The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard: the find, the context, the problems A large and intriguing collection of gold and silver ftagments dating mainly to the seventh century AD ivas found in the parish of Ogley Hay near the south Staffordshire border (Fngland) in 2009 by Mr Terry Herbert, while using a metal detector. With its peculiar composition and uncertain context, the origins and purpose of the Staffordshire Hoard currently remain something of a puzzle. The collection was probably buried in woodland at the top of a hill beside a Roman road (Watling Street, the current A5), where it remained until the land was deforested and ploughed at an unknown date, but probably after the mid nineteenth century. The assemblage was dominated by pieces of weapons, mainly sword ftttings, comprising at least 60 per cent of it by weight. The principal non-military artefacts were an ornamental gold cross, and a strip bearing a Christian inscription. While the latest objects imply a deposition date in the late seventh or early eighth century, the dates currently proposed on the basis of ornament and epigraphy range over 150 years (late sixth into eighth century). This either suggests that it was gathered over more than a century before burial or that our dating is in need of revision. The origins of the collection and how it got into the ground remain controversial and elusive: a vanished tomb, a bag ofmetalsmith's scrap, battlefteld booty or the result of looting an armoury, hall, tropheum, treaswy or pagan shrine — all these and more have been suggested. Variously called the Staffordshire hoard and the Hammerwich hoard, we opt here for the Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard, since it cites the place of discovery and this is unlikely to be the only hoard ever found in Staffordshire. Without the Portable Antiquities Scheme, such a treasure might never have been reported or announced to the public with such expedition. Nevertheless, the mode of its recovery has raised the alarm among archaeological scholars, and such feelings are given expression here. We are most grateful to those involved who accepted our invitation to give a preliminary account of the discovery (Leahy et al., p. 202), and to comment on its possible context (Webster et al. p. 221). As someone concerned with field archaeology and early medieval Fngland, your editor was also unable to resist inviting himself to give an opinion; and he has (p. 230). ANTIQUITY 85 (2011): 201 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/O85/antO85O2Ol.htm 201
Transcript
The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard:the find, the context, the problems
A large and intriguing collection of gold and silver ftagments dating mainly to the seventh centuryAD ivas found in the parish of Ogley Hay near the south Staffordshire border (Fngland) in 2009by Mr Terry Herbert, while using a metal detector. With its peculiar composition and uncertaincontext, the origins and purpose of the Staffordshire Hoard currently remain something of apuzzle.
The collection was probably buried in woodland at the top of a hill beside a Roman road(Watling Street, the current A5), where it remained until the land was deforested and ploughed atan unknown date, but probably after the mid nineteenth century. The assemblage was dominatedby pieces of weapons, mainly sword ftttings, comprising at least 60 per cent of it by weight. Theprincipal non-military artefacts were an ornamental gold cross, and a strip bearing a Christianinscription.
While the latest objects imply a deposition date in the late seventh or early eighth century, thedates currently proposed on the basis of ornament and epigraphy range over 150 years (late sixthinto eighth century). This either suggests that it was gathered over more than a century beforeburial or that our dating is in need of revision. The origins of the collection and how it gotinto the ground remain controversial and elusive: a vanished tomb, a bag ofmetalsmith's scrap,battlefteld booty or the result of looting an armoury, hall, tropheum, treaswy or pagan shrine —all these and more have been suggested.
Variously called the Staffordshire hoard and the Hammerwich hoard, we opt here for theStaffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard, since it cites the place of discovery and this is unlikely to be theonly hoard ever found in Staffordshire. Without the Portable Antiquities Scheme, such a treasuremight never have been reported or announced to the public with such expedition. Nevertheless,the mode of its recovery has raised the alarm among archaeological scholars, and such feelings aregiven expression here.
We are most grateful to those involved who accepted our invitation to give a preliminaryaccount of the discovery (Leahy et al., p. 202), and to comment on its possible context (Websteret al. p. 221). As someone concerned with field archaeology and early medieval Fngland, youreditor was also unable to resist inviting himself to give an opinion; and he has (p. 230).
