Sutton Hoo helmet

The Sutton Hoo helmet is a decorated and ornate Anglo-Saxon helmet found during a 1939 excavation of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial. It was buried around 625 and is widely believed to have belonged to King Rædwald of East Anglia; its elaborate decoration may have given it a secondary function akin to a crown. The helmet was both a functional piece of battlement and a decorative, prestigious piece of extravagant metal work. It would have offered considerable protection if ever used in warfare.[1] It is described as "the most iconic object" from "one of the most spectacular archaeological discoveries ever made," and perhaps the most important known Anglo-Saxon artefact.[2][3]

Sutton Hoo helmet
Latest reconstruction (built 1970–1971) of the Sutton Hoo helmet
MaterialIron, bronze, tin, gold, silver, garnets
Weight2.5 kg (5.5 lb) (estimated)
Sutton Hoo, Suffolk
52.08934°N 1.33806°E / 52.08934; 1.33806
Discovered byCharles Phillips
Present locationBritish Museum, London

The visage contains eyebrows, a nose, and moustache, creating the image of a man joined by a dragon's head to become a soaring dragon with outstretched wings. It has become a symbol of the Dark Ages and "of Archaeology in general."[4] It was excavated as hundreds of rusted fragments, and was first displayed following an initial reconstruction in 1945–46, and then in its present form after a second reconstruction in 1970–71.

The helmet and the other artefacts from the site were determined the property of Edith Pretty, owner of the land on which they were found. She donated them to the British Museum,[5][6] where it is on permanent display in Room 41.


The helmet was buried among other regalia and instruments of power as part of a furnished ship-burial, probably dating from the early seventh century. The ship had been hauled from the nearby river up the hill and lowered into a prepared trench. Inside this, the helmet was wrapped in cloths and placed to the left of the head of the body.[7][8] An oval mound was constructed around the ship.[9] Long afterwards, the chamber roof collapsed violently under the weight of the mound, compressing the ship's contents into a seam of earth.[10]

It is thought that the helmet was shattered either by the collapse of the burial chamber or by the force of another object falling on it. The fact that the helmet had shattered meant that it was possible to reconstruct it. Had the helmet been crushed before the iron had fully oxidised, leaving it still pliant, the helmet would have been squashed,[11][12][13] leaving it in a distorted shape similar to the Vendel[14] and Valsgärde[15] helmets.[16]


Attempts to identify the person buried in the ship-burial have persisted since virtually the moment the grave was unearthed.[17][18] The preferred candidate, with some exceptions when the burial was thought to have taken place later,[19][20] has been Rædwald;[21] his kingdom, East Anglia, is believed to have had its seat at Rendlesham, four and a quarter miles upriver from Sutton Hoo.[22][23] The case for Rædwald, by no means conclusive, rests on the dating of the burial, the abundance of wealth and items identified as regalia, and, befitting a king who kept two altars, the presence of both Christian and pagan influences.[24][25][21]


What scant information is known about King Rædwald of East Anglia, according to the Anglo-Saxon historian Simon Keynes, could fit "on the back of the proverbial postage stamp."[21] Almost all that is recorded comes from the eighth-century Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum by the Benedictine monk Bede,[26] leaving knowledge of Rædwald's life, already poorly recorded, at the mercy of such things as differing interpretations of Ecclesiastical Latin syntax.[27] Bede writes that Rædwald was the son of Tytila and grandson of Wuffa, from whom the East Anglian Wuffingas dynasty derived its name.[21] In their respective works Flores Historiarum and Chronica Majora, the thirteenth-century historians Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris appear to place Tytila's death, and Rædwald's presumed concurrent succession to the throne, in 599,[note 1] yet as reasonable as this date sounds, these historians' demonstrated difficulty with even ninth-century dates leaves ample room for doubt.[28][29]

Rædwald would have at least ascended to power by 616, around when Bede records him as raising an army on behalf of Edwin of Northumbria and defeating Æthelfrith in a battle on the east bank of the River Idle.[30] According to Bede, Rædwald had almost accepted a bribe from Æthelfrith to turn Edwin over, before Rædwald's wife persuaded him to value friendship and honour over treasure.[30][31] After the ensuing battle, during which Bede says Rædwald's son Rægenhere was slain,[31] Rædwald's power was probably significant enough to merit his inclusion in a list of seven kings said by Bede to have established rule over all of England south of the River Humber, termed an imperium;[note 2] the ninth-century Anglo-Saxon Chronicle expanded Bede's list to eight and applied the term bretwalda or brytenwalda,[42] literally "ruler of Britain" or "ruler of the Britains".[43][44][note 3]

Bede records Rædwald converting to Christianity while on a trip to Kent, only to be dissuaded by his wife upon his return; afterwards he kept a temple with two altars, one pagan and one Christian.[21][31][47] In the likely event that this was during Æthelberht's rule of Kent, it would have been sometime before Æthelberht's death around 618.[31][47] Rædwald's own death can be conservatively dated between 616 and 633 if using Bede,[30] whose own dates are not unquestioned.[48] Anything more specific relies on questionable post-Conquest sources.[30] Roger of Wendover claims without attribution that Rædwald died in 624.[30] The twelfth-century Liber Eliensis places the death of Rædwald's son Eorpwald, who had by then succeeded his father, in 627, meaning Rædwald would have died before then.[30] If relying solely on Bede, all that can be said is that Rædwald died sometime between his circa 616 defeat of Æthelfrith along the River Idle, and 633, when Edwin, who after Rædwald died converted Eorpwald to Christianity, died.[30]


