.
  113. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1949, pp. 49–50.
  114. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1950, p. 449.
  115. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 186.
  116. ^ a b c Bruce-Mitford 1989a.
  117. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 188.
  118. ^ Holmqvist 1960, pp. 103, 109.
  119. ^ a b c Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 129.
  120. ^ a b c Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 208.
  121. ^ a b Holmqvist 1960, p. 109.
  122. ^ Holmqvist 1960, pp. 121–122.
  123. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 189.
  124. ^ Holmqvist 1960, pp. 104–106.
  125. ^ Tacitus 1868, p. 17.
  126. ^ Tacitus 1886, p. 14.
  127. ^ Holmqvist 1960, p. 122.
  128. ^ Holmqvist 1960.
  129. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 189 n.4.
  130. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1949, p. 49.
  131. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 208.
  132. ^ Nerman 1948, pp. 79–81.
  133. ^ a b Arrhenius & Freij 1992, p. 76.
  134. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 190–197.
  135. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 190.
  136. ^ a b c d e Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 199.
  137. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1972, pp. 126–127.
  138. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 202–203.
  139. ^ a b c d Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 146–149.
  140. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 192.
  141. ^ a b c d Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 193.
  142. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 197.
  143. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 190–193.
  144. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 192–193, 195–197.
  145. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 193, 197.
  146. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 193–194, 196–197.
  147. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 196.
  148. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 194.
  149. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 186–187.
  150. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 190–191.
  151. ^ Arwidsson 1942, pp. 29–31.
  152. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 197–198.
  153. ^ a b c d Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 198.
  154. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 154.
  155. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 125.
  156. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 205.
  157. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 159–163.
  158. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 224–225.
  159. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1982, p. 272 n.31.
  160. ^ a b c Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 146–150.
  161. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 149.
  162. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 150.
  163. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 200.
  164. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 201.
  165. ^ a b Steuer 1987, pp. 199–203, 230–231.
  166. ^ a b c d e Tweddle 1992, p. 1086.
  167. ^ Steuer 1987, pp. 190–197, 227–229.
  168. ^ Tweddle 1992, p. 1082–1084, 1087.
  169. ^ Steuer 1987, pp. 197–198, 229–230.
  170. ^ Tweddle 1992, p. 1082–1083, 1085.
  171. ^ a b Tweddle 1992, pp. 1083, 1086.
  172. ^ Steuer 1987, pp. 230–231.
  173. ^ a b c d Steuer 1987, p. 231.
  174. ^ a b Tweddle 1992, p. 1083.
  175. ^ Strong 2002.
  176. ^ Nederlandse Munten.
  177. ^ Tweddle 1992, p. 1090.
  178. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 1083, 1086, 1125.
  179. ^ Steuer 1987, pp. 199–200.
  180. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 1086–1087.
  181. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 223.
  182. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 210.
