Talk:Sutton Hoo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

GA review

See Talk:Sutton Hoo/GA1

Contradiction on dating and Raedwald

There is a contradiction in the introduction between the confident statement that it is generally accepted that Sutton Hoo is Raedwald's grave, and the vague dating of probably early seventh to ninth centuries. My understanding is that coin evidence points to the late 620s, which is about when Raedwald died, but no real evidence that it is his grave. Maybe someone more expert than me could improve the introduction. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed "to 9th" removed - nobody at all thinks it is anything like that late. I don't know how long it has been there, but it is certainly wrong. You are correct on the rest, which is covered in the article. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I do however think that the article overstates the scholarly consensus in favour of Raedwald, both in the introduction and in the detailed discussion. A British Museum article at http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/w/who_was_buried_at_sutton_hoo.aspx treats him as just one of the candidates, and Judith McClure and Roger Collins in their Oxford World Classics edition of Bede's Eccliastical History p. 381, describe the evidence as "almost non-existent" and say recent excavations confirm the doubts.

A separate point is that the discussion of the coin evidence for dating is surprisingly skimpy in an article of such high standard overall.

I would be happy to revise the article with reference to Raedwald but I do not know about the coin evidence to deal with it. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement, "confident" or not, is in the lead, which is certainly not the place to go into great detail. The History section explains the issue in a very balanced way, if anything understating Raedwald's position as favourite among scholars. Raedwald remains the clear favourite: David M. Wilson, former Director of the BM & an Anglo-Saxon specialist, himself leans towards one of the next two kings, but says it is "usually assumed" to be Raedwald's burial (Anglo-Saxon: Art From The Seventh Century To The Norman Conquest, Thames and Hudson (US edn. Overlook Press), 1984, p. 25). Carver 1998, p. 22-23, says Chadwick's identification was "repeatedly endorsed by other scholars over the next fifty years", and that Raedwald "is still the favourite candidate". He does not even mention any others in his main text, entirely on Sutton Hoo, of 161 pages, though he does in pp. 172-173. Both Wilson and Carver here can be cited for placing Eorpwald of East Anglia, Raedwald's son and successor, as the no. 2 runner, and that might be mentioned somewhere. He died c. 627, only 3 years or so into his reign. No one says the evidence is other than inferential, nor does the article. "Dark Ages" history unfortunately has to be largely constructed on assumptions for which the evidence is either "almost non-existent" or, as in the case of much of Bede, needing very careful weighing for bias etc. The coin evidence, which I don't know much about, is another can of worms I don't think we need go into in detail. Wilson says they give a terminus post quem of 622, but that date is evidently not firm, as is often the case with early coin dates. Carver 1998, p. 132, only allows that the burial must have been "after about AD 613". Some radiocarbon dates are all over the place, but I think this is not unusual. I will add at least Carver on Raedwald to the notes. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I raised the objection because of the phrase "generally accepted" in the introduction, which I do not think is true. "Favourite candidate" would be fine. The BM article suggests that it might be the grave of an unknown noble, and I take McClure and Collins to be arguing that we just don't know rather than favouring an alternative candidate. I think that there is a bias among some scholars to settle on the most likely candidate rather than admit that we simply don't know, but of course a Wikipedia article is not the place for such a personal view. Reading the History section again, I accept that it is balanced, although I would prefer to see a reference to someone unknown as well as alternative candidates.

As to the coin evidence, I do think this is crucial and needs more explanation, but this is not possible unless there is an editor who understands it well enough to give a brief summary. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is entirely clear that "we don't know", as the article says very clearly. I think "generally thought most likely that he was buried in the ship" would be ok. Those preferring other candidates are just as uncertain, & the "Kings of Essex" theory seems to have gathered little traction in the 17 years since it was published. The BM don't "suggest that it might be the grave of an unknown noble" in the literal sense - that is clearly not their preferred view - they merely allow for the possibility, which Carver also does, although he evidently thinks it remote. The only "brief summary" that would be needed of the coins, beyond what we have, is the last firm date among them, but evidently there isn't one, or it would be prominent in all the sources available to the main editor and me, even if not those you have. Unless Silk Torc wants to add anything from the big Bruce-Mitford? This google books extract from 1997, and especially the notes, and also pp 29-31 here give an idea of the complexities you immediately get into in trying to get a date from the coins. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer in the introduction to replace "generally accepted", with something along the lines of "It is not known who was buried in the ship, but most scholars consider Raedwald the likeliest candidate."

On the coins, instead of "They provide the (debated) primary evidence for the date of the burial, probably in the third decade of the 7th century." I think "Dating of the coins is a matter of controversy among experts, but it is thought that the collection could have been assembled by about 625, and this provides the primary evidence for the date of the burial." with your Stanley p. 203 as the reference, would be clearer.