The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard:recovery of a treasureKevin Leahy', Roger Bland^, Delia Hooke^, Alex Jones' &Elisabeth Okasha^
Discovery
Roger Bland & Kevin Leahy
The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard was found on the 5-10 July 2009 by Mr TerryHerhert while metal-detecting on arable land at a site in south Staffordshire in theEnglish Midlands (Figure 1). Mr Herbert contacted Duncan Slarke, the Portable AntiquitiesScheme's Finds Liaison Officer for Staffordshire and the West Midlands, who visited thefinder at his home and prepared an initial list of 244 bags of finds. These were then takento Birmingham Museum and HM Coroner was informed. Duncan Slarke also contactedthe relevant archaeological authorities including English Heritage, the Staffordshire HistoricEnvironment Record, the Potteries Museum, Stoke-on-Trent, Birmingham Mtiseum & ArtGallery and the Portable Antiquities & Treasure Department at the British Museum. Ameeting was held in Birmingham on 21 July at which it was agreed that the controlledrecovery of the remaining objects of the hoard and an archaeological investigation of thefindspot was a priority. It was also agreed that one of the Portable Antiquities Scheme'sNational Advisors, Dr Kevin Leahy, should compile a hand-list of finds in preparation forthe Coroner's Inquest.
On 22 July archaeologists from Staffordshire County Council visited the site in thecompany of Duncan Slarke and Mr Herbert. A further 24 objects were recovered and theirpositions plotted on the following day. With the permission of the landowner and the activeco-operation of Mr Herbert and funding from English Heritage and Staffordshire CotmtyCouncil, an excavation was undertaken by a small team from Birmingham Archaeologybetween 24 July and the 21 August. This work resulted in the discovery of a further 571bagged finds.
Mr Herbert also recovered 56 small blocks of earth or clay that gave a response to themetal detector, varying in weight from 1—99g. An X-ray examination of these blocks proved
' National Advisor to the Portable Antiquities Scheme, British Museum, Great Russell Street, London WCIB3DG, UK (Email: [email protected])
^ Head of Portable Antiquities and Treasure, British Museum, Great Russell Street, London WCIB 3DG, UK(Email: rhLind@thebritishmuseum. ac. uk)
' Lndependent researcher, 91 Oakfietd Road, Selly Park, Birmingham B29 7HL, UK (Email:della. hooke@blueyonder. co. uk)
^ Birmingham Archaeology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK (Email:a. e.jones. anh@bham. ac. uk)
' Language Centre, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland (Email: [email protected])
useful and gave some indication of what they contained. There was a lot of broken sheetmetal, some of which could be identified as sword hilt plates, and rivets from hilts could alsobe seen. Fragments of reeded strip were present and it could be seen that some of the otherfragments were decorated with filigree. At least one object was decorated with cloisonnégarnets. The state of the material was curious; although the fragments were crumpled theyremained discrete, suggesting they may have been loosely packed in a bag, which decomposedand was infilled with earth.
At this point, the hand-list contained 1381 records (37 of which were recent and not partof the hoard), attributed as follows:
Mr Herbert (original discovery and subsequent finds) 537 itemsStaffordshire County Council 37 itemsBirmingham Archaeology 807 items
Following the inquest in September 2009, additional work was carried out, enhancing andconsolidating the record. At the time of the inquest the hand-list recorded more than 1300objects with a total mass of more than 5.0kg of gold and more than 1.3kg of silver. Thecatalogue now (November 2010) contains more than 3490' pieces with masses oí 5.094kgof gold and 1.442kg of silver. These figures include garnets and some earth, but will bebroadly correct.
The Treasure Valuation Committee (TVC) met at the British Museum on 25 November2009 to discuss the valuation, on which occasion the committee of independent advisorsdeemed the Treasure to be worth £3.285 million, to be split equally between the finder (MrTerry Herbert) and the landowner (Mr Fred Johnson).
The Chairman of the TVC, Professor Norman Palmer CBE said:
'The task of valuing this hoard required the Treasure Valuation Committee to analysea very large amount of information in order to arrive at a fair market price, and I ampersonally indebted to my fellow members whose energy and expertise made this resultpossible in so short a time. I would also like to pay tribute to the immense amount of hardwork put in by our four outside expert valuers and the secretariat. All finders of Treasurecan take encouragement that the most valuable Treasure find ever made was dealt withso speedily and yet so scrupulously by all parties concerned, given that the hoard wasdiscovered only in July. It is of course immensely important that this extraordinary hoardis acquired for public benefit and I know that [the] two museums are anxious to raisethe funding to keep the hoard in the West Midlands as soon as they can. '"
The two museums referred to were Birmingham City Museum & Art Gallery and thePotteries Museum & Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent (as the museum that collects archaeologicalmaterial from Staffordshire). The British Museum declined its option to acquire the hoard,
1 NB: not 3940 as/)«i./. 90(2010); 139.2 The members of the committee were: Professor Norman Palmer, CBE (Chairman), Mr Trevor Austin,
Professor Ian Carradice, Mr John Cherry, Mr Peter Clayton, Dr Jack Ogden, Dr Tim Pestell and Mrs MaySinclair.
