Other helms with Sutton Hoo-like Construction

[Halfdan]

I was looking at some Vendel helm plaques depicting warriors. To me, it looks like the warrior's helms could reasonably be interpreted as helmets with similar construction to that of the Sutton Hoo helmet. Given that the Sutton Hoo helmet is generally said to have elements of Swedish influence, I think this is a reasonable, if unprovable (pending some future archaeological find) interpretation.

I'm curious as to what other people think.

Thanks!

Halfdan

[C. Gadda]

I was looking at some Vendel helm plaques depicting warriors. To me, it looks like the warrior's helms could reasonably be interpreted as helmets with similar construction to that of the Sutton Hoo helmet. Given that the Sutton Hoo helmet is generally said to have elements of Swedish influence, I think this is a reasonable, if unprovable (pending some future archaeological find) interpretation.

I'm curious as to what other people think.

Thanks!

Halfdan

Actually, Sutton Hoo was most likely made in Sweden, and imported/gifted to the man buried with it. SH bears a lot of resemblance to elements of known Vendel and Valsgarde helmets.

[RandallMoffett]

Charles,

Why would we assume that? Could it not be tradesmen from that area who immigrated to England or a transmission of that style to craftsmen in other areas such as England? I will not argue it could not be possible for it to have been imported but what evidence do we have for this really?

RPM

[C. Gadda]

Charles,

Why would we assume that? Could it not be tradesmen from that area who immigrated to England or a transmission of that style to craftsmen in other areas such as England? I will not argue it could not be possible for it to have been imported but what evidence do we have for this really?

RPM

Well, I did say "most likely" and not "absolutely certain"...

I argue against local manufacture because, honestly, we *have* a very distinctive Anglo-Saxon style, typified by the helmets from Coppergate and Pioneer, and the Staffordshire fragments, which also demonstrate a great deal of longevity for the style. Sutton Hoo does not resemble these, nor the Benty Grange helmet, but it does very strongly resemble the Vendel/Valsgarde material in many particulars, to the point that they could very well have come out of the same workshops.

If the style had been "transmitted" I would expect to see more evidence for it in England. Of course, given how much has been lost over the centuries perhaps there once was some that is since lost. Also, what evidence do we have for immigrant tradesmen from Sweden? That's a theory I've heard before, but do we have a distinct Swedish quarter in York, for example, dating to this period?

[RichLister]

The Sutton Hoo helm looks a lot like the Vendal and Valsguard Helms in terms of construction, even the bora helm. The helmets found in the uk are more "squished" Spangan helm construction.

These guys

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wulfheod ... 80?fref=ts

have lots of pretty migration period helmets to look at.

Big Love

Rich

[Halfdan]

I've read that the Sutton Hoo helmet has similar construction to some of the Vendel helms, but the Vendel helms I've seen look like spangenhelms, whereas, I believe, the Sutton Hoo has a one-piece dome. Am I correct?

[C. Gadda]

I've read that the Sutton Hoo helmet has similar construction to some of the Vendel helms, but the Vendel helms I've seen look like spangenhelms, whereas, I believe, the Sutton Hoo has a one-piece dome. Am I correct?

Let's be careful here - "spangenhelms" has a fairly specific connotation with regards to the conical multi-piece helmets used about a century or so before the Vendel/Valsgarde finds. If you mean to say that most Vendel etc. helms are of multi-piece construction with a brow band, nose to nape band, and various infill panels and similar than, yes, these are constructionally alike, but the form is somewhat different.

Yes, so far as can be determined from the fragments the Sutton Hoo helmet bowl is raised in one piece. Some take this as a sign that it wasn't made in Sweden, but I don't think that is necessarily true. My theory is that this was purposely made for a king (Raedwald?) and thus no expense was spared in it's construction, from the one piece raised bowl to the silver inlaid iron crest to the garnet studded eyebrow castings. This is in contrast to somewhat poorer contemporary helmets that (I believe, anyway) were made for lower ranking aristocracy (however one defines that in Vendel period Sweden) that could not afford such an extravagant work, but could spring for one that looked similar but cut corners. For example, both the Vendel XIV and I think the Valsgarde 6 helmets were made from recycled bits salvaged from earlier helmets. Valsgarde 8, when you look at the details of its assembly, is really quite crude. But the tinned pressblech certainly hide a multitude of sins!

It is interesting that the Valsgarde 7 helmet falls in between in terms of quality. The structure is similar to that of Coppergate, and seems very well made. It also has garnets embedded in the eyebrow pieces. Likely someone of a notch higher wealth owned this, though I would have to review the other finds from that grave to be sure.

So, I believe that the Swedish workshops employed very skilled craftsman, who could produce works of average to high quality based on the their client's budget. An unlimited budget could fetch a lot; for those of lesser means one could still get something similar, just not as richly decorated or nicely built. Just a theory on my part, though.

[RandallMoffett]

Charles,

We know a number of migrants were moving in so I think it highly likely artisans made the move as it is unlikely just warriors and farmers were moving in without them, especially kings. And if the king could spare no expense it seems likely he could also have had his own skilled artisans. He has his own local warriors class that would need armaments so it would seem so. As well we do have evidence of specialized metal working in England in this period so seems probable.

Seeing how few helmets we have found in all England during the period I am not convinced we can make such a argument by stylistic details to say it was made in Sweden or elsewhere. There are four in good shape. So then we have to ditch the Benty Grange as it has almost nothing in common with the York or Pioneer helmet. That said I think it a mistake to assume it an import, even if it is a bit of a unique piece. Further the Sutton Hoo is made to resemble a ridge helmet in many respects, as are many of the Vals and Vend helmets. Since these designs were used by Romans, Persians and all sorts predates that all these groups and we have art evidence of its use in England before Scandinavians even reached England I think there is plenty of evidence to support it being of domestic make. most of the people I know who have worked with the helmet and those I spoke with at the BM tend to take the Roman derivative course. I tend to think it may be a combination of many styles really, not solely Scandinavian but multiple cultures converging.