A precise date for the Sutton Hoo burial is needed for any credible attempt to identify its honoree.[49] Thirty-seven gold Merovingian coins found alongside the other objects offer the most objective means of dating the burial.[50] The coins—in addition to three blanks, and two small ingots—were found in a purse,[51] and are themselves objects of considerable interest.[52][note 4] Until 1960,[66] and largely on the basis of numismatic chronologies established during the 19th century,[67] the Sutton Hoo coins were generally dated to 650–660 AD.[68][69][70] With this range the burial was variously attributed to such monarchs as Æthelhere, Anna, Æthelwald, Sigeberht, and Ecgric, all of whom ruled and died in or around the given period.[71][72][73]

The proposed range of years, and accordingly the regal attributions, was modified by later studies that took the specific gravity of some 700 Merovingian gold coins,[74] which with some predictability were minted with decreasing purity over time, to estimate the date of a coin based on the fineness of its gold.[75] This analysis suggests that the latest coins in the purse were minted between 613 and 635 AD, and most likely closer to the beginning of this range than the end.[76][77][78] The range is a tentative terminus post quem for the burial, before which it may not have taken place; sometime later, perhaps after a period of years, the coins were collected and buried.[79] These dates are generally consistent, but not exclusive, with Rædwald.[80]


The presence of items identified as regalia has been used to support the idea that the burial commemorates a king.[81] Some jewelry likely had significance beyond its richness.[82] The shoulder-clasps suggest a ceremonial outfit.[83][84] The weight of the great gold buckle is comparable to the price paid in recompense for the death of a nobleman; its wearer thus wore the price of a nobleman's life on his belt, a display of impunity that could be associated with few others besides a king.[82][85] The helmet displays both wealth and power, with a modification to the sinister eyebrow subtly linking the wearer to the one-eyed god Odin.[86] Two other items, a "wand" and a whetstone, exhibit no practical purpose, but may have been perceived as instruments of power.[87] The so-called wand or rod, surviving only as a 96 mm (3.8 in) gold and garnet strip with a ring at the top, associated mountings, and traces of organic matter that may have been wood, ivory, or bone, has no discernible use but as a symbol of office.[88] On the other hand, the whetstone is theoretically functional as a sharpening stone, but exhibits no evidence of such use.[89] Its delicate ornamentation, including a carved head with a modified eye that parallels the possible allusion to Odin on the helmet,[90] suggests that it too was a ceremonial object, and it has been tentatively identified as a sceptre.[91][note 5]


Further evidence for the burial's association with Rædwald has been adduced from the presence of items with both Christian and pagan significance.[95] The burial is in most respects emphatically pagan; as a ship-burial, it is the manifestation of a pagan practice predating the Gregorian reintroduction of Christianity into Britain, and may have served as an implicit rejection of the encroaching Frankish Christianity.[96][97] Three groups of items, however, have clear Christian influences: two scabbard bosses, ten silver bowls, and two silver spoons.[98] The bowls and scabbard bosses each display crosses, the former with chasing and the latter with cloisonné.[99][100] The spoons are even more closely associated with the Catholic Church, inscribed as they are with the names ΠΑΥΛΟΣ (Paulos) and ΣΑΥΛΟΣ (Saulos)—or perhaps both ΠΑΥΛΟΣ, as the first letter of the latter inscription may have been made in error[101]—and are each preceded by a cross. Even if not baptismal spoons, Saul being Paul the Apostle's pre-conversion name—a theory which has been linked to Rædwald's conversion at Kent[102][103]—they are unmistakably associated with Christianity.[104][105]


Rædwald may be the easiest name to attach to the Sutton Hoo ship-burial, but for all the attempts to do so, these arguments have been made with more vigor than persuasiveness.[26] The desire to link a burial with a known name, and a famous one, outstrips the evidence.[106][107] The burial is certainly a commemorative display of both wealth and power, but does not necessarily memorialise Rædwald, or a king;[108][109] theoretically, the ship-burial could have even been a votive offering.[110] The case for Rædwald depends heavily on the dating of the coins, yet the current dating is only precise within two decades,[80] and Merovingian coin chronologies have shifted before.[110]

The case for Rædwald depends on the assumption that modern conceptions of Middle Age wealth and power are accurate. The wealth of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial is astonishing because there are no contemporaneous parallels,[111] but the lack of parallels could be a quirk of survival just as much as it could be an indicator of Rædwald's wealth. Many other Anglo-Saxon barrows have been plowed over or looted,[112] and so just as little is known about contemporary kingliness, little is known about contemporary kingly graves;[113][114][115] if there was any special significance to the items termed regalia, it could have been religious instead of kingly significance, and if anything of kingly graves is known, it is that the graves of even the mere wealthy contained riches that any king would be happy to own.[116][117] Distinguishing between graves of chieftains, regents, kings, and status-seeking arrivistes is difficult.[118] When Mul of Kent, the brother of King Cædwalla of Wessex was killed in 687, the price paid in recompense was equivalent to a king's weregild.[119] If the lives of a king and his brother were equal, their graves might be equally hard to tell apart.[120][121]