204
Kevin Leahy et al.
but has played a major role in facilitating its study and its successful acquisition by the two
museums concerned.
Staff of the Portable Antiquities Scheme rapidly placed the treasure in the public domain
(see www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk), and produced an illustrated summary (Leahy & Bland _£-
2009). Some o f the objects were the subject of temporary displays at the British Museum, ^
Birmingham City Museum and the Potteries Museum, Stoke-on-Trent where, over a period J|
of a few weeks, they were seen by more than 90 000 people, some of whom queued for c¿,
up to five hours. Work began on the preparation of a full catalogue and raising money for
the acquisition of the hoard from the Crown. The two museums were very fortunate that
the Art Fund led the fundraising appeal and the speed with which this large sum of money
was raised exceeded all expectations. Under the guidelines of the Treasure Act, museums
have four months to raise the money to pay the reward, but in this case the money was
raised in three months, with no less than £900 000 of it coming from individual donations,
a far higher proportion than for any of the Art Fund's other public appeals. While some
media exaggeration was inevitable, the overall response was responsible and we can only
be thankful that, at this time of financial constraints, the public clearly demonstrated their
interest in the past.
It may be taken as read that additional money will be needed to undertake an in-
depth study of the material (see below). A symposium was held at the British Museum
on 30-31 March 2010 (see www.finds.org.uk/staffordshirehoard), attended by over 100
European scholars of the early Middle Ages, together with the PAS and museum staff,
field archaeologists and conservators who had been directly engaged with the find.
What follows here refiects and develops the research agenda that was initiated on that
occasion.
Location
Delia Hooke
The hoard was found within the extra-parochial area of Ogley Hay (now taken into the parish
of Hammerwich) at the southern end of Cannock Chase (Figure 2). The spine of upland
that extends southwards from the Cannock Hills to Aldridge once formed the boundary
between two early folk groups — the Tomsate to the east, whose focus lay in the Tame
Valley, and the Pencersate to the west, whose focus lay in the valley ofthe river Penk (Sawyer
1968: S 197, S 1272; Hooke 1983: 10-12). In the seventh century the area was probably
a landscape of open woodland and heath with swine pastures at first used seasonally very
much like those ofthe Weald of south-eastern England, and only gradually acquiring fixed
boundaries. In the Domesday Book, the estates of Wolverhampton, including Ogintune,
the earlier name for Ogley Hay, and Hilton, and those of Lichfield (including Wyrley and
Norton Canes) can be seen to be almost interlocking in this marginal area (Hawkins &
Rumble 1976: 2.16, 2.22, 7.1; Dean etal 2010: 149, fig. 4). Pre-Conquest and medieval
place-names in the area immediately around the findspot indicate the presence of marshland
and woodland.
205
Tbe Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard
[Bl.iRNTWí.H )D1
I km
Ruiiiaii W atlmy Street
0 1 9 parish boundary
major jireseiit-day road
luwutriSiuad
hoard fínd spot
( ' 1X wanencr's lodge
land u\cr l?Oni
OIK coiiuiion
Figure 2, The bcality of the findspot: place-name and documentary evidence. The boundaries shown are those of thenineteenth-century parishes.
The leah names of the region imply an association with wood pasture (Hooke 2008)and references to swine occur in a number of boundary landmarks in the area, including a'swine-fold' on the boundary of Ogintune, and a 'mast oak' on the boundary of Hatherton(Hooke 1983: 78—81). The site of the lost Ogintune is not known and the name is notrecorded after the Domesday Book entry of 1086, when the whole vill is described as 'waste'(Hawkins & Rumble 1976: 7.11), probably because it had already been taken into the royalforest of Gannock; later the estate is always referred to as Ogley (Horovitz 2005: 418). Ogleyis 'Hocca's leah or wood', the additional 'Hay' indicating a division or bailiwick of GannockForest. The charter containing the Ogley Hay boundary clause is a late forgery, purportingto be the Wolverhampton minster foundation charter, but the boundary clauses attached toit are genuinely of pre-Gonquest date (Sawyer 1968: S 1380; Hooke 1983: 28-30; Keynes1976: 624). Other charters of Wolverhampton minster estates in this region refer to a gameenclosure, a hunter's path and a harts' wallowing-place — all features characteristic of such amarginal zone. The landscape probably consisted of a mosaic of open woodland and heath,and like most woods was pastured regularly by domestic stock.