  183. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 212–214.
  184. ^ Meadows 1996–97.
  185. ^ Meadows 1997a.
  186. ^ Meadows 1997b.
  187. ^ Meadows 2004.
  188. ^ Read 2006.
  189. ^ Saraceni 1997.
  190. ^ Webster & Meadows 1997.
  191. ^ Frank 2008, pp. 76, 78, 87.
  192. ^ Butterworth et al. 2016.
  193. ^ Fern & Speake 2014, pp. 34–37.
  194. ^ a b Pilkington 2012.
  195. ^ a b Fordham 1904.
  196. ^ a b Foster 1977a.
  197. ^ a b Foster 1977b, pp. 23, 27.
  198. ^ Jarvis 1850.
  199. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 208, pl. 54b.
  200. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 206–207.
  201. ^ Steuer 1987, p. 230.
  202. ^ Marzinzik 2007, p. 42.
  203. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 1083, 1086, 1092.
  204. ^ Nerman 1953.
  205. ^ a b c d Arwidsson 1977, p. 27.
  206. ^ a b Tweddle 1992, pp. 1086, 1092.
  207. ^ Ambrosiani 1983, p. 25.
  208. ^ a b Steuer 1987, pp. 199, 231.
  209. ^ Stolpe & Arne 1912, pp. 39, pl. XXVII figs. 11, 16.
  210. ^ Stolpe & Arne 1927, pp. 39, pl. XXVII figs. 11, 16.
  211. ^ Arwidsson 1934, pp. 253–254.
  212. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 208, 208 n.2.
  213. ^ Stolpe & Arne 1912, pp. 42–43, pl. XXX figs. 4–6, pl. XXXI fig. 1, pl. XXXII fig. 2.
  214. ^ Stolpe & Arne 1927, pp. 42–43, pl. XXX figs. 4–6, pl. XXXI fig. 1, pl. XXXII fig. 2.
  215. ^ Arwidsson 1934, p. 252–253.
  216. ^ Lindqvist 1950, pp. 1, 9–11, 21.
  217. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 208, 208 n.1.
  218. ^ Seiler 2011.
  219. ^ Seiler & Appelgren 2012.
  220. ^ Sjösvärd, Vretemark & Gustavson 1983, p. 137.
  221. ^ Larsson 2011, p. 196.
  222. ^ Uppåkra Arkeologiska Center.
  223. ^ Price & Mortimer 2014, pp. 523, 525, 531.
  224. ^ Kirpichnikov 1971, pp. 24, fig. 24.
  225. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 1083, 1086–1087, 1125–1132.
  226. ^ a b c Tweddle 1992, p. 1095.
  227. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 989, 1094.
  228. ^ a b Read 2006, p. 38.
  229. ^ Butterworth et al. 2016, pp. 32, 41.
  230. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 214.
  231. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 152, 203, 214.
  232. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 941, 946.
  233. ^ Hood et al. 2012, pp. 83, 85.
  234. ^ Meadows 2004, pp. 9–10.
  235. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974, pp. 230–231.
  236. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974, pp. 231–232.
  237. ^ Meadows 1996–97, pp. 192–193.
  238. ^ Meadows 2004, p. 25.
  239. ^ a b c Read 2006, p. 39.
  240. ^ Meadows 2004, pp. 2–3, 9, 25.
  241. ^ a b Meadows 2004, p. 9.
  242. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 999–1009.
  243. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974, pp. 233.
  244. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 946, 952.
  245. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 231.
  246. ^ Meadows 2004, p. 11.
  247. ^ Meadows 2004, p. 16.
  248. ^ Hood et al. 2012, p. 93.
  249. ^ Meadows 2004, pp. 9, 16.
  250. ^ Read 2006, p. 42.
  251. ^ Meadows 2004, p. 6.
  252. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 241.
  253. ^ Tweddle 1992, p. 1094.
  254. ^ a b c d e Bruce-Mitford 1952, p. 752 n.21.
  255. ^ a b c Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 211.
  256. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 1094–1095.
  257. ^ Butterworth et al. 2016, p. 41.
  258. ^ Butterworth et al. 2016, p. 31.
  259. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 210–212.
  260. ^ a b Tweddle 1992, pp. 1092, 1104–1106.
  261. ^ a b c d e Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 212.
  262. ^ Lindqvist 1931a, p. 9.
  263. ^ Lindqvist 1932, p. 31.
  264. ^ Lindqvist 1932, pp. 25–26.
  265. ^ Gamber 1982, p. 210.
  266. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1982, p. 253.
  267. ^ Lindqvist 1925, pp. 183–184.
  268. ^ Lindqvist 1932, pp. 30–31.
  269. ^ Tweddle 1992, p. 1111–1112.
  270. ^ a b Arwidsson 1934, pp. 244–245, 253–254.