Rædwald thus remains a possible but uncertain identification.[106][122] As the British Museum's former director Sir David M. Wilson wrote, while Rædwald may have been buried at Sutton Hoo, "the little word may should be brought into any identification of Rædwald. After all it may or even might be Sigeberht who died in the early 630s, or it might be his illegitimate brother if he had one (and most people did), or any other great man of East Anglia from 610 to 650."[48]


The Sutton Hoo helmet, weighing an estimated 2.5 kg (5.5 lb),[123] was made of iron and covered with decorated sheets of tinned bronze.[124][125] Fluted strips of moulding divided the exterior into panels, each of which was stamped with one of five designs.[126][125] Two depict figural scenes, another two zoophormic interlaced patterns; a fifth pattern, known only from seven small fragments and incapable of restoration, is only known to occur once on an otherwise symmetrical helmet and may have been used to replace a damaged panel.[127][128] The existence of these five designs has been generally understood since the first reconstruction, published in 1947.[129][note 7] The succeeding three decades gave rise to an increased understanding of the designs and their parallels in contemporary imagery, allowing possible reconstructions of the full panels to be advanced, and through the second reconstruction their locations on the surface of the helmet to be redetermined.[128][136][137][138] As referred to below, the designs are numbered according to Rupert Bruce-Mitford's 1978 work.[128]


The core of the helmet was constructed of iron and consisted of a cap from which hung a face mask and cheek and neck guards.[124][139] The cap was beaten into shape from a single piece of metal.[140][note 8] On either side of it were hung iron cheek guards,[143][144] deep enough to protect the entire side of the face,[145] and curved inward both vertically and horizontally.[146] Two hinges per side, possibly made of leather, supported these pieces,[147] allowing them to be pulled flush with the face mask and fully enclose the face.[145] A neck guard was attached to the back of the cap and made of two overlapping pieces: a shorter piece set inside the cap, over which attached a "broad fan-like portion" extending downwards, "straight from top to bottom but curved laterally to follow the line of the neck."[148] The inset portion afforded the neck guard extra movement, and like the cheek guards was attached to the cap by leather hinges.[148] Finally, the face mask was riveted to the cap on both sides and above the nose.[149] Two cutouts served as eye openings,[150] while a third opened into the hollow of the overlaid nose, thereby facilitating access to the two nostril-like holes underneath; though small, these holes would have been among the few sources of fresh air for the wearer.[151]

Atop the foundational layer of iron were placed decorative sheets of tinned bronze.[124][152] These sheets, divided into five figural or zoomorphic designs,[127][128] were manufactured by the pressblech process.[153][154][155] Preformed dies similar to the Torslunda plates[156] were covered with thin metal which, through applied force, took up the design underneath;[157][158] identical designs could thus be mass-produced from the same die, allowing for their repeated use on the helmet and other objects.[153][note 9] Fluted strips of white alloyed moulding—possibly of tin and copper, and possibly swaged[126][163]—divided the designs into framed panels, held to the helmet by bronze rivets.[126][152] The two strips running from front to back alongside the crest were gilded.[164][165] The edges of the helmet were further protected by U-shaped brass tubing, fastened by swaged bronze clips[124][166] and themselves further holding in place the pressblech panels that shared edges with the helmet.[167]

A final layer of adornments added to the helmet a crest, eyebrows, nose and mouth piece, and three dragon heads. A hollow iron crest ran across the top of the cap and terminated at front and back.[143][140] It was made of D-sectioned tubing[143][140] and consisted of two parts, an inverted U-shaped piece into the bottom of which a flat strip was placed.[142] As no traces of solder remain, the crest may have been either forged or shrunk on to the cap.[168] From either end of the crest extended an iron tang, to each of which was riveted a gilded dragon head.[169] That on the front was made of cast bronze, while the one on the rear was made of another alloy, and has now mostly degraded into tin oxide.[170] A third dragon head, cast in bronze, faced upwards on the front of the helmet and broke the plane between face mask and cap;[171] its neck rested on the face mask, while under its eyes it was held to the cap by a large rivet shank.[172] To either side of the neck projected a hollow cast bronze eyebrow, into each of which was inlaid parallel silver wires.[173][174][175][176] Terminal boar heads were gilded, as were the undersides of the eyebrows,[177] where individual bronze cells held square garnets.[178][174][175] The eyebrows were riveted on, both to the cap at their outer ends and to the tang of a nose and mouth piece which extended upwards underneath the neck of the dragon head.[179] This tang was itself riveted to the cap,[180] one of five attachment points for the cast bronze[181] nose and mouth piece.[182] Both sides of the nose featured "two small round projecting plates,"[183] connected by fluted and swaged strips, and concealing rivets.[184] An inlaid strip of wire extended the length of the nasal ridge, next to which the "background was punched down" and filled with niello or another metallic inlay,[185] leaving "triangles in relief" that were silvered.[181] A tracer (a "rather blunt chisel . . . used chiefly for outlining"[186]) was used to provide a grooved border on each side.[181] Running horizontally aside the nasal bridge were three punched circles per side, inlaid with silver and possibly surrounded by niello.[181] Beneath these circles, also running horizontally from the center of the nose to its sides were chased[181] "alternate rows of plain flutings and billeted strips which run obliquely between the central strip and a billeted lower edge."[151] This same pattern is repeated in vertical fashion on the moustache.[181][187] The curve along the bevelled lower lip, in turn, repeats the circled pattern used on the nasal bridge.[188][189] Excepting the portions covered by the eyebrows and dragon head,[150] or adorned with silver or niello,[note 10] the nose and mouth piece was heavily gilded,[181][187] which is suggested by the presence of mercury to have been done with the fire-gilding method.[185]