206
Kevin Leahy et al.
Other than Ogintune, there are only a small number of tun names in the upland area — tunnames are more heavily concentrated in riverine areas of greater settlement density and largersettlement foci. A scatter of wtc names, indicating dependent estates associated with somespecial function, include Hammerwich. Taking its name from Old English (OE) hamor j -'hammer', this may have been connected with early medieval metalworking but there is JHlittle archaeological evidence to suggest any direct connection with the hoard. Metalworkers Somay have been attracted to the area by the availability of charcoal in the woodlands, as at c^Smethwick 'the smiths' ivtc\ another Lichfield dependency to the south. Although there is agold and garnet pendant from Hammerwich, and a gilt copper alloy mount from the samefield as the hoard but 100m away, there is nothing else to indicate a major metalworkingfocus here. Early medieval finds increase in number eastwards in the area around the Romancentre of Letocetum (Wall), and north-eastwards towards Lichfield which was to become thecentre of the episcopal see.
Several names recorded in later documents may indicate tumuli close to the major roadsof the area: Muckley Corner beside the Watling Street {Mukelay C13 but later Mucklow)may have been 'the great hlaw or tumulus' and Catshill beside the Old Chester Road{Catteshulle C13 but Catteslowe 1300) may also have been 'Catt's hlaw' (Horovitz 2005:402, 180). OE hlaw has often been found to indicate Anglo-Saxon burial (Hooke 1980-81). Knaves Castle (Cnaven castle c. 1308) is an enigmatic site, now destroyed, variouslyclaimed to have been a casde or a tumulus but no evidence of any man-made features wereobserved during road widening in 1971 (Hooke 1980-81: 348; OS card: West Midlands2664).
The principal feature in the area's early medieval landscape would undoubtedly havebeen the Roman road Watling Street, still in use in this period (Champness 2008). Otherrouteways can be reconstructed from charter evidence, including one from Wolverhamptonto Ogley Hay which seems to have begun as a made-up street near Wolverhampton butwhich had degenerated into a 'hunter's path' by the time it reached Ogley Hay and WadingStreet (Hooke 1983: 47, fig. 120, 76-7, fig. 2iv). Some of the parish boundaries were tofollow Watling Street but it seems unlikely that the Ogley Hay/Hammerwich boundaryfollowing this road influenced the location of the hoard.
Much of the area was subsequently placed under forest law by the Norman kings, butthe core of Cannock Forest had been granted to the Bishop of Lichfield in the twelfthcentury and eventually only a number of individual hays continued to be maintained by theroyal officials throughout the Middle Ages, among them Ogley Hay. This discourageddevelopment in these areas and detailed proceedings of the forest courts show howlittle the landscape had changed — Ogley Hay was noted for its oaks in the thirteenthcentury (Birrell 1999: 21—2). Although rabbit warrens and lodges were established in thesixteenth and seventeenth centuries, much to the dismay of tenants with grazing rights,the entire extra-parochial area of Ogley Hay and the western sector of Hammerwich parishremained waste until enclosure in the mid nineteenth century (Hammerwich InclosurePlan and Award 1856, Ogley Hay Inclosure Plan and Award 1838, SRO Q/RDc/99,Q/RDc/90).
The findspot of the hoard was on the crest of a low ridge overlooking the Roman road.Landscape study suggests that, in the early Middle Ages, it was perhaps within an open
207
The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard
patch in woodland — a relatively remote location in a sparsely populated marginal zonechat formed a boundary between early medieval folk groups.
Field investigation
Alex Jones
Fieldwork at the findspot was undertaken by Birmingham Archaeology in two stages, in July-August 2009 and in March 2010. The first stage was an emergency response to the initialdiscovery by the metal-detectorist, Mr Terry Herbert, working with the written permissionof the landowner, Mr Fred Johnson. Following recovery of over 200 items by the detectorist,a 1 m^ test-pit was dug in the area by Staffordshire Gounty Gouncil to establish whetherall of the hoard had been recovered and to locate any evidence for associated features. Itwas concluded that parts of the hoard remained and appeared to be contained within thetopsoil. Resources were therefore concentrated on a systematic excavation of the ploughsoil,working outwards from the test-pit, until the entire hoard was recovered. The 1 m' test-pitwas expanded to 2m^, and the decision was then taken to expand the area in blocks oflm'^ until no more objects were found. The ploughsoil in each square was systematicallyhand-excavated in spits, and repeatedly scanned with a metal detector, to ensure that allitems, even the smallest, were recovered and plotted in two dimensions (Figures 3 & 4).A total of 152m' was excavated, resulting in the recovery of approximately 800 items. Afew features, or possible features, were identified, none stratigraphically related to the hoard(Jones 2009). Despite on-site security, the threat from night-hawking (looting) was thoughtto be high, because of the proximity of the A5 road (Roman Watling Street, Figure 1), sothe excavation methodology was intended to recover the hoard as rapidly as possible. It isworth emphasising that priority was given to the safe recovery of the artefacts.