  271. ^ Arwidsson 1942, pp. 28–29.
  272. ^ a b c d e f Tweddle 1992, pp. 1092, 1115, 1119.
  273. ^ a b c Arwidsson 1934, p. 254.
  274. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 215.
  275. ^ Stolpe & Arne 1912, p. 13.
  276. ^ Stolpe & Arne 1927, p. 13.
  277. ^ Stolpe & Arne 1912, p. 46.
  278. ^ Stolpe & Arne 1927, pp. 46–47.
  279. ^ Arwidsson 1934, p. 253.
  280. ^ Tweddle 1992, p. 1105.
  281. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 1104–1106.
  282. ^ Lindqvist 1925, pp. 182–183.
  283. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 1111–1112, 1112.
  284. ^ Arwidsson 1954, pp. 22–23.
  285. ^ a b c Tweddle 1992, pp. 1119–1121.
  286. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 1119–1120.
  287. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 1106–1107.
  288. ^ Tweddle 1992, p. 1106.
  289. ^ Arwidsson 1977, pp. 21–22.
  290. ^ Tweddle 1992, p. 1119.
  291. ^ Arwidsson 1942, pp. 26–27.
  292. ^ Lindqvist 1931a, pp. 5, 8.
  293. ^ Tweddle 1992, pp. 1111, 1113–1114.
  294. ^ Frank 1992, p. 59.
  295. ^ Stanley 1981, p. 205.
  296. ^ Cramp 1957, p. 60.
  297. ^ Cramp 1957, p. 63.
  298. ^ Beowulf, ll. 303–306, 1110–1112, 1286, 1327–1328, 1448–1454.
  299. ^ Hatto 1957a, pp. 155–156.
  300. ^ Speake 1980, p. 80.
  301. ^ Bateman 1861, p. 33.
  302. ^ a b Cramp 1957, pp. 62–63.
  303. ^ a b c Davidson 1968, p. 354.
  304. ^ a b c Chaney 1970, pp. 123–124.
  305. ^ Beowulf, pp. 301–306.
  306. ^ Heaney 2000, pp. 21–23.
  307. ^ Cramp 1957, p. 62.
  308. ^ Beowulf, l. 1453.
  309. ^ Beowulf, ll. 1448–1450.
  310. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 200–201.
  311. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974c, p. 286.
  312. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974b, p. 7.
  313. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 205, 205 n.1.
  314. ^ Newton 1993, p. 41.
  315. ^ Beowulf, l. 1451.
  316. ^ Cramp 1957, pp. 61–62.
  317. ^ Herben, Jr. 1937.
  318. ^ Beowulf, ll. 1110–1112, 1286, 1327–1328.
  319. ^ a b Cramp 1957, pp. 59, 62–63.
  320. ^ Heaney 2000, p. 93.
  321. ^ Beowulf, ll. 1326–1328.
  322. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 208–210, 216–217.
  323. ^ Stolpe & Arne 1927, pl. V.
  324. ^ Beowulf, pp. 1025–1034.
  325. ^ Heaney 2000, p. 69.
  326. ^ a b Bosworth & Toller 1882, p. 1163.
  327. ^ Hall 1916, p. 342.
  328. ^ Klaeber 1922, p. 164.
  329. ^ Kemble 1837, p. 43.
  330. ^ Thorpe 1855, p. 69.
  331. ^ Hall 1914, p. 37.
  332. ^ Moncrieff 1921, p. 39.
  333. ^ Tolkien 2014, p. 42.
  334. ^ Stjerna 1912, p. 14.
  335. ^ Martin-Clarke 1947, p. 63.
  336. ^ a b Frank 1992, pp. 54–55.
  337. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1952, pp. 707, 752 n.21.
  338. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 210–213.
  339. ^ a b Frank 1992, p. 55.
  340. ^ a b c d Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 124.
  341. ^ a b c d e f Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 204.
  342. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 158.
  343. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 210–211.
  344. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 210.
  345. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 213.
  346. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1972, pp. 124–125.
  347. ^ Stjerna 1912, p. 1.
  348. ^ Beowulf, l. 2257.
  349. ^ Beowulf, ll. 396, 2049, 2605.
  350. ^ Beowulf, l. 334.
  351. ^ Beowulf, l. 2661.
  352. ^ Newton 1993, p. 33.
  353. ^ Cramp 1957, pp. 63, 63 n.30.
  354. ^ Brady 1979, p. 90.
  355. ^ a b c d e Williams 1992, p. 77.
  356. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 742–743.
  357. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1979, p. 13.
  358. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 138–140.
  359. ^ a b Williams 1992, p. 73.
  360. ^ Daily Mail 1939a.
  361. ^ Daily Mail 1939b, p. 10.
  362. ^ Kendrick, Kitzinger & Allen 1939, p. 111.
  363. ^ Kendrick 1940, p. 180.