Now as to evidence of transmission of style. For sure. Martin Carver for one has written loads of articles and books on the dissemination of these and honestly I know of few academics at this date arguing the contrary point. Most seem to view the early medieval period not as a fairly intertwined world where art, ideas and such snaked and spun its way all over. So I do not even think it has to be a Swede making the helmet. It could be a person who has emulated their and/or other designs.

RPM

[Vladimir]

I am not familiar with the bora helm. Do you have a picture? Google called up a lot of pictures of Caribbean divers.

The Sutton Hoo helm looks a lot like the Vendal and Valsguard Helms in terms of construction, even the bora helm. The helmets found in the uk are more "squished" Spangan helm construction.

These guys

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wulfheod ... 80?fref=ts

have lots of pretty migration period helmets to look at.

Big Love

Rich

[white mountain armoury]

Sutton Hoo's helmet shares a lot with the vendel/valsgarde helms in regards to decoration, but in construction its very different.
It seems to me to have much more in common with sassinad ridge style helms that were popular in the late Roman period.
While the vendal/valsgarde helms look different from the coppergate and similar helms they do seem to share the trait of a "brow band" and a "nose to nape" band even though the infill plates are different.
To me it seems possible that the Sutton Hoo was a pre existing helmet later decorated.

[RichLister]

The bora helm (ive spelt that wrong, i'm sure) was found in fragments.

Here is an interpiritation of it owned by Matt Bunker, I believe made by thorkill.



I'll dig out my Copy of "Wodens Warriors" that has a break down of the construction of all the found migration period helmets (untill 2012 the Shorewell Helmet was found just after it was published). If that would help people, or if there is interest.

Big Love

Rich

[RichLister]

I hope this works.

Images from "Wodens Warriors" By Paul Mortimer. All images are (C) Paul Mortimer.

http://imgur.com/a/NeSIh/all

I think that should work.

Rich

[white mountain armoury]

Thanks Rich, I stopped researching helms from this era years ago, coll to see some of this stuff.

[Halfdan]

Thanks everyone, this is some really interesting information. I had never heard of the Bora helm.

Would you guys agree that the warriors on the helm plaque seem to be wearing Sutton Hoo-type helms except with occulars instead of a full face mask?

[RandallMoffett]

The call it Broa on the slide show. Neat helmet though!

RPM

[Vladimir]

Ah, "Broa helmet" got me somewhere with a search.

Thanks.

[C. Gadda]

Charles,

We know a number of migrants were moving in so I think it highly likely artisans made the move as it is unlikely just warriors and farmers were moving in without them, especially kings. And if the king could spare no expense it seems likely he could also have had his own skilled artisans. He has his own local warriors class that would need armaments so it would seem so. As well we do have evidence of specialized metal working in England in this period so seems probable.

Seeing how few helmets we have found in all England during the period I am not convinced we can make such a argument by stylistic details to say it was made in Sweden or elsewhere. There are four in good shape. So then we have to ditch the Benty Grange as it has almost nothing in common with the York or Pioneer helmet. That said I think it a mistake to assume it an import, even if it is a bit of a unique piece. Further the Sutton Hoo is made to resemble a ridge helmet in many respects, as are many of the Vals and Vend helmets. Since these designs were used by Romans, Persians and all sorts predates that all these groups and we have art evidence of its use in England before Scandinavians even reached England I think there is plenty of evidence to support it being of domestic make. most of the people I know who have worked with the helmet and those I spoke with at the BM tend to take the Roman derivative course. I tend to think it may be a combination of many styles really, not solely Scandinavian but multiple cultures converging.

Now as to evidence of transmission of style. For sure. Martin Carver for one has written loads of articles and books on the dissemination of these and honestly I know of few academics at this date arguing the contrary point. Most seem to view the early medieval period not as a fairly intertwined world where art, ideas and such snaked and spun its way all over. So I do not even think it has to be a Swede making the helmet. It could be a person who has emulated their and/or other designs.

RPM

Can you point to any good sources regarding this influx of Swedes? Just curious and want to know more about it. Agreed that craftsman might well have come. Of course, if Swedish people and households could make the trip, then surely it would be much easier for a lone helmet in trade? In bringing this up you're also making the case for simple trade as well.

While I don't doubt King Raedwald would have had his own armourers, it does not necessarily follow that they would/could build the Sutton Hoo helm. Apart from the construction details of the body, the decoration is quite rich - only Valsgarde 7 is comparable. Two alternative possibilities: the helm was a gift from a high ranking person in Sweden to King Raedwald, or Raedwald decided he wanted a rich helm of this type and custom ordered it. It is not as if this sort of thing is unknown - plenty of knights went out of their way to get armours from prestigious production centers such as Nuremburg, Cologne, etc. You didn't have to live in Nuremburg to have armour made from there, why should we assume that it was any different c. 650 A.D.? Judging from the concentration of these helms in and around Sweden is it not at least possible that the region was a sort of center of armour production, at least for helmets, in that period?

Its not as if everything in the Sutton Hoo burial is of native make - there are a number of import items provably part of the trove. Why assume that the helm *must* be of Anglo Saxon make? Mind you, I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that it *might* be - I do accept that conclusion as quite possible. I just don't accept that it absolutely must be, or that the evidence for/against has been very well thought through.

As for the comparisons with other Anglo Saxon helmets I should point out that Sutton Hoo looks only a little like the others you mention. The only helms/helmets that it really DOES resemble happen to be found in Sweden.