The extent of the hoard scatter, extending over 90m^ clearly refutes the suggestion thatit was buried only recendy. The recorded distribution suggests that the larger objects mayhave been 'dragged' by recent ploughing in both east—west and north—south directions. Themain finds concentration lay within an area measuring 3 x 5m, centred on the originaldiscovery.
Another important element of the first stage of work was an extensive magnetometersurvey (using a Ferex 4.032 magnetometer), covering 5.3ha, intended to provide furtherdetails of the archaeological context. The main magnetometer anomalies comprised a curvingfield boundary and a curvilinear feature, adjoining the hoard (Figures 3 & 4).
The first stage of fieldwork was successfiil in safely recovering the hoard. This processof emergency recovery failed to find evidence for its archaeological context — exceptthat it was located wholly within the ploughsoil. This emergency response, as well as theemerging information from the cataloguing of the hoard by Dr Kevin Leahy (see below),left many questions unanswered. Why was the hoard buried at this location? How wasit buried? By whom? And when? The central aim of the second stage of archaeologicalfieldwork undertaken in March 2010 was to provide an understanding of the immediatearchaeological context of the hoard. The techniques chosen at this stage included resistivitysurvey, trial-trenching and test-pitting. The trenches were positioned to test a representative
208
Kevin Leahy et al.
MagnetometerSurvey Area
lOOtn_J
Recovery Area 2009
, ~ Contours at 1 m intervals
— — Historic field boundary
? Linear feature.-"-* Excavated feature
Figure 3, The site, its topography, the area of spread of fragments from the hoard and located features.
sample of the resistivity anomalies, some of which had also been recognised in the precedingmagnetometer survey.
The main features identified by trenching were two palisade trenches, neither containingany datable evidence (Burrows & Jones 2010). Trenching also identified a curvilinearmagnetometer and resistivity anomaly that was probably of geological origin. A post-medieval field boundary was also sampled by hand-excavation. Other resistivity anomaliescorresponded with variations in the natural subsoil. Equally important was the absence offurther finds of Anglo-Saxon date (with the exception of a single glass bead) — confirmingthat the hoard had been fully recovered in August 2009.
During the 2010 fieldwork the landowner recounted the story of a previous farmerhaving flattened an earthwork 'bump' in the approximate location of the hoard using amachine. A search of air photographs did indeed identify an oval 'bump' or mound ofeither anthropogenic or natural origin recorded in 1968. Intriguingly, an aerial photographdated 1971 shows a faint oval cropmark ditch near the location of the 'bump' or mound,presumably revealed by 'machining away' the 'bump' or mound. The cropmarked oval ditch
209
The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard
/ /o/ ' 2
Natural / /Feature
line oftest-pits
20m
Field / ^Boundary / /
3
o ^ " * Palisade trench
I I Recovery area 2009
Area of findsdistribution
2010 trenches
Figure 4. Excavated areas, 2009 and 2010.
measured approximately 50 x 28m, its long axis positioned at a tangent to the natural ridge,approximately parallel with Watling Street. Significantly, the palisade trench segments dugin Trenches 3 and 5 corresponded in position and alignment with the eastern 'end' of thecropmark feature.
Interpretation
What can the field archaeology contribute to the debate concerning the purpose oforiginal deposition? Originally the items were probably buried in a pit, which had been
210
Kevin Leahy et al.
ploughed-out over time. This would explain the recorded distribution of the items, recordedover an area of over 90m^, suggesting ploughing in east-west and north-south directions.