Breaking the symmetry of the helmet are subtle differences in the two eyebrows, and in the methods employed to fashion the cloisonné garnets. The dexter and sinister eyebrows, though at first glance identical, may have been "manufactured in different ways while being intended to look essentially the same."[193] The dexter brow is approximately 5 millimeters shorter than the sinister, and contained 43 rather than 46 inlaid silver wires and one or two fewer garnets.[194][note 11] Gilding on the dexter eyebrow was "reddish in colour" against the "yellowish" hue of the sinister,[196] while the latter contains both trace amounts of mercury and a tin corrosion product which are absent from its counterpart. Moreover, while the individual bronze cells into which the garnets are set, both on the dexter brow and on three of the four remaining dragon eyes, are underlain by small pieces of "hatched gold foil,"[178][194] those on the sinister side, and the sinister eye of the upper dragon head, have no such backing.[197] The gold backing served to reflect light back through the garnets, increasing their lustre and deepening their colour.[198] Where this backing was missing on the sinister eyebrow and one dragon eye, the luminosity of the garnets would be "substantially dimmed" by direct placement against the bronze.[199]

Dragon motifs

Three dragon heads are represented on the helmet. Two bronze-gilt dragon heads feature on either end of the iron crest running from the front to the rear of the skull cap.[142] The third sits at the junction between the two eyebrows, facing upward and given fuller form by the eyebrows, nose and moustache to create the impression of a dragon in flight.[194] The dragon soars upwards, its garnet-lined wings perhaps meant to convey a fiery contrail,[200] and in the dramatic focal point of the helmet, bares its teeth at the snake-like dragon flying town the crest.[201]

To the extent that the helmet is jewelled, such decoration is largely confined to the elements associated with the dragons.[202] Convex garnets sunk into the heads give the dragons red eyes.[173][203] The eyebrows are likewise inlaid with square garnets on their under edges, continuing outwards on each side to where they terminate in gilded boars' heads;[178][174][175][204] in addition to their secondary decorative function as wings, the eyebrows may therefore take on a tertiary form as boars' bodies.[205] The subtle differences between the eyebrows, the sinister of which lacks the gold foil backing employed on the dexter, may suggest an allusion to the one-eyed god Odin;[206] seen in low light, with the garnets of only one eye reflecting light, the helmet may have itself seemed to have only one eye.[207][note 12]

More gold covers the eyebrows, nose and mouth piece, and dragon heads, as it does the two fluted strips that flank the crest.[171] The crest and eyebrows are further inlaid with silver wires.[210][211][212][213] Combined with the silvery colour of the tinned bronze, the effect was "an object of burnished silvery metal, set in a trelliswork of gold, surmounted by a crest of massive silver, and embellished with gilded ornaments, garnets and nielloin its way a magnificent thing and one of the outstanding masterpieces of barbaric art."[214]

Design 1: Dancing warriors

The dancing warriors scene is known from six fragments and occurs four times on the helmet.[215] It appears on the two panels immediately above the eyebrows, accounting for five of the fragments. The sixth fragment is placed in the middle row of the dexter cheek guard, on the panel closest to the face mask;[215][216] the generally symmetrical nature of the helmet implies the design's position on the opposite side as well.[131][217][218] None of the six pieces shows both warriors, although the "key fragment" depicts their crossed wrists.[219][220] A full reconstruction of the scene was inferred after the first reconstruction, when Rupert Bruce-Mitford spent six weeks in Sweden and was shown a nearly identical design on the then unpublished Valsgärde 7 helmet.[130][221][222][223][224][225][226]