Though the Sutton Hoo helm almost certainly derives from Late Roman Ridge helmets it does not mean that they are identical. And it is interesting that the Sutton Hoo and Vendel helm material all seem to "derive" in more or less the same fashion. Yes, I agree that there are some notable detail differences (the crest being of iron, one piece bowl - though that is interesting since the Ridge helmets were of multi-piece construction, AFAIK) but there are a great deal of similarities, such as pressblech, overall shape, supplemental protection to the neck, etc. It should be noted as well that there are differences in detail between the various Vendel and Valsgarde helmets. For example, while Valsgarde 6, 7, and 8 would have looked rather similar in overall appearance when new (given that the differences in frame construction would be covered by pressblech) they are very different from say the Ulltuna or Vendel XIV helmets, which in turn are similar in some respects but different in others from the Valsgarde 5 helmet. Vendel I most closely resembles the Valsgarde 6-8 material, but even here there are significant detail differences. Given this, should it really be assumed that all of these different pieces must be the result of some sort of parallel evolution, and not of Swedish manufacture? No one else has ever suggested that before with regards to the Swedish material; such a claim only arises when Sutton Hoo is considered (i.e. the detail differences with Sutton Hoo from the Swedish material allegedly prove it *had* to have been made by Anglo Saxons in emulation of the Swedish helmets, rather than be made by Swedes)

There is quite a bit of variation within the Vendel period helmets made in and around Sweden - I simply consider the Sutton Hoo helm to fall within that variable range, rather than outside it and thus being absolutely of foreign manufacture.

Sure, someone could emulate the designs - there are enough minor detail differences with Sutton Hoo to make me accept that as a plausible explanation, but given that Sutton Hoo is the only outlier of the Vendel type from Sweden, if this were a common practice wouldn't we have more evidence for it?

Bottom line: while the Sutton Hoo helm might indeed be of Anglo Saxon manufacture - certainly it is not at all unreasonable to assert that - I submit that it is equally likely that it was made in Sweden and imported as a custom built object or as a gift for a king. So far I have seen no compelling reason why it *must* be of local manufacture. I agree heartily that it *could* have been, I just don't accept the conclusion that it *must* have been.

[Halfdan]

I'm currently listeng the the Great Lectures series on the Vikings (via Audible). The lecturer makes the case that there was a lot of trade between Scandinavians and Romans during the waning years of the Empire, and also that during the Vendel period, Swedes especially imitated or sought to acquire Frankish arms and armor. How would you say this plays into the interpretation of the helms?

[C. Gadda]

I'm currently listeng the the Great Lectures series on the Vikings (via Audible). The lecturer makes the case that there was a lot of trade between Scandinavians and Romans during the waning years of the Empire, and also that during the Vendel period, Swedes especially imitated or sought to acquire Frankish arms and armor. How would you say this plays into the interpretation of the helms?

Not sure. Obviously the idea for this form of helmet seems to have come from the Romans, who in turn likely got it from Persia. I'm not sure about the part acquiring Frankish arms & armor, at least in the period we're talking about. I only question it because we find hardly any examples of the conical "spangenhelme" types in Scandinavia. On the continent and in particular amongst the Franks they are the prevailing style, but up north probably only three finds exist out of 27 per Tweddle "Anglican Helm from Coppergate". If they were sought after I would expect to find them more often, but such is not the case. I have no explanation for this and simply admire the problem...

[freiman the minstrel]

This is a great thread. I really can't add a whole lot, except some quotes from Angela Care Evans' Book The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial, from the British Museum Press (ISBN 0 7141 0575-9)

On Page 49 (first column) , Evans says "There are significant differences, particularly in the way that they were made, that suggest that the Sutton Hoo helmet is English, rather than Swedish. The most important difference is that cap of the Sutton Hoo helmet is forged from a single sheet of iron, whereas the Swedish helmets are either made in sections or from iron strips. The Swedish helmets do not have solid iron face-masks, ear flaps, and neckguards, but use instead a system of bronze visors, mail curtains and narrow iron strips. It is only in surface decorations that the Sutton Hoo helmet clearly displays its ancestry and it is possible that the helmet plates were made by Swedish craftsmen working at the East Anglian court, or that dies made in Scandinavia were used."

I might also say that the position of the wearer might also have to do with the construction of the helm. A king in East Anglia (presumably Raedwald) would be putting his helm on at home, before riding a few days to protect his own realm. A dane preparing to go aviking might think more like an infantryman, planning on carrying his gear a thousand miles by longship and on foot before he had to put it on. For Raedwald, weight might be less of an issue, and humping the helm all the way to battle might not something that carries as much weight in his thinking, so to speak. The best way to train to ruck is to ruck, and it changes your definition of good gear.

f

[Matthew Amt]

I might also say that the position of the wearer might also have to do with the construction of the helm. A king in East Anglia (presumably Raedwald) would be putting his helm on at home, before riding a few days to protect his own realm. A dane preparing to go aviking might think more like an infantryman, planning on carrying his gear a thousand miles by longship and on foot before he had to put it on. For Raedwald, weight might be less of an issue, and humping the helm all the way to battle might not something that carries as much weight in his thinking, so to speak. The best way to train to ruck is to ruck, and it changes your definition of good gear.

But kings don't really "ruck", do they? It would be more along the lines of, "Boy! Don't forget my good helmet! And it better shine when you hand it to me!" And he wouldn't bother putting it on until the enemy is about in bowshot, just because it's easier to talk without a mask like that. Though of course he could have worn it for some formal or ceremonial functions as well. In fact I'd be surprise if any of the guys wearing those Vendel and Valsgarde helmets gave much thought to logistics or weight.

You're right, though, it IS a good thread! Are we really that convinced that a one-piece bowl makes the Sutton Hoo helmet English? I mean, it's not like the other English helmets that survive have one-piece bowls. I can see how that and all its other "accessories" make it seem unlike the Swedish ones, but really, considering all of their wild variations in bowl construction and accessories, I'm not sure Sutton Hoo is all that far out! The similarities still catch my eye.

Intriguing, though!

Matthew

[freiman the minstrel]

The idea of carrying the gear is only something I think about. I don't imagine that anybody would take that as gospel, rather than just a thought.

And I know better than to have an opinion on whether or not it was a one piece cap with this crowd, there are too many people who know a LOT more about metallurgy than I do. Evans certainly thinks so. I wonder how they came to that conclusion, given the fragmentary nature of the find.