Thanks for the trouble you have taken. I will leave experts such as you to make any amendments. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've softened the lead as per my last above; I think once you are talking about "most likely" it is implicit that there is no certainty. The coin sentence could be expanded, but I'd rather keep to just mentioning the decade rather than any specific year, as the scholarship seems to be still in flux and just too uncertain. Few early Anglo-Saxon sites or objects can be tied even as closely as to a decade, and nearly 1400 years later that seems close enough. Perhaps they will all come to an agreement in time to decide when the anniversary is! Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This article - from p. 79 on & already a ref in the article, is amusing on the acrobatics performed by "the standard view" since the burial was found, and on the necessary obfuscations of "Dark Ages English". Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If I undertand the position on the coin evidence from this brief summary the 625 estimate dates from 1960. The one certain date is that the burial must be after 595, as there is a coin of Theudebert II, who acceded as Frankish king in that year. Later estimates, as of course you will know, depend on ongoing debate among experts dating the decline in the gold content of Merovingian coins. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's even that clear cut - that that is the latest terminus post quem for the coins I mean. Wilson & Carver (see above), both writing well after the 1960s give different dates (622 & 612-13), though their reasoning isn't clear in the books I have. Given the various theories as to why the coins might be a preserved collection some decades old by the time of the burial, I still don't think there is a way to say anything very useful and accurate in the space we have here. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal Saxon tomb in Prittlewell

Dreadful recentism I know, but shouldn't (couldn't) there be more compare and contrast stuff with the Royal Saxon tomb in Prittlewell, or weren't there any sources doing that kind of thing to be found? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And perhaps this comment too belongs on the article talk page, but Campbell 2000 (pp. 55–83), referenced in note 133, does not really suggest another identification for the person buried at Sutton Hoo. The thrust of his argument seems to be that, absent a great deal more evidence on the scale of rich Anglo-Saxon burials from this period, we should be cautious in assuming that the buried person was of sufficient importance for their name to have come down to us. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

His article does give a good airing of some of the issues around the identity. In fact the citation to him was by the main editor; I recently added the rest - see section below. I think Campbell's article also gives a good idea of the reasons why it is probably best to wait a while before attempting comparisons with Prittlewell here. I'll add it to See also anyway. I might add something later - but the initial priority should be to expand the very short Prittlewell article. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Prose issues

• The lead refers to the site being important to the placing "of the period in a wider perspective." I thought this was cumbersome but wasn't sure how to fix it. I'm not sure these words are actually what was meant. What "period" is bieng referred to? The time of "the establishment of Christian rulership in England"? The early mediaeval? Which seems a pretty wide persective itself. Do we really mean wider than that? Or is the wider perspective meant to be geographical rather than temporal, in which case the word "period" is misleading. Johnbod, would you have a look? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Could be either, but I agree it's vague. Now just "The site has been vital in understanding the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of East Anglia and the whole early Anglo-Saxon period." Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• The "Location" section has this: "A similar use is suggested at an earlier date, though Kingston near Woodbridge (nearly opposite Sutton Hoo) is another possibility. Rendlesham has a church dedication to Gregory the Great, the pope who sent the Roman Christian mission to England which arrived in Kent in 597." Can I suggest these lines be deleted. They add detail that is both distracting and, as written, not really comprehensible. "A similar use" - similar to what? use? I thought we had been talking about geography, not function? Why is this here? Just delete.

Similar to what was just said. Edited, with some put into a note. The section is just called "Location" & covers bothy physical geography & the uses made of it. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Same section: "one of the primary components in the formation of the Kingdom of East Anglia" - why not simply "one of the primary components of the Kingdom of East Anglia"?

Seems clear to me, & not the same as your suggestion. Kingdoms don't just happen, or didn't then; they coalesced around important centres and ambitious leaders, & it is suggested Rendlesham had both. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, it just seemed over-elaborate for the lay reader. But leave it as is. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Jon Newman has made the archaeological survey of this region a special study, called the East Anglian Kingdom project, and Keith Wade has spearheaded the Ipswich Excavation Project since 1974 for Suffolk County Council." Who cares, in the context of this article. Again consider deleting (but ensure that a reference is retained for the relevant previous sentence phrase "...that the instruments and resources of royal power were focussed in this immediate neighbourhood.") hamiltonstone (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Put into a note. But local interest needs to be balanced with the national and international. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure of your point here. The sentences are worded as though the important informaiton (ie. the subjects) are the non-notable individuals. If you are keeping, then rephrase them to draw attentino to the EAK and the IEP rather than who happens to be looking after them. Also, second part lacked a cite too. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I tweaked the note myself. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• "In June 1939 Charles Phillips of Cambridge University, hearing rumours of a ship discovery (the 1938 find)," This is wierd. The only reference to a "1938 find" is to three, robbed, burial mounds. How on earth could this have translated into " Charles Phillips of Cambridge University, hearing rumours of a ship discovery"? There has been no mention of ships, no thought of ships, yet an academic hundreds of kilometres away translates some small-time provincial digger of Roman remains' examination of a robbed mound as a rumour of a buried ship?

