Seminary LXVIII: a namecheck to be treasured


Stylised horse terminal from the Staffordshire Hoard



Helmet cheek-piece from the Staffordshire Hoard

Helmet cheek-piece from the Staffordshire Hoard


The inscribed gold strip from the Staffordshire Hoard

The inscribed gold strip from the Staffordshire Hoard


Obligatory pseudo-hoard photograph of material from the Staffordshire Hoard




9 responses to “Seminary LXVIII: a namecheck to be treasured

  1. heptarchyherald

    I just want to point out that, in fact, several of the mounds at the Sutton Hoo complex have indeed been robbed, at least one of which looked to contain a boat. That being the case, we have no idea how rich these particular mounds were. Dating the robbery is another matter altogether, but, while the big mound at Sutton Hoo remained intact, others did not.

    • Yes, I should have mentioned that in fact. One assumes it was done later or the burial would have been a fairly silly thing to do in the first place, if it were likely at the time. It does raise the question of how Mound One came to be left alone, though, doesn’t it?

  2. My understanding is that Mound 1 had been partially ploughed away on one side in the medieval period, so it was asymmetric. There was a robbers’ pit, but it had been placed in the centre of the remaining mound, which was not the same as the original centre, and so had missed the burial chamber. Similarly with Mound 17, the only other mound so far found intact, where the robbers’ pit had been placed in the centre and had come down between the horse and the young man, missing both graves. If I remember correctly, the 1990s excavation turned up a number of 16th century artefacts in the robbed mounds, consistent with a spate of mound-digging at this period. (I’d prefer a more neutral word than ‘robbery’, but can’t immediately think of one).

    • As so often I am slightly shamed by how much more you have read on the subject than me, Carla, thanks for your input. I wonder why the early modern era broke the taboos.

      • Now having read the site report, I’d just add that the dating of the robbery comes from stratigraphy and an early map of 1601 showing a track that cuts the robber pits, but otherwise you’re absolutely right.

  3. I recall reading a comment in passing somewhere in this context that suggested that the Reformation had ‘changed the relationship between god and man’. I can’t now remember the source; the phrase stuck in my mind, but not its citation. It reminded me of the Dissolution of the monasteries at about the same time; different scale and different gods, but both the Dissolution and mound-robbing could be seen as an appropriation of wealth that had originally been dedicated to god(s) and was now considered as up for grabs for private profit. A related but not identical issue may be a decline in belief in supernatural powers – superstition, if you like. The Beowulf poet, for all his Christianity, seems to have had no problem with the idea that taking treasure from a grave mound was liable to result in a disastrous visit from an angry dragon. The medieval church believed in devils/ demons/ evil spirits and so on, and if such powers were believed to live in grave mounds there might well be a taboo on disturbing grave mounds in case you unleashed some evil force. I could see that lasting right through the Middle Ages.

    • And then coming into the fantasy world via Tolkien and other writers who used barrow wights and suchlike in their works, indeed! All sounds quite plausible to me, anyway, he says with the assurance of someone who doesn’t have to teach it.


  5. Pingback: Leeds 2012 Report 3 | A Corner of Tenth-Century Europe

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s