The source (The book by Evans) is essentially the same thing as The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial - A Provisional Guide published by the British Museum in 1947, with very, very few changes. I'm not kidding. It's the same book. The differences are few, but one of them is the metallurgical study of the helm, so something changed between '47 and '94.

Whether that makes it English or not, I don't know. Even Evans doesn't say anything other than that it "suggests" that the helmet is English. I suspect that our sample size is just too small to make a definitive guess.

f

[Matthew Amt]

And I know better than to have an opinion on whether or not it was a one piece cap with this crowd, there are too many people who know a LOT more about metallurgy than I do. Evans certainly thinks so. I wonder how they came to that conclusion, given the fragmentary nature of the find.

OH! Right! Very good point. Hmmm...

Whether that makes it English or not, I don't know. Even Evans doesn't say anything other than that it "suggests" that the helmet is English. I suspect that our sample size is just too small to make a definitive guess.

Agreed!

Matthew

[C. Gadda]

And I know better than to have an opinion on whether or not it was a one piece cap with this crowd, there are too many people who know a LOT more about metallurgy than I do. Evans certainly thinks so. I wonder how they came to that conclusion, given the fragmentary nature of the find.

A very good question! The one piece bowl construction is in fact inferred from the lack of evidence for rivets or plate overlaps among any of the relevant fragments. See Bruce-Mitford, The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial, Vol. II Arms, Armour, & Regalia for more details.

[C. Gadda]

Again, as I noted previous, I do agree that there are some significant differences between the Sutton Hoo and the Vendel/Valsgarde material, but it must be remembered that there are equally significant differences between some of the known Swedish material. I just consider Sutton Hoo as being within the possible range of variation, and not necessarily proof of being made somewhere else (though such is possible).

A couple of detail corrections to the Evan’s quote: (1) While Sutton Hoo does indeed have a one piece bowl, which is not found with any other known Swedish find, it should be pointed out that it is not found in any other English find, nor indeed any other known helmet from the period (parenthetically one has to go either backwards or forwards in time by at least two or three centuries to find examples of one piece helmet bowls being made). If the one piece bowl is the only significant detail that makes it “stand out”, then one could just as easily argue that the helm was made somewhere on the Continent as England. I therefore invoke Occam’s Razor and focus on the similarities between the Sutton Hoo and Swedish material, rather than quibble about the detail differences. (2) the point about “The Swedish helmets do not have solid iron face-masks, ear flaps, and neckguards, but use instead a system of bronze visors, mail curtains and narrow iron strips” is actually very misleading. The Broa, Vendel XIV, and Valsgarde 5 helmets, in particular, all feature significant face protection that, whilst it may not be a single plate, nevertheless has multiple plates which does cover the face more or less.

At this point I must break off into a tangential rant. The bit about “bronze visors” is so wrong as to make me question Evan’s competence on the subject. The Broa helmet is quite fragmentary, but as the reconstruction posted earlier shows, its *iron* cheekplates and nasal mostly cover the face (I’m tempted to say that I’ve even seen one reconstruction that shows the Broa helm with a plain iron faceplate very much like Sutton Hoo, but sans the decoration). The Vendel XIV is quite similar in coverage, but here again the cheekplates are IRON, not bronze, though I’ll grant the nasal is a substantial bronze casting (mounted on an iron extension of the nose to nape band, though). Finally, the cheekbone and cheek plates on the Valsgarde helmet are iron overlaid with copper alloy pressblech foils. But if you look at the overall coverage it is almost identical functionally to the one piece faceplate on Sutton Hoo. There are no “bronze visors” here, though, and I must say that to know so little on the subject you are supposed to be an expert in is more than a little annoying.

Specifically, what I find vexing is that this so called “expert” makes a big deal about the detail differences when it is plain she does not comprehend what the details even ARE. Irritating to put it mildly, and it significantly undermines her assertion, in my estimation.

Also, there is far too much focus by Ivory Tower academia on minor details rather than functions. The nasal, cheekplates, and hinged curved narrow plates on the Vendel XIV helmet may look different than the faceplate, “ear flaps”, and neck guard of the Sutton Hoo helmet, but provide the exact same functionality. The former is simply a cheaper and easier implementation of the latter; it does not automatically mean it was made somewhere else.

Going beyond this the aventails on, say, Valsgarde 8, again provide the same basic FUNCTION, to protect the face and neck. One may debate the pros and cons of each arrangement, but the idea is definitely there on most of the material (Ultuna is one exception, which left the face uncovered but did protect the neck in a fashion similar to Vendel XIV). Note, however, that this is generally more protection than Continental Spagnenhelme or the Sveti-Vid type helmets offered (the former only offer at most a nasal, mail neckguard, and cheekplates - but not always, whilst the latter offer no face protection at all). Unfortunately, the Ivory Tower folks who write all of the books invariably lack experience in what goes into making a helmet like this, or any direct sort of combat experience, as one gets in SCA, etc. Not to emphasize that latter too much, but one can sometimes learn a great deal about how something works by actually using it in something approximating its intended purpose, which simply reading about relics does not inform one about.

Another tangential rant: anyone pursuing a Masters or PhD in archaeology ought to be required as part of their degree to gain practical experience in one or (preferably) more period crafts in their timeframe of focus. Angela Evans ought to have to spend time with WMA folks and craftspeople who make reproduction helms like these to better comprehend how they are made and thus get their butts out of the Ivory Towers once in awhile…

Whether that makes it English or not, I don't know. Even Evans doesn't say anything other than that it "suggests" that the helmet is English. I suspect that our sample size is just too small to make a definitive guess.

Hitting the nail on the head here. Again, Evans focuses on the differences with the Swedish material but fails utterly to state what similarities it has with known Anglo Saxon material… which is practically NONE.