Design 1 pictures two men "in civilian or ceremonial dress"[220] perhaps engaged in a spear or sword dance[227][228] "associated with the cult of Odin, the war-god."[229][230] Their outer hands each hold two spears, pointed towards their feet,[219] while their crossed hands grip swords.[130] The depiction suggests "intricate measures," "rhythm," and an "elasticity of . . . dance steps."[231] Their trailing outer legs and curved hips imply movement towards each other,[232][233] and they may be in the climax of the dance.[233] The prevalence of dance scenes with a "similarity of the presentation of the scheme of movement" in contemporary Scandinavian and Northern art suggests that ritual dances "were well-known phenomena."[234] Sword dances in particular were recorded among the Germanic tribes as early as the first century AD, when Tacitus wrote of "[n]aked youths who practice the sport bound in the dance amid swords and lances," a "spectacle" which was "always performed at every gathering."[235][236][231] Whatever the meaning conveyed by the Sutton Hoo example, the "ritual dance was evidently no freak of fashion confined to a particular epoch, but was practised for centuries in a more or less unchanged form."[237]

While many contemporary designs portray ritual dances,[238] at least three examples show scenes exceptionally similar to that on the Sutton Hoo helmet and contribute to the understanding of the depicted sword dance. The same design—identical but for a different type of spears held in hand,[239] a different pattern of dress,[240] and a lack of crossed spears behind the two men[227]—is found on the Valsgärde 7 helmet, while a small fragment of stamped foil from the eastern mound at Gamla Uppsala is "so close in every respect to the corresponding warrior on the Sutton Hoo helmet as to appear at first glance to be from the same die," and may even have been "cut by the same man."[241] The third similar design is one of the four Torslunda plates,[242] discovered in Öland, Sweden, in 1870.[243] This plate, which is complete and depicts a figure with the same attributes as on design 1, suggests the association of the men in the Sutton Hoo example with "the cult of Odin."[229][230] The Torslunda figure is missing an eye, which laser scanning revealed to have been removed by a "sharp cut, probably in the original model used for the mould."[244] Odin too lost an eye, thus evidencing the identification of the Torslunda figure as him, and the Sutton Hoo figures as devotees of him.[229][230][244]

Design 2: Rider and fallen warrior

Eight fragments and representations comprise all known instances of the second design,[245] It is thought to have originally appeared twelve times on the helmet,[246] although this assumes that the unidentified third design, which occupies one of the twelve panels, was a replacement for a damaged panel.[247] Assuming so, the pattern occupied eight spaces on the lowest row of the skull cap (i.e., all but the two showing design 1), and two panels, one atop the other rising towards the crest, in the centre of each side.[248][249][250] All panels showing design 2 appear to have been struck from the same die.[251] The horse and rider thus move in a clockwise direction around the helmet, facing towards the rear of the helmet on the dexter side, and towards the front on the sinister side.[251]

As of the substantial sections of design 2 are missing, significantly from the "central area,"[252] reconstruction relies in part on continental versions of the same scene.[253] In particular, similar scenes are seen on the Valsgärde 7[254] and 8[255] helmets, the Vendel 1 helmet,[247] and on the Pliezhausen bracteate.[256] The latter piece, in particular, is both complete and nearly identical to the Sutton Hoo design.[257][258] Although a mirror image, and lacking in certain details depicted in design 2 such as the sword carried by the rider and the scabbard worn by the fallen warrior,[259][260] it suggests other details such as the small shield held by the kneeling figure.[261]

Design 2 shows a mounted warrior, spear held overhead, trampling an enemy on the ground.[262] The latter leans upwards and, grasping the reins in his left hand, uses his right hand to thrust a sword into the chest of the horse.[262] Atop the horse's rump kneels a "diminutive human, or at least anthropomorphic figure."[262] The figure is stylistically similar to the horseman. Its arms and legs are positioned identically, and, together with the rider, it clutches the spear with its right hand.[262]

The iconography underlying design 2 is unknown. It may derive from Roman models,[263][264][265] which frequently depicted images of warriors trampling vanquished enemies.[266] The subsequent development of the design, which has been found in England, Sweden, and Germany, suggests that it carried a unique meaning broadly understood in Germanic tradition.[260] Whereas the Roman examples show riders in moments of unqualified victory,[267] in Germanic representations the scene is ambiguous.[255] The symbolism is unclear,[268][269] and elements of victory are combined with elements of defeat:[270][260] the rider directs his spear straight forward at an invisible enemy, not down at the visible enemy on the ground; though the enemy is trampled, the rider's horse is dealt a fatal wound; and a small and possibly divine figure hovers behind the rider, its body taking the form of a victorious swastika[note 14] while it seemingly guides the spear.[271] An overarching theme of the design may therefore be that of fate.[272][260] In this understanding the divine figure, possibly Odin, guides the warrior in battle, but does not completely free him from the deadly threats he faces.[272] The gods are themselves subject to the whims of fate, and can provide only limited help against the rider's enemies.[273]

Design 3: Unidentified figural scene

Seven small fragments suggest a third figural scene somewhere on the Sutton Hoo helmet. They are nevertheless too small and ambiguous to allow for the reconstruction of the scene.[135] Its presence is suggested "not more than four times, and perhaps only once";[247] because other fragments demonstrate the occurrence of design 1[274] or design 2[275] on all seven available panels on the sinister side of the helmet, and on the forwardmost two panels on the dexter side (in addition to on the highest dexter panel), placement of design 3 "must have occurred towards the rear of the helmet"[247] on the dexter side.