The topographic location of the findspot is surely significant. The hoard was buriedalong the crest of a natural ridge (Figure 3). The north-western spur of the ridge, adjoining _gWatling Street, was chosen for burial rather than the higher ground away from the road, Hsuggesting that a roadside location was important. The nearby earthwork 'bump' could have a,acted as a marker to facilitate recovery of the hoard, although there is no present evidence ptjto link the two. The oval cropmark feature is enigmatic. The hoard was located outside (tothe west of) the ditch circuit, and there is no present evidence to link the hoard and thecropmark. The form of the cropmark does not necessarily suggest a prehistoric date (e.g.ring-ditch). Gurrently, the best dating evidence for this feature is its alignment — parallelwith Watling Street, which suggests a Roman or post-Roman context, although, again, thereare no obvious parallels.
There is no clear evidence to link the hoard with any other buried feature. It is perhapseasier to identify those categories of evidence that are absent. There is no evidence for burial,or monumental burial in particular as at contemporary Sutton Hoo (cf Gatver 2005).Equally, there is no evidence of setdement, although the oval cropmarked feature could bepart of a farmstead of unknown date.
At this stage, ftirther interpretation of the fieldwork evidence is probably not worthwhile.Plotting of the air photograph evidence is a priority, followed, if appropriate by ground-truthing.
Content of the hoardKevin Leahy
The composition of the hoard is summarised at Table 1 (Figure 5). It is strangely unbalanced,consisting mainly of war-gear, particularly sword hilt fittings, stripped from their iron bladesprior to deposition. It was found that 60.1 per cent, of the objects (by weight) could bedescribed as military, 28.4 per cent are, at present, unidentified and may be civilian and 11.5per cent were fragments too small for classification. It is, however, possible that many of thefragments came from a helmet and some of the unidentified objects may be found to havea martial function. No coins or, with the exception of two small buckles, dress accessories,have been so far recognised.
The catalogue contains 92 pommel caps or pommel cap fragments (73 gold, 14 silver and5 copper alloy) (Figure 6). Of these, 51 were decorated with filigree, 18 with cloisonné and13 bear incised decoration. Two are plain, and some are heavily worn, indicating differenthistories of use. There are 73 collars from sword hilts and 141 plates from the upper andlower guards of hilts. Ten sword 'pyramids' with gold and garnet settings were found andtwo gold and garnet sword 'buttons' (Figure 7). Most of the fittings came from two-edgedswords but some represent single-edged seaxes.
The most distinctive helmet parts are a silver gilt cheek-piece decorated with bands ofStyle II animals (no. 453) (Figure 8), and what appears to be a mount from a helmet crest (no.678). Gast crest and face mounts as seen on the Sutton Hoo, Vendel and Valsgärde helmets
211
The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard
I
oo
J
Jo
i"
^™ (N rTi -— f O ^^ s^-^r : ^ - = s r ^21 (N <N
— — m — (N r: SS
c 2o 00 r *o o
ir\ o 00hv 00 t \
Î1
is 1 -Si
s < < 8i
o
— • • — • — ^ •—• i_i^ — - * , ' ^ 3
y o c oj
= T3 i « rt
I E i - f -5
c c c c c c c c c c c c _ J "
— ^ í N ^ — . — ( c n - " ^ 00 ,>N ' ^ — C T N - ^ ^ - ^ í N í N f O r r , ^
so 00 ict ^ * " f = lvo r-. 2
I 00 00 CO 2 (N
11S S3'S
MiE < | 3
« « « O u u u u u O u ö ö ö ö ü ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö ö Ö ö ö u i i i E
272
Kevin Leahy et al.
o
—"o. va 00
So00 00 — (N rTí O
en
:2:00
<U o
e E3 <
e-.irû -a ^
a. s c
ó. d._- _-a ™ ECL CL U,
c c cSü .H 'S •«
E EE Eo o
¿. d,(J <J
E eE Eo o
p . u o o'— ^ o "1 <"&X)*o -Û o o 1-Î ÓL QL
i-2
1
4i 44 = ç ç -P y ¿.-g
Cí~i — ^^ \ û .-^ fN ^ xj- (N - =- 2
o rsK^ fC^ cO rO *^*
ON00
!N VO l/^ »r ^
II i
a S ¿ ¿ S ¿ a S Ü Ü a a » =Ä á> ¿ô S S S S S 1 ¿ ¿ - ^ .e .e §. S. S. - -i -iC L Q . c i . c i . c i . a . Q . C L C L C L C L d.':: 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C 'C -t; S S S ö S 8 S S u *' . 2 _2
are absent, although the hoard contains fragments of reeded strip and C-sectioned edging oftypes characteristic of these helmets. Most pieces are short, making reconstruction difficult,but some of the C-shaped edging is angled, suggesting that they came from a helmet.Particularly significant are fragments of Pressblech decorated silver depicting warriors andanimals. Foils of this type appear on Vendel helmets where the foil panels were secured usingreeded strip. These had, prior to deposition, been stripped from the iron cap that formedthe body of the helmet.