How about a little though experiment to put all this in perspective? Let’s say we took all the Vendel/Valsgarde helmets by themselves, and set aside there find locations, and then tried to guess where they were made. Would we assume that the Valsgarde 6, 7, and 8 were all of the same “family” but that Vendel XIV and Ultuna (for example) were of a more distant armouring school or even made somewhere else altogether? Conversely, if one did not know where the Sutton Hoo helm was found, would you assume it made somewhere other than Sweden, or just a variant of the several types of Vendel style helmets that exist? Kinda makes one think, doesn't it?

[freiman the minstrel]

And I know better than to have an opinion on whether or not it was a one piece cap with this crowd, there are too many people who know a LOT more about metallurgy than I do. Evans certainly thinks so. I wonder how they came to that conclusion, given the fragmentary nature of the find.

A very good question! The one piece bowl construction is in fact inferred from the lack of evidence for rivets or plate overlaps among any of the relevant fragments. See Bruce-Mitford, The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial, Vol. II Arms, Armour, & Regalia for more details.

THANK YOU!

I have wondered about that for years. I only have volume III of the Bruce-Mitford, because I am primarily interested in the Lyre, and let's face it, those are some pretty dang expensive books. Looking at the fragments, and the parts of the helm that they comprised, that seems a pretty fair conclusion.

(by the way, Evans edited the Bruce-Mitford too)

f

[RandallMoffett]

Charles,

The best I can think of is his book simply titled, Sutton Hoo. He literally wrote the book on it, or one of them.

'Hitting the nail on the head here. Again, Evans focuses on the differences with the Swedish material but fails utterly to state what similarities it has with known Anglo Saxon material… which is practically NONE. '

The problem with your comparisons with the Sutton Hoo is that you need to do the same critical review on roman and Persian helmets with it. Some of which, aside from the solid skull which is unique basically, Are nearly identical in neck guard, check pieces and even face plates. These are not minor. Some Roman ridge helmets have basically the same parts in this respect. And the fact the creator of the helmet added a ridge likely for pure amusement and decoration should not be wasted.

As I said before though. I tend to think of it as a mix between styles not one style which to me indicates the mixing of various cultures in England but perhaps evidence may come forward showing otherwise someday but the Swedish connection still is not strong enough with the indirect evidence you have provided to make that case.

'Another tangential rant: anyone pursuing a Masters or PhD in archaeology ought to be required as part of their degree to gain practical experience in one or (preferably) more period crafts in their timeframe of focus. Angela Evans ought to have to spend time with WMA folks and craftspeople who make reproduction helms like these to better comprehend how they are made and thus get their butts out of the Ivory Towers once in awhile…'

This is only fair if people trying to get practical understanding go and get MAs and PhDs.

I agree academia would benefit but as a person with feet in both world I can say I have had more palm slapping the forehead moments with non-academic 'specialists' who think they know because they have handled an object but lack the familiarity with the larger corpus of evidence. This drives me crazy. Yes you read a handful of sources on a topic. That is great. The person who wrote that book likely went through scores or hundreds of them original and contemporary to do so. Are they perfect no but there usually is great work going into their concepts and theories which too often are cast aside by armchair historians for basically gut feelings and a few bits of evidence, hope they did not have chili or something for dinner....

An FYI Martin Carver is very much into experimental archeology so try not to assume that is always true. He has done some pretty remarkable things in the name of history. Things I suspect many reenactors would even find borderline crazy.

RPM

[C. Gadda]

Charles,

The best I can think of is his book simply titled, Sutton Hoo. He literally wrote the book on it, or one of them.

Who’s “his”? Best book for what? I think I know what you are getting at, (Prof. Carver? Referencing the Swedish migration to England?) but I just want to make sure I understand.

The problem with your comparisons with the Sutton Hoo is that you need to do the same critical review on roman and Persian helmets with it. Some of which, aside from the solid skull which is unique basically, Are nearly identical in neck guard, check pieces and even face plates. These are not minor. Some Roman ridge helmets have basically the same parts in this respect. And the fact the creator of the helmet added a ridge likely for pure amusement and decoration should not be wasted.

As I said before though. I tend to think of it as a mix between styles not one style which to me indicates the mixing of various cultures in England but perhaps evidence may come forward showing otherwise someday but the Swedish connection still is not strong enough with the indirect evidence you have provided to make that case.

Well, I have – I’m fairly well informed about the Roman material. You do understand that the Vendel, etc. material has precisely the same ancestry, yes? I'm pretty sure you do, but that is not clear from what you have just written. Where do you think the aventails on Valsgarde 6-8 come from? Clearly inspired by the Persian material. The crests that are found on pretty much all of the extant examples (except Vendel XIV)? Clearly comes from the Ridge helmets – this is no different from Sutton Hoo. And the Vendel XIV helmet is “nearly identical” to certain later Roman types, particularly the cheek guards – and I’d argue that the hinged back strips are simply a cheaper analog to the single plate of the Sutton Hoo helm. These details are not minor, either.

And while I have no huge objection to the concept of style mixing (indeed, it seems quite plausible, even if the evidence isn’t really overwhelming) this opens a can of worms. England was not the only place that had a “mixing of various cultures” – the same could be argued for the Continent as well. And given that there was travel and trade, one could even make a case for Sweden having a “mix” of cultures. Indeed, the sheer variety of features on the Swedish material makes a good case for that.

Also, it is worth noting that the last Ridge Helmets would have been seen in England roughly two *centuries* before the Sutton Hoo helm was buried. While there is an obvious ancestry in evidence, I’m not sure how much should be made about the link between Ridged helmets and Sutton Hoo in particular. I do concede, though, that England remained Roman for a long time, so there is some merit to the idea of a closer connection between the two, especially with regards to the cheekplates/ear flaps. However, I find the face plate connection to be more sketchy – though functionally the same it does not very closely resemble the Roman Cavalry helms with their raised and more naturalistic face guards, as opposed to the relatively flat and stylized version on the Sutton Hoo helm.

I do not, however, understand how you regard the obvious commonalities between the extant Swedish material and Sutton Hoo count as weak “indirect” evidence. Put another way, what is there about the Sutton Hoo helm that makes it explicitly Anglo Saxon? To date no one has presented a single piece of evidence that proves that. Doesn’t mean its not there, just that the case has not been made yet. As noted, the most likely very Anglo Saxon Coppergate and Pioneer examples do not resemble Sutton Hoo at all, save in having common ancestry.

For the record, Bruce-Mitford in “Aspects of Anglo Saxon Archaeology” states his belief that the Sutton Hoo helm was either made in Sweden or at least by freshly arrived Swedish immigrants, though this was published in 1974 so he may well have changed his mind since then, or had his views superseded by more recent work.

As I’ve said before my main objection to the notion that the Sutton Hoo helmet is locally made is really more about the cavalier and superficial way the theory is presented. Basically Evans, et al say words to the effect that, “Well, it looks like the Swedish material but it has a few differences so it must be Anglo Saxon.” Really, if you boil it down, that’s all you get. But, as I’ve pointed out, most of those observations are really quite trite. Not necessarily wrong to point out, but I can easily point to reasonable analogs to the Swedish material. Bluntly, there are a lot more commonalities with the Swedish material than the Anglo Saxon.

Here are some arguments in favour of Swedish manufacture: at least one of the pressblech on Sutton Hoo was reconstructed based on study of the Valsgärde 7 helmet. The mere *presence* of pressblech is pretty much a Swedish thing (yes, other types of overlay are known from Late Roman contexts, and the Staffordshire hoard indicates some kind of overlay, but the pressblech seem to be unique to Sweden – certainly I don’t think any dies have ever been found outside of the region)

Some arguments I would raise favouring local manufacture: the close similarity of the man between two beasts (bears?) motif between the Sutton Hoo purse lid and one of the Torslunda dies. Note that the Sutton Hoo lid is most certainly of Insular manufacture, while the Torslunda dies are clearly “Swedish” (really “Ölandish”) – though the final answer really depends on which influenced the other. The “double dragon” arrangement on the front terminal part of the crest has no direct correlation to currently known Swedish material. While I am not sure that it can be attributed to Anglo Saxon culture that is nevertheless where I would look first for relevant parallels, given the find location.

This is only fair if people trying to get practical understanding go and get MAs and PhDs. [N.B. in response to my proposal about those studying advanced degrees in Archaeology and similar to study a period craft, etc.]

I agree academia would benefit but as a person with feet in both world I can say I have had more palm slapping the forehead moments with non-academic 'specialists' who think they know because they have handled an object but lack the familiarity with the larger corpus of evidence. This drives me crazy. Yes you read a handful of sources on a topic. That is great. The person who wrote that book likely went through scores or hundreds of them original and contemporary to do so. Are they perfect no but there usually is great work going into their concepts and theories which too often are cast aside by armchair historians for basically gut feelings and a few bits of evidence, hope they did not have chili or something for dinner....

Strongly disagree.

For starters, for all the “palm slapping the forehead moments” you have had it fails to match the problems caused by academia mistakes. Let me point out a few particularly relevant ones:

1) The Sutton Hoo hauberk – early on when the find was first published they gave this a cursory glance and concluded it was of butted construction, and then published this. Of course, it is alternated riveted and solid like every other sample of mail that has ever been found from the Roman Iron Age to about 1300 A.D. or so… The problem is that this error has poisoned quite a few publications and discussions ever since (including Claude Blair’s otherwise excellent work “European Armour”), in spite of having been corrected by Bruce-Mitford in the volume I mentioned previous. A good, thorough correction but some 30 years or so too late, unfortunately.

2) Kelly de Vries Medieval Military Technology – I don’t know what to say here. On the one hand it seems a useful work, and at a cursory glance seems competent, but the devil’s in the details. I had issues with the 1st Edition, so much so that I stopped reading it due to the detail inaccuracies I was seeing. I got the second edition, hoping that some of these detail problems would be fixed. Alas, no. Imagine my shock when I read this: “…the lorica hamata, was constructed of metal rings. These rings were made in two different ways: punched out of sheet metal, so-called solid rings, and from wire, with the ends butted together. This armor was made from wire with the ends butted together, the wire rings used to secure the solid rings, in an interlocking pattern of rows in which each ring was jointed to four others….” Butted, really? I suppose I should be delighted that he got the punched solid ring part correct, but I imagine Erik Schmid or Dan Howard would have an earful or two to say on this alone. But it gets better. Prof. de Vries actually has a foot note that cites Robinson’s “Arms & Armour of Imperial Roman” which, on page 164, states the following with regards to the construction of Roman mail: “The oldest method of construction, and also the quickest, is where every alternate row of rings is punched out of sheet metal and the rows connecting them are made from wire, with their ends flattened, overlapped, punched and riveted.” (emphasis added) Now, correct me if I am wrong, uneducated rube that I am, but if you cite a particular passage to support a particular claim, then is it not logical to conclude that YOUR CLAIM SHOULD NOT CONTRADICT THAT CITATION?!? (BTW this is not the only detail I had a problem with, but certainly it was the most egregious I’ve noted thus far – however, in the same chapter/section he also makes the absurd claim that lorica segmentata were made of “…six or seven horizontal strips of bronze riveted to leather straps to hold them in place,… this is mostly wrong, BTW – he even gets the date of use wrong as well. I refer interested folks to various books on Roman armour and specialized volumes on the lorica segmentata). What sort of “scholarship” is this?

From my perspective, I have a lot of books, original journal articles, etc. on the subject, so I know full well how spectacularly flat wrong his claims are. It beggars belief that an “expert” on this subject could make such obvious mistakes.

So, tell me, why should I trust academics when they can’t get the most basic facts right? I’m not expecting perfection here but COME THE FRAK ON! It’s not rocket surgery folks! It is simply not hard to find sources that flat disprove de Vries assertions. And he is regarded as an authority?!? How in Hades does that happen?