That which remains of design 3 may suggest that a "variant rider scene" was employed to fix damage to a design 2 panel,[247] similar to how a unique pressblech design on the Valsgärde 6 helmet was likely used in repair.[276] Fragment (a) for example shows groups of parallel raised lines running in correspondence "with changes of angle or direction in the modelled surface, which on the analogy of the Sutton Hoo and other rider scenes in Vendel art, strongly suggest the body of a horse."[277] Though smaller, fragment (d) shows similar patterns and suggests a similar interpretation.[247] Fragment (b), meanwhile, shows "two concentric raised lines two millimetres apart," and "appears to be a segment of the rim of a shield which would be of the same diameter as that held by the rider in design 2."[278]

The theory of design 3 as a replacement panel gains some support from damage towards the back of the helmet, but is contradicted by the placement of fragment (c). The crest, complete for 25.5 cm (10.0 in) from front to back, is missing 2 cm (0.79 in) above the rear dragon head.[279] This head is itself mostly missing, and is absent from the 1945–46 reconstruction.[280][281][282] These missing portions are offered by Bruce-Mitford as a possible indication that the helmet at one time suffered damage necessitating the restoration of at least one design 2 panel with a new equestrian scene.[283] This theory does not explain why the rear crest and dragon head would not have been themselves repaired, however, and it is not helped by fragment (c). This fragment is an edge piece placed in the 1970–71 reconstruction on the dexter rear of the helmet at the bottom left of a panel where either design 2 or design 3 is expected, yet is "an isolated element quite out of context with any other surviving fragment and with what appears to be the subject matter of the design 3 panel."[278] Bruce-Mitford suggests that as it is an edge piece it may have originally been a scrap placed under another piece to fill a gap, for it is "otherwise inexplicable."[278][note 15]

Design 4: Larger interlace

Occurring on the cheek guards, the neck guard and the skull cap,[250] the larger interlace pattern was capable of a complete reconstruction.[285] Unlike the two identified figural scenes, partial die impressions of design 4 were used in addition to full die impressions.[285] Blank spaces on the skull cap and neck guard, devoid of decorative designs, allowed for impressions of design 4 that are nearly or entirely complete.[286] On the cheek guards, by contrast, which are irregularly shaped and fully decorated, the interlace designs appear in partial, and sometimes sideways, fashion.[287]

Design 4 depicts a single animal, or quadruped, in ribbon style, and has a billeted border on all sides.[288] The head of the animal is located in the upper center of the panel.[289] The eye is defined by two circles; the rest of the head, comprising two separate but intertwined ribbons, surrounds it.[289] A third ribbon, representing the jaws and mouth, is beneath the head.[289] On the left it begins as a small billeted ribbon that descends into a pellet-filled twist, passes under itself, and emerges as a larger billeted ribbon.[289] Circling counterclockwise, it passes over and then under a separate ribbon that represents the body, under it again, then over and under one of the ribbons representing the head.[289] It emerges as a second pellet-filled twist, again forms a billeted ribbon, and terminates in a shape resembling a foot.[288] A fourth ribbon, forming the animal's neck, starts from the head and travels downwards, under and over a ribbon forming a limb, and terminating in a pellet-filled twist, at the bottom right corner, representing the front hip.[289] Two limbs leave from the hip.[289] One immediately terminates in the border; the second travels upwards as a billeted ribbon, under and over the neck, and ends in another hip ("illogically", per Bruce-Mitford).[289] Another short limb, filled with pellets, emerges from this hip and terminates in a foot.[289] The animal's body, meanwhile, is formed by another billeted ribbon that connects the front hip in the lower right, with the rear hip, in the top left.[289] From right to left it travels under, under, and over the jaws and mouth, under a billeted ribbon representing legs, and then connects to the rear hip.[289] The rear hip, like the front hip, is connected to two limbs.[289] One is a small, pellet-filled twist.[289] The other travels downwards as a billeted ribbon to the bottom left corner, where it terminates in another hip that connects to a pellet-filled limb, and then a foot.[289]

The design is representative of what Bernhard Salin termed "Design II" Germanic animal ornament.[290]

Design 5: Smaller interlace

The smaller interlace pattern covered the face mask, was used prominently on the neck guard, and filled in several empty spaces on the cheek guards.[285] It is a zoomorphic design, like the larger interlace, and shows "two animals, upside down and reversed in relation to each other, whose backward-turning heads lie towards the centre of the panel."[290]


The Sutton Hoo helmet was both a functional piece of battle equipment and a symbol of its owner's power and prestige. It would have offered considerable protection if ever used in battle,[1] and as the richest known Anglo-Saxon helmet, indicated its owner's status.[291] As it is older than the man with whom it was buried, the helmet may have been an heirloom,[292][283] symbolic of the ceremonies of its owner's life and death;[293][294][295] it may further be a progenitor of crowns, known in Europe since around the twelfth century,[296][297] indicating both a leader's right to rule and his connection with the gods.[86]