  364. ^ Kendrick, Kitzinger & Allen 1939, p. 113.
  365. ^ a b Kendrick, Kitzinger & Allen 1939, p. 130.
  366. ^ a b Kendrick 1940, p. 174.
  367. ^ Phillips 1940, p. 14.
  368. ^ Phillips 1941, p. 256.
  369. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1949, p. 9 n.34.
  370. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 747.
  371. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1947, p. 11.
  372. ^ Lambert 2014.
  373. ^ Cunliffe 2016.
  374. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1946, pp. 2–4.
  375. ^ Martin-Clarke 1947, p. 63 n.19.
  376. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 228.
  377. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1989b, p. 14.
  378. ^ Carver 2004, p. 25.
  379. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1947, p. 24.
  380. ^ a b Williams 1992, p. 78.
  381. ^ a b Williams 1992, pp. 74–75.
  382. ^ a b Maryon 1947, pp. 143–144.
  383. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 121, 126.
  384. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 200, 203.
  385. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 199.
  386. ^ a b c Lindqvist 1948, p. 136.
  387. ^ Green 1963, p. 69.
  388. ^ a b c d e Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 123.
  389. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1972, pp. 123–124.
  390. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 201, 204.
  391. ^ a b c d e f g Williams 1992, p. 74.
  392. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 201.
  393. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 232, 278.
  394. ^ Van Geersdaele 1969.
  395. ^ Van Geersdaele 1970.
  396. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 280–288, 301–302.
  397. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 230–236.
  398. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 170–171.
  399. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1968a, pp. 36–37.
  400. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 170.
  401. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1979, p. 5.
  402. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 232, 311.
  403. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 232 n.3.
  404. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 171.
  405. ^ a b c d Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 335.
  406. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1968a, p. 36.
  407. ^ a b c d Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 278.
  408. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 279.
  409. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 156.
  410. ^ a b Oddy 1992.
  411. ^ Institution of Mechanical Engineers 1918.
  412. ^ Mapping Sculpture 2011.
  413. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1965.
  414. ^ a b Williams 1992, p. 75.
  415. ^ Williams 1992, pp. 75–77.
  416. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 206.
  417. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 127.
  418. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 206–207.
  419. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 179.
  420. ^ Williams 1992, p. 79.
  421. ^ Williams 1992, pp. 85–86.
  422. ^ a b Williams 1992, p. 84.
  423. ^ a b Williams 1992, p. 85.
  424. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 181.
  425. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1982, p. 251.
  426. ^ Marzinzik 2007, p. 28.
  427. ^ Blake 1971.
  428. ^ Phillips 1987, pp. 148, 162.
  429. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1982, p. 272 n.28.
  430. ^ van der Heide.
  431. ^ Sinclair User 1983.
  432. ^ CollectGBStamps.
  433. ^ Ipswich Star 2003.
  434. ^ Daily Mail 2003.
  435. ^ BBC News 2006.
  436. ^ Culture24.
  437. ^ British Museum b.
  438. ^ British Museum c.
  439. ^ British Museum d.
  440. ^ Subsaga.
  441. ^ Manillaungol 2016.
  442. ^ Songfacts.
  443. ^ Scottish Nature Boy 2010.
  444. ^ Up the Downstair 2012.
  445. ^ BBC 2010.
  446. ^ Marzinzik 2007, pp. 58–59.