3) Arwidsson’s ridiculous reconstruction of the Valsgärde 8 body armour, with its “barrel stave” construction, rounds out this short list. Now, in her defense, there was a basis for this, specifically artwork depictions of Persian armour of a vaguely similar nature, though she failed to note some important detail differences. Here is where knowing some technical details of WMA and body armour would have made a difference: even a very simple reconstruction out of thin sheet metal or even stiff cardboard would have demonstrated the obvious problems with her approach (as was shown by Gamber Ortwin in his article), and pointed her in a better direction.

Now, the point is not to slam academia, per se. After all, where would we be without their expertise in recovering and preserving artifacts, and on occasion at least writing about them a bit? Rather, I bring all this up to point out a more subtle problem. While an amateur crackpot may indeed come up with some “palm slapping the forehead” ideas, such rarely get very far. But when academians make an inevitable mistake, their errors linger for years, even decades, doing considerably more damage. It has taken myriad years to get past the belief that the Sutton Hoo maille was butted, for example, with all the attendant problems that has caused convincing folks that riveted (or riveted/solid) ring construction was the norm (I had one fellow tell me that riveted mail was only for the wealthy and that “poorer” soldiers used butted…). And de Vries moment of stupendous illiteracy hardly helps… Further, Arwidsson’s error persisted for quite some time in photos and art depicting the Valsgärde 8 armour. It does not help that some in academia can be quite arrogant. I recall someone either here or on myArmoury seeking other PhD’s to refute some idiot of a Medieval History professor who claimed that swords weigh “25 lbs” and other absurdities, but who refused to accept any correction from anyone who did not have a magical PhD appended to their name. Of course, a simple glance at the Wallace Museum Catalogues would have proven this fool wrong. Never mind that a 25 lb. sword requires a profound ignorance of basic physics to take seriously….

An FYI Martin Carver is very much into experimental archeology so try not to assume that is always true. He has done some pretty remarkable things in the name of history. Things I suspect many re-enactors would even find borderline crazy.

That’s excellent, but Prof. Carver represents what percent of pertinent academia in this area? Unfortunately, I expect it is a rather small number… Apart from Carver, Dr. Tobias Capwell, and yourself, I really can’t think of too many folks in academia that are involved in experimental archaeology. It is gratifying to know that there are exceptions, but they are just that: exceptions.

[RandallMoffett]

Charles,

"Well, I have – I’m fairly well informed about the Roman material…. Clearly inspired by the Persian material."

I think this is basically it. I have no doubt Persian and other groups influenced Swedish, Roman, AS and other groups. This is how everything works basically in an overly simplified way. But it does not stay that way. Each group takes it and modifies it with local styles and to function. That is why I do not see the evidence clearly indicating this is Swedish over local or other possible sources or influences. I think unless strong evidence presents itself, assuming it is anything but local becomes iffy though. As well there are a number of pretty clear differences with the SH helmet and the Swedish helmets. Yes I am familiar with B-M's idea it was from Sweden or Swedish tradition. He uses a very similar argument you do. But I and a large number of others do not feel that way. If strong evidence is presented that will could change things. I am open to new info on most topics.

'Strongly disagree.'

Honestly Charles.... really. If we compare the mountain of insane and illogical reenactorisms against the examples of academic errors and incorrect ideas, no doubt not limited to the three you have provided this would make your assertion rather difficult. Yes there are errors and poor interpretations in academics; none here is arguing they are always right. Most academics spend their time ripping other academic theories apart or modifying them. That is why academic systems usually work. Scholars who research similar fields come out and point out logical issues or contest interpretation of evidence with other theories.

But seriously there is no comparison. I have heard far more nutty, crazy, impossible and completely unfounded ideas lacking any evidence or credibility from reeanctors over the years that I find this comment utterly untenable that you have made. Are some iffy comments ideas made in academics, for sure, but if we are fair in our assessment this assumption is just plain wrong. Academics put in years of hard work and full time research to get where they are (for the most part). This was my point. The book or article they write is based on mountains of evidence and analysis, I cannot tell you the number of times a person finds one shred of evidence in reeanctor communities and runs with it or worse 'it could have been done like this' with none. Where most decent academics will be far more cautious in such situations (most).

Now as to a few of your examples. The original idea it was butted mail for SH is simply the inability to see the object clearly. Even now it is a giant mass of metal-like something and hard to ID 100%. I have seen it a number of times in person. Since then it has been proven wrong. But hardly their fault as they did not take the entire shirt out of its rust induced cocoon but left it largely as it was as soon as they could stabilize it.

Now with the splinted torso armour. To them when looking at how they were located to the buried and looking at the other objects, many martial it looked like it would work. There is also evidence for splinted armours. Some reeactors have indeed made some that do indeed work very well so who can say for certain. I do not think they were but that is my view of the evidence. I think others are far more credible but you cannot fault them from a practical point as others have made armours off them and it works.
And with Kelly. I could not say. I'd have to see the full section, perhaps I can ask him. I'd be very surprised if he really thinks mail was butted to be honest as I have spoken to him about mail in the past. My gut says typo but I do not know.

But here is the main issue. Assuming though that because some academics make mistakes these are common or invalidates all/most of academic work or all of their work seems iffy. I do think by a wide margin academic assertions are usually more accurate than what so often circulates around many reenactment circles. I think the analysis is also usually more accurate. The availability of evidence and the tools to access it are far greater to academics.

Now do many academics do practical study or do reenactment? No. But once again how many reeactors put in the time they do in study to such a wide amount of evidence to arrive at their theories? Very few. I have tried to make access to many forms of evidence to many groups and people only to still find they'd rather listen to the inaccurate notions floating around the reenactor-world opposed to evidence. So I think my statement is still pretty valid. I think things have improved in general in reenactment in the last few decades but I think most is increasing access to academic work and through it finding the evidence it is based on. Can both groups learn from each other for sure. I have seen some reenactors who do phenomenal research and their attention to detail is amazing. They can without doubt improve the academic community. I love seeing what they come up with. But I think they are likely more exceptional than academics who have practical interests in history. But no one expects you to take any person's word at face value. I never said that for either groups.