Of the 28.4 per cent of the hoard that may be non-military only the three Christiancrosses can be identified with certainty. These consist of a large processional/altar cross (no.655) (Figure 9), a pendant cross (no. 303) and the inscribed strip (no. 550) (Figure 10),which may be part of a third cross. There are two other crosses (nos. 820 & 920) but these areperhaps best seen as cross-shaped mounts rather than religious emblems. The non-militaryfinds contain some magnificent plates, strips and fittings decorated with close-set garnets.Most appear to lack any attachment points and their function is, at present, unknown, but,hopefully, these matters will be resolved as work progresses.
The material deposited in this hoard comes from a restricted range of objects, mainly ofa military nature. This careful selection suggests that the hoard was not merely bullion: thelarge buckles and accoutrements that would have accompanied fine swords are not present.Feminine dress fittings, which are more common in the archaeological record than sword
214
Kevin Leahy et al.
Figure 6. Gold and garnet pommel cap (StH 452, 46.4 x 12.8 x 20.2mm high) and hilt fitting with inlaid garnets (StH449, 31.9 X 17.0 x 22.8mm high).
hilts, are also absent. The lack of sword blades is also striking; these were valuable in theirown right and had an importance independent ofthe hilts.
While the number of pieces in the hoard is large it must be recognised that in excessof 45.4 per cent of them weighed less than l.Og (and the whole consignment could fitin a shoe box). The silver objects tended to be more fragmentary than the gold, as theyhad been embrittled by excessive cold working. In spite of the damage suffered by manyof the objects there does not seem to have been any systematic attempt to spoil them:items appear to have been bent to fit into a small space but were not deliberately broken.Few pieces show evidence of plough damage and it is likely that the hoard entered thetopsoil recently, when the field was last ploughed, eight months before the discovery.Cloisonné garnet inlay was employed on l4l pieces in addition to which 57 loose cutgarnets were found. Both the damaged garnet work and the loose stones are likely to beinformative revealing details hidden on complete objects. Filigree was used on 371 objectsand fragments and, again, damage is likely to be important from a technological point ofview.
The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard makes a massive addition to the corpus of earlymedieval European fine metalwork, and we now have a formidable array of techniques thatcan be used in the non-destructive analysis ofthe material: the scanning electron microscope,digital imaging and computer based technology. I would like to see the database as the pointof departure for research on the hoard, growing organically as new images and data areadded. One of the successes of the announcement of the find was the large number ofimages which were immediately made available online. I would like to see this access andopenness continue throughout the process of recording and analysis.
The inscriptionElisabeth Okasha
The inscribed strip (Figure 10) is made of gold alloy and is now folded over in half on itself.When straight it would have measured 179mm in length, 15.8mm in width and 2.1mm
215
The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard
Figure 7. Cloisoneé sword pyramids (top lefi: StH 462, 22.4 x 21.4 x 13.6mm high: top right: StH 451, 23.5mm indiameter x 2.8mm high): sword button (bottom lefi: StH 675, 14.2mm in diameter x 16.6mm high): and glass setting(bottom right: StH545, 27.0mm in diameter x 8.7mm high),
in thickness. There are holes and a pin on the strip, used for fastening it on to some largerobject, presumably one associated with battle. On the outer side of the strip is Text 1, whichis set in two lines and is probably primary. The decorated gem setting at the beginning ofthe text, and the incised animal head at the end, indicate that the text is complete. Theletters are formed by incisions that were then filled with niello.
On the inner side of the strip is Text 2, also in two lines, set upside down with respect toText 1. The letters are incised but are not filled with niello. Text 2 requires cleaning before itcan be fully read, but it appears to be a copy of the same text, although with further lettersadded at the end. The letters in Text 2 are less uniform in size than those in Text 1 and the
216
Kevin Leahy et al.
•I
Figure 8. Helmet cbeek piece (StH 453, 88.2 x 74.9 x 2.0mm thick) and helmet crest witb hone-shaped terminal (StH678, 47.8 X 10.0 x W.I mm high).
text is less carefiilly set out. It seems likely that Text 2 represents a practice attempt on thepart of the engraver. This text would have been invisible when the strip was fastened on toanother object.