Whether or not the helmet was ever worn in battle is unknown, but though delicately ornamented, it would have done the job well.[1] Other than leaving spaces to allow movement of the shoulders and arms, the helmet leaves its wearer's head entirely protected,[280] and unlike any other known helmet of its general type, it has a face mask, one-piece cap, and solid neck guard.[298] The iron and silver crest would have helped deflect the force of falling blows,[299][300][301] and holes underneath the nose would have created a breathable—if stifling[302]—environment within.[303] If two suppositions are to be taken as true—that damage to the back of the helmet occurred before the burial,[304] and that Raedwald is properly identified as the helmet's owner—then the helmet can be at least described as one that saw some degree of use during its lifetime, and that was owned by a person who saw battle.[305]

Beyond its functional purpose, the Sutton Hoo helmet would have served to convey the high status of its owner. Little more than an iron cap, such as the helmets from Shorwell and Wollaston,[306][307][308] would be needed if one only sought to protect one's head.[309][310] Yet helmets were objects of prestige in Anglo-Saxon England, as indicated by archaeological, literary, and historical evidence.[311] Helmets are relatively common in Beowulf, an Anglo-Saxon poem focused on royals and their aristocratic milieu,[312][313][314] but rarely found today; only six are currently known, despite the excavation of thousands of graves from the period.[315][316][317] Much as this could reflect poor rates of artefact survival, or even recognition—the Shorwell helmet was at first misidentified as a "fragmentary iron vessel",[318] the Wollaston helmet as a bucket,[319] and a plain Roman helmet from Burgh Castle as "cauldron fragments"[320]—the extreme scarcity suggests that helmets were never deposited in great numbers, and signified the importance of those wearing them.[317]

That the Sutton Hoo helmet was likely around 100 years old when buried suggests that it may have been an heirloom, a sample from the royal treasury passed down from another generation.[292][283][321] The same suggestion has been made for the shield from the burial, as both it and the helmet are objects with distinct Swedish influence.[322][323][324][325] The importance of heirloom items is well documented in poetry;[326] every sword of note in Beowulf, from Hrunting to Nægling, has such a history,[327] and the poem's hero, whose own pyre is stacked with helmets,[328] uses his dying words to bestow upon his follower Wiglaf a gold collar, byrnie, and gilded helmet.[329][330] The passing of the helmet, from warrior to warrior and then to the ground, would have been symbolic of the larger ceremony of the passing of titles and power,[293][294] and the final elegy for the man buried in the mound.[295]

The helmet easily outstrips all other known examples in terms of richness.[331][332][291] It is uniquely from a presumed royal burial,[331] at a time when the monarchy was defined by the helmet and the sword.[333][334] Helmets, perhaps because they were worn by rulers so frequently, may have come to be identified as crowns.[317][335] Though many intermediate stages in the typological and functional evolution are yet unknown,[336] the earliest European crowns that survive, such as the turn-of-the-millennium crown of Saint Stephen and of Constance of Aragon, share the same basic construction of many helmets, including the Coppergate example, contemporaneous with the one from Sutton Hoo: a brow band, a nose-to-nape band, and lateral bands.[297] A divine right to rule, or at least a connection between gods and leader—also seen on earlier Roman helmets, which sometimes represented Roman gods[337]—may have been implied by the alteration to the sinister eyebrow on the Sutton Hoo helmet; the one-eyed appearance could only have been visible in low light, such as when its wearer was in a hall, the seat of the king's power.[86]

Context and parallels

Unique in many respects, the Sutton Hoo helmet is nevertheless inextricably linked to its Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian contexts. It is one of only six known Anglo-Saxon helmets, along with those found at Benty Grange, Coppergate, Wollaston, Shorwell and Staffordshire,[316] yet is closer in character to those from Vendel and Valsgärde.[338] At the same time, the helmet shares "consistent and intimate" parallels with those characterised in the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf,[339] and, like the Sutton Hoo ship-burial as a whole,[340] has had a profound impact on modern understandings of the poem.[341]


Within the corpus of sixth and seventh century helmets, the Sutton Hoo helmet is broadly classified as a "crested helmet,"[342][343] distinct from the continental spangenhelm[344][345] and lamellenhelm.[346][347] 50 helmets are so classified,[342][348][note 16] although barely more than a dozen can be reconstructed[354] and a few are so degraded that they are not indisputably from helmets.[350][343] Excepting an outlier fragment found in Kiev;[355] all crested helmets originate from England or Scandinavia.[356][357]

Of the crested helmets the Sutton Hoo helmet belongs to the Vendel and Valsgärde class, which themselves derive from the Roman infantry and cavalry helmets of the fourth and fifth century Constantinian workshops.[358] Helmets were found in graves 1, 12 and 14 at Vendel (in addition to partial helmets in graves 10 and 11), and in graves 5, 6, 7 and 8 at Valsgärde.[241] The Sutton Hoo example shares similarities in design, yet "is richer and of higher quality" than its Scandinavian analogues;[359] its differences may reflect its manufacture for someone of higher social status, or its closer temporal proximity to the antecedent Roman helmets.[360]