For pure amusement here are some examples a few interesting ones from the last few years of reeactors to add to the 25lb swords-
Every person died at 30
They were all short, 5' tall
They never bath... ever
They were always dirty
They were always smelly
Only kings and nobles wore colors... EVER
Some arrowheads were made to cut ropes on ships, the shape of the head makes that clear (almost word for word)
before cotton was in Europe aketons were full of sand (word for word)
medieval ships were not seaworthy enough to go into the open water
medieval people were always drunk

RPM

[Dan Howard]

And this the latest example of what happens when an arts graduate with no reenactment or WMA experience attempts to interpret iconographical evidence. It has been happening for over a century and nothing has changed. If they don't want to get their hands dirty actually learning how these things function then they should, at the very minimum, get training in the scientific method.
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-m ... rases.html

When I was studying engineering I thought that arts students were intellectual lightweights who couldn't get a "real" degree. Now, after going back to uni to study classics and history, I realise that both disciplines are necessary to study this subject properly.

[Frank Anthony]

One thing I've always wondered, but haven't heard brought up, is that while I've heard the helmet compared to the roman ridge helms, I've always thought it looked more like a much earlier imperial galic helmet with a face plate added and decorated. What is the reason I never heard this brought up? This is a real question.

@Dan Howard. Is there any reason not to believe the SH could have been worn with a glued linen muscle cuiras? Just joking. (This is a reference to a romanarmytalk discussion since my question seems kind of rediculus. Not to discredit my original question which I am curious about.)

[Matthew Amt]

One thing I've always wondered, but haven't heard brought up, is that while I've heard the helmet compared to the roman ridge helms, I've always thought it looked more like a much earlier imperial galic helmet with a face plate added and decorated. What is the reason I never heard this brought up?

Huh, I've been doing Roman stuff for 25 years, and Sutton Hoo doesn't look ANYthing like a first century helmet to me! Different bowl shape, different neckguard shape, different cheekpiece shape, etc. It *does* resemble some Roman 4th century helmets at least in profile, but even there the neckguard is MUCH bigger, and the ridges on Roman helmets were not made the same way. They were never rounded like the Vendel/Valsgarde types, and not decorated like that. I'd even be tempted to say that the similarities are almost "neo-Classical", as if derived from Roman artwork and not directly descended from Roman originals. (But I won't say that if folks think I'm too radical, ha!) Though it is interesting to note that MANY features of military equipment shown in Carolingian artwork are ASSUMED to be mere Classical copy-cat artwork, and NOT reflections of what was actually worn at that time. Of course, there simply aren't any depictions of the "real stuff", nor has any of it survived, so we are left with the conclusion that Carolingian aristocrats insisted on being portrayed in Romanesque clothing and gear, but would never be caught dead actually wearing the stuff!

But then we get Sutton Hoo--"OBVIOUSLY directly descended from ROMAN originals!"

I will say right off that my knowledge of Late Roman stuff is not as deep! But one thing I've always found puzzling is that as often as Persian influence is brought up, NO one has ever bothered to show all these Persian helmets which must exist, or nice depictions of them, from which these Late Roman and Scandinavian helmets "obviously" derived.

Sorry, us amateur generalists, always making trouble, ha! (Not picking on you Randall, I honestly don't know enough to make REAL trouble!)

Matthew

[Frank Anthony]

@ mathew ant. Thanks for the information. I know that the differences are in the details. I had just been curious.

[white mountain armoury]

Matthew, there are wide rounded ridges on ridge helms, both the heavily decorated Berkasovo 2 and Deurne helms have wide rounded ridges as does the Intercisa and Worms helms.
Those are off the top of my head but there are more with a similar "ridge" shape.

[RandallMoffett]

Dan,

Art History is really not the same as history in many respects. Having waded into Art History at least on a few levels professionally that would be my take at least. Not per se negative just focused differently. That said most know my take on art evidence... works best when used with textual and/or archeological evidence for theories related to arms and armour.

I think it very much depends on what aspect of history a person studies if they would need such practical experience.

I am not as familiar with classical era arms and armour as with medieval so I could not say much on that thread in any detail, which is typically why I ask you when looking through and creating theories from this period. I see what you are saying but once again this is very much antidotal and statistically I suspect much less common than comments say on the same forum made by non-academics that are just as unlikely. My point is not that academics are infallible but typically have a more solid rational behind theories than most forumites/reenactos. If I did not see value in reenactment I would not do it. But I think there is far more of a need to reeactors to broaden and support their theories with evidence and analysis than most academics, who whether you agree or not with them usually provide evidence behind their assumptions. Usually.

Frank,

I am with Matt. Far more like a later Roman than earlier Roman helmet to me.

Matt,

Not always is the neck guard much bigger on the Sutton Hoo than the later Roman ones. The Egyptian, Der-el-Medinah late Roman spangen helmet has a fairly massive neck and cheek guard as well. Looking at some of the Roman ridge helmets to me I can see very much a direct line of development. Many of the cheek pieces, neck guards and the very prominent ridge seem to go toward it. But the biggest question to me is the solid skull on SH. Few places in Europe of close by is that common, though there are a few in Byzantium so perhaps a link there as well. but far more common earlier or later.

Now as to classical looking arms and armour being real or artistic modes. If we find one it gets far more easy. This is the issue with art and how to interpret it. With textual evidence or archeological to support art it is much easier.That said not all people interpret them as simply art. But that is a difference with Sutton Hoo. We have it. We have similar art and existent Roman models of ridge and spangen helmets so we have both. With the roman style in art of the Carolingians we have very little evidence. Which is odd as Charles the Great seems to have really pushed arming up on his warrior class.

now one easy example of roman and Persian exchange is the Sassanian helmet in the central museum of Mainz (inv. o .38823)
http://www.livius.org/a/1/iran/sasanian_helmet_rgzm.JPG

And compared to other roman ones of the time
6 down, Leiden helmet
http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEqui ... -late.html

Looks like they had the same patterns almost.

A number of great ridge helmets there as well. Adam mentioned a few already that are there.

RPM