Text 1, when transliterated, divided into words, with abbreviations expanded and likelyletters assumed, reads: fsjurge domine disepentur inimici tui et [fjugent qui oderunt te a facietua. There are two deliberate dots in the text, one each around the word dne for domine. Thesecould represent inconsistent use of dots to indicate word separation (relatively common inAnglo-Saxon inscribed texts) and/or could be used to highlight the nomen sacrum. Thedeliberate space in the text, preceding the letter q, may indicate word separation or mayhave been an attempt to better fit the remaining letters into the space available.
Text 2, the text on the inner side, reads: surge domine [di...] etfiigi[u . . .]i ode[r]unt te afac[ie t...] por[t...]. All, or most, of the lost letters may become legible once the inside of
217
The Stafß)rdshire (Ogley Hay) hoard
Figure 9. Processional cross (StH 655, Il4.3x 71.2 x 1.3 mm thick as found).
218
Kevin Leaby et al.
Figure 10. Two views of the inscribed strip showing the inner and outer texts (StH 550, 89.5 x 15.8 x 2.1mm thick asfound).
the strip is cleaned. Anglo-Saxon inscriptions that contain two copies of the same text areextremely unusual.
The inscribed text was probably chosen by a cleric or religious person, then written ona piece of vellum or a wax tablet, ready for engraving by the goldsmith. It is probably arendering of the well-known Vulgate text, which appears in Numbers 10, 35 as: cumqueelevaretur area dicebat Moses surge Domine et dissipentur inimici tui etfugiant qui oderunt te afacie tua 'When he had lifted up the ark, Moses said "Rise up. Lord, and may your enemiesbe dispersed and those who hate you flee from your face'". Alternatively the text could befrom the Vulgate Psalm 67, 2: exsurgat Deus et dissipentur inimici eius etfugiant qui oderunteum a facie eius, 'Let God arise and his enemies be dispersed and those who hate him fleefrom his face'. The inscription is closer to the Numbers text but the Psalm text might havebeen more familiar to the person who chose the text to be inscribed. Either text would suitan inscription on an object associated with battle.
219
The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard
The script used in both texts is insular majuscule and, as is common with the epigraphicuse of this script, includes the occasional capital form. Less usual is the considerable use oflarge open serifs on some letters in Text 1. No Anglo-Saxon inscribed text can be dated onthe basis of the script alone. However a date in the early eighth century seems most likelyon the evidence ofthe insular script, the large open serifs, and parallels with other inscribedtexts dating from this period.
Acknowledgements
Photographs courtesy of Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery. These and images of many ofthe items listed inTable I are available online at: http://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/.
ReferencesSRO Staffordshire Record Ofíice
BlRREli, J. 1999. The forests of Cannock and Kinver:select documents 1235—1372 (Collections for ahistory of Staffordshire 4.18). Stafford:Staffordshire Record Society.
BURROWS, B. & A.E. JONES. 2010. The Staffordshire
hoard: an archaeological evaluation 2010.Unpublished Birmingham Archaeology report1971.1.
CARVER, M . O . H . 2005. Sutton Hoo, a seventh-centuryprincely burial ground and its context (Reports of theResearch Committee ofthe Society of Antiquariesof London 69). London: British Museum Press.
CHAMPNESS, C . 2008. "Watling Street, Hammerwich',in A. Powell, P. Booth & A.D. Crockett (ed.) Thearchaeology ofthe M6 Toll 2000-2003 (OxfordWessex Archaeology Monograph 3): 57—59.Oxford: Oxford Wessex Archaeology.
DEAN, S., D . HOOKE & R.A. JONES. 2010. The
'Staffordshire hoard': the fieldwork. The AntiquariesJournal W: 139-52.
HAWKINS, A. & A. RUMBLE. 1976. Domesday book. 24:Staffordshire. Chichester: Phillimore.
HOOKE, D . 1980-81. Burial features in West Midlandcharters. Journal ofthe English Place-Name Society13:
- 1983. The landscape ofAngto-Saxon Staffordshire: thecharter evidence {Studies in local archaeology 1).Keele: Department of Adult Education, UniversityofKeele.
- 2008. Early medieval woodland and the place-nameterm leah, in O.J. Padel & D.N. Parsons (ed) Acommodity of good names. Essays in honour ofMargaret Gelling. 365—76. Donington: Shaun Tyas.
HOROVITZ, D . 2005. The place-names of Staffordshire.Brewood: David Horovitz.