Sutton HooEngland: Sutton Hoo, SuffolkHelmet
CoppergateEngland: YorkHelmet
Benty GrangeEngland: DerbyshireHelmet
WollastonEngland: Wollaston, NorthamptonshireHelmet[361][362][363][364][365][366][367][368][369][370]
StaffordshireEngland: StaffordshireHelmet[371][372][373]
Guilden MordenEngland: Guilden Morden, CambridgeshireFragment (boar)[374][375][376][377][378][379][380]
CaenbyEngland: Caenby, Lincolnshire?Fragment (foil)[381][382][383][384][385][386][387][343][378][388]
RempstoneEngland: Rempstone, NottinghamshireFragment (crest)[389][378][379]
AsthallEngland: Asthall, Oxfordshire?Fragments (foil)[390][391][392][386][393][343][394][395]
IcklinghamEngland: Icklingham, SuffolkFragment (crest)[396][348][378][379]
HorncastleEngland: Horncastle, LincolnshireFragment (crest)[397][398]
TjeleDenmark: Tjele, JutlandFragment (eyebrows/nose)[399][400][401][402][403][387][404][405]
GevningeDenmark: Gevninge, Lejre, SjællandFragment (eye)[406][407][408][409]
GjermundbuNorway: Norderhov, BuskerudHelmet[410][359][411][412][413][414][415]
Øvre StabuNorway: Øvre Stabu, Toten, Oppland?Fragment (crest)[416][359][417][350][348]
ByNorway: By, Løten, HedmarkenFragment[418][417][348]
Vestre EnglaugNorway: Vestre Englaug, Løten, HedmarkenFragment[419][420][421][422][418][417][348]
NesNorway: Nes, Kvelde, VestfoldFragment[423][421][417][348]
SwedenSweden: Unknown location (possibly central)Fragment (crest)[424][425][426][427]
SolbergaSweden: Askeby, Östergötland
GunnerstadSweden: Gamleby, SmålandFragments
PrästgårdenSweden: Prästgården, Timrå, MedelpadFragments (crest)[336][425][343][428]
Vendel ISweden: Vendel, UpplandHelmet
Vendel XSweden: Vendel, UpplandFragments (crest/camail)[429][430][431][426][432][350][343]
Vendel XISweden: Vendel, UpplandFragments[433][434][421][435][426][436][350][427]
Vendel XIISweden: Vendel, UpplandHelmet
Vendel XIVSweden: Vendel, UpplandHelmet
Valsgärde 5Sweden: Valsgärde, UpplandHelmet
Valsgärde 6Sweden: Valsgärde, UpplandHelmet
Valsgärde 7Sweden: Valsgärde, UpplandHelmet
Valsgärde 8Sweden: Valsgärde, UpplandHelmet
Gamla UppsalaSweden: Gamla Uppsala, UpplandFragments (foil)[437][438][439][440][441][442][343][443]
UltunaSweden: Ultuna, UpplandHelmet
VaksalaSweden: Vaksala, UpplandFragments[444][445]
VallentunaSweden: Vallentuna, UpplandFragments[446][425][343]
LandshammarSweden: Landshammar, Spelvik, SödermanlandFragments
LokrumeSweden: Lokrume, GotlandFragment[447][448][449][450][451][425][452][453][454][455][456]
BroeSweden: Högbro Broe, Halla, GotlandFragments[457][458][459][460][461][462][450][425][463]
Gotland (3)Sweden: Endrebacke, Endre, GotlandFragment
Gotland (4)Sweden: Barshaldershed, Grötlingbo, GotlandFragment (crest?)[464][460][465][426][241][442][466]
HellviSweden: Hellvi, GotlandFragments (eyebrow)[467][468][469][470][471][414][466][472]
Gotland (6)Sweden: Unknown, GotlandFragment
Gotland (7)Sweden: Hallbjens, Lau, GotlandFragments[473][468][474][426][241][442][466]
Gotland (8)Sweden: Unknown, Gotland?Fragment (crest)[475][468][476][241][442][466]
Gotland (9)Sweden: Grötlingbo(?), Gotland?Fragment (crest)[477][468][478][241][442][466]
Gotland (10)Sweden: Gudings, Vallstena, Gotland?Fragment (crest)[479][468][480][241][442][466]
Gotland (11)Sweden: Kvie and Allekiva, Endre, Gotland?Fragment (crest)[481][468][482][241][442][466]
UppåkraSweden: Uppåkra, ScaniaFragment (eyebrow/boars)[483][484][485][486][407][487][488]
DesjatinnaUkraine: KievFragment (eyebrows/nose)[489][490]


Although the Staffordshire helmet, currently undergoing research and reconstruction, may prove to be more closely related, the four other known Anglo-Saxon helmets share only minor details in decoration and few similarities in construction with the example from Sutton Hoo. In construction its cheek guards and crest link it to its Anglo-Saxon contemporaries, yet it remains the only helmet to have a face mask, fixed neck guard, or cap raised from a single piece of metal. Decoratively it is linked by its elaborate eyebrows, boar motifs, and wire inlays, but is unparalleled in its extensive ornamentation and pressblech patterns. The similarities likely reflect "a set of traditional decorative motifs which are more or less stable over a