Bibliography[edit]

Other helmets[edit]

Anglo-Saxon

Benty Grange

Coppergate

Shorwell

Staffordshire

  • Butterworth, Jenni; Fregni, Giovanna; Fuller, Kayleigh & Greaves, Pieta (2016). "The importance of multidisciplinary work within archaeological conservation projects: assembly of the Staffordshire Hoard die-impressed sheets". Journal of the Institute of Conservation. Institute of Conservation. 39 (1): 29–43. doi:10.1080/19455224.2016.1155071. 
  • Fern, Chris; Speake, George (2014). Beasts, Birds and Gods: Interpreting the Staffordshire Hoard. Warwickshire: West Midlands History. ISBN 978-1-905036-20-2. 
  • Pilkington, Andrew (19 October 2012). "The Staffordshire Hoard Horseman Helmet Foil". Staffordshire Hoard. Retrieved 27 January 2017.  open access publication – free to read

Wollaston

  • Meadows, Ian (1996–97). "The Pioneer Helmet". Northamptonshire Archaeology. Northamptonshire Archaeological Society. 27: 191–193. 
  • Meadows, Ian (September 1997a). "Wollaston: The 'Pioneer' Burial". Current Archaeology. Current Publishing. 13 (154): 391–395. ISSN 0011-3212. 
  • Meadows, Ian (Autumn–Winter 1997b). "The Pioneer Helmet: A Dark-Age Princely Burial from Northamptonshire". Medieval Life. Medieval Life Publications (8): 2–4. ISSN 1357-6291. 
  • Meadows, Ian (March 2004). "An Anglian Warrior Burial from Wollaston, Northamptonshire". Northamptonshire Archaeology Reports (2010 digital ed.). Northamptonshire County Council. 10 (110). 
  • Read, Anthony (2006). "The conservation of the Wollaston Anglian helmet". In Smith, Robert Douglas. Make all sure: The conservation and restoration of arms and armour. Leeds: Basiliscoe Press. pp. 38–43. ISBN 0-9551622-0-3. 
  • Saraceni, Jessica E. (November–December 1997). "Saxon Helmet Restored". Archaeology. Archaeological Institute of America. 50 (6). ISSN 0003-8113. Retrieved 20 February 2017.  open access publication – free to read
  • Webster, Leslie & Meadows, Ian (July–August 1997). "Discovery of Anglo-Saxon Helmet helmet with Boar Crest". Minerva. 8 (4): 3–5. 

Other

Scandinavian

Gamla Uppsala

Valsgärde

Vendel

Other

Roman

  • James, Simon (1986). "Evidence from Dura Europos for the Origins of Late Roman Helmets". Syria. Institut Francais du Proche-Orient. LXIII (1–2): 107–134. JSTOR 4198539.  closed access publication – behind paywall
  • Johnson, Stephen (1980). "A Late Roman Helmet from Burgh Castle". Britannia. Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. XI: 303–312. JSTOR 525684.  closed access publication – behind paywall
  • Klumbach, Hans, ed. (1973). Spatromische Gardehelme. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frügeschichte. 15. Munich: C. H. Beck'sche. ISBN 3-406-00485-7.  (German)
  • Seyrig, Henri (1952). "Le Casque d'Émèse". Les Annales Archéologiques de Syrie. Direction Générale des Antiquités de Syrie. II (1–2): 101–108.  (French)

External links[edit]

Photographs[edit]

First reconstruction

  • Colour photo by Larry Burrows for LIFE magazine in 1951
  • Colour photo by Larry Burrows published in LIFE magazine on 16 July 1951
  • Colour photo by Larry Burrows for LIFE magazine in 1951, seen with the Sutton Hoo sword and photos of the Vendel 14 helmet and Valsgärde 6 sword hilt
  • Colour photo by Larry Burrows for LIFE magazine in 1951, seen with Herbert Maryon and photos of the Vendel 14 (right) Valsgärde 6 (left) helmets
  • Colour photo by Larry Burrows for LIFE magazine in 1951, seen with Herbert Maryon and photos of the Vendel 14 (right) Valsgärde 6 (left) helmets
  • Colour photo by Larry Burrows for LIFE magazine in 1951, seen with much of the rest of the Sutton Hoo treasure
  • Colour photo by the British Museum, available here upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
  • Colour photo by the British Museum, available here upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
  • B&W photo by the British Museum, front view
  • B&W photo by the British Museum, profile (dexter) view
  • B&W photo by the British Museum, profile (sinister) view

Second reconstruction

  • 32 photos by the British Museum, available upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
  • B&W photo by the British Museum showing the three dragon heads, available here upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
  • B&W photo by the British Museum showing the back of the helmet during reconstruction, available here upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
  • Colour photo by the British Museum showing the placement of the upwards-facing dragon, available here upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license

Royal Armouries replica

  • 13 photos by the British Museum
  • Colour photo by the British Museum, available here upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
  • Colour photo by the British Museum, available upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license