Only 80.45 Km or 50 miles by road in fact. Carver 1998 gives a highly detailed account; that week the site was overrun with visiting experts in fact; "(the 1938 find)," is incorrect & I have removed it - it all happened pretty quickly after the 1939 mound 1 dig started on May 9 & hit rivets on May 11. Maybe I should add a bit. Part of the reason that Phillips became aware is explained by the next bit you want to cut. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• While I have no issue with a detailed discussion of the context of the excavation per se - it is certainly interesting - the following para really made no sense to me. It wasn't that the individual sentences were problematic; more that as a lay reader, I really didn't understand the sequence of events or why, in the end, the politicking was relevant. It wasn't clear how this affects the final outcome:

  The need for secrecy and various vested interests led to confrontation between Phillips and the Ipswich Museum. The museum's honorary president, Reid Moir F.R.S., had been a founder of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia in 1908, and the curator, Mr Maynard, was its secretary and editor from 1921. In 1935–6 Charles Phillips and his friend (Sir) Grahame Clark had taken control of the society. Mr Maynard then turned his attention to developing Brown's work for the museum. Phillips, who was hostile towards Moir, had now reappeared, and he deliberately excluded Moir and Maynard from the new discovery.

As it stands, i would actually delete this para, but if a more cogent explanation is availabe of its significance, it could stay.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact the history of the discovery has been dogged by intense politics and controversy, as well as scholarly dissention & about-turns, and this episode was just the opening salvo. I have thought a more comprehensive treatment of these issues might be added, but now is not the time. Probably either some of this should be removed, or something added. I'll think further about this. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• How are these "prose" issues? As a general comment, if everything different people want taken out of the article is removed, there will only be a stub left! Specific comments above, and thanks for the look-over, which has caught some windy phrasing. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry about the heading. I started out with a query about just one point in the lead, and then got into it some more, rendering the heading quite misleading. If it is any consolation, I am generally on your side for keeping text in, but I just found that background stuff and the controversy within the profession / museums to be unhelpful. I don't know if it something you are close to; if so, that might be a factor. I really wanted to like it, but I just couldn't. It wasn't doing anything for me. :-) Thanks for looking at it. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not close to it, though I do know the area very well, but the main author certainly is. But his emphasis is common to much of the literature on SH. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm off for now, if you want to edit it. Johnbod (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• In the "Mound 2 – a man's chamber-grave covered with a ship" sub-section, we have this: "...probably derived from a large shield of Vendel type". A little later, under "Warrior inhumation" we have: " The Vendel-type connections with Mound 1 were significant." Unfortunately, the reader has no idea what a Vendel is, or a Vendel type. Nor does the second of the two observations have a cite. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have mentioned Vendel in the lead now; the article covers the village too, but mainly the archaeology, & refed the point to Carver 98. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That was better, but I didn't feel it was enough for a lay reader, and have added more explicit text where it first occurs in the body text. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• In "Rædwald as the probable buried king", the middle two paras are (with the exception of one point) entirely cited to Bede's account. I don't think the WP article should treat this as a source in the same way as the works of contemporary historians. These paras should therefore have some additional cues in them, reminding the reader that s/he is reading a summary of Bede's account, not what a modern text might say is the best scholarly account of the period. Eg it should begin "According to Bede, during the later 6th century when the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were in process of formation,..." hamiltonstone (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd sentence in the section is "The primary source for Rædwald is the Historia Ecclesiastica of the Venerable Bede, completed AD 731", which intended to accomplish just that. In fact I think Bede is the only source for Rædwald, apart perhaps from later genealogies, as for most of the early AS period. I have rejigged in a way that I hope makes this clearer. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Better, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well done

Just listened to Sue McGregor on A Good Read on Radio 4, and they were talking about The Dig, the novel about the excavations at Sutton Hoo. Right at the end of the programme she said 'if you can't get to the British Museum, have a look on Wikipedia where there is a wonderful page about the site and all the glowing treasures' or words to that effect. So well done!. Listen Again for a week here. 86.134.92.68 (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! "Wonderful" but apparently not "Good" (see above)! That will annoy the BM anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hehheh, that's what I thought too - she's telling the listeners to look at the Wikipedia page rather than a BM one! Touche (don't know how to do acute accents), BM! 86.134.92.68 (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a relative of the one who led the dig - C W Phillips - we've always felt he is portrayed as being a bit more heavy-handed than he actually was. But for the purposes of drama... makes a better story. Canada Jack (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the novel, but Brown gets so many brownie points as a working class hero, & Phillips had already crossed swords (quite understandably for all one knows) with the Ipswich archaeological establishment, that he is a natural villain for any account, sweeping in from Cambridge twirling his moustaches. He doesn't come out badly from Carver 1998. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)