Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:47:30.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sutton Hoo—a rejoinder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford  and
John Allan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Dr Gordon Ward says that my paper ‘Sutton Hoo-Recent Theories’ is described by me as ‘embodying the official views about Sutton Hoo’ and ‘thus claims very particular authority’. What I said in fact was (op. cit., p. 1) that, since opposite opinions had recently been expressed on certain critical aspects of the find (Pagan or Christian ? Grave or Cenotaph ? English or Swedish ?),’ it is desirable that an official assessment of the issues should be offered to students, even though it cannot be regarded as final’. Anyone who can get into print can say what he likes about Sutton Hoo. Those officially engaged on the study and definition of the material naturally bear a greater responsibility for their utterances. They should also be acquainted with the facts, which not all commentators have been. By ‘official assessment’ I meant no more than that, as a sympathetic reader must at once have seen.

Type
Research-Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 26 , Issue 102 , June 1952 , pp. 76 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ANTIQUITY, XXVI, 1952, 9.

2 Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History, vol. 25, part 1, 1949, published 1950, 1–78.

3 i.e. beyond those previously identified by Dr Allan as belonging to specific mints.

4 Its appearance in Suffolk and burial there would of course be later. (R.B.M.)

5 Dr Plenderleith and Dr Moss, of the British Museum Research Laboratory, have also pointed out to me that the phenomenon of ‘surface enrichment’ in antique gold, whereby the surfaces of gold-alloy will turn to pure or nearly pure gold, by the working out from the surfaces, over long periods of time, of other constituents of the alloy, renders deductions from surface appearance or analysis of surface scrapings, extremely precarious. Specific gravity tests are much more reliable as indications of the baseness or otherwise of antique gold coinage.

6 See R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford, ‘Saxon Rendlesham’, Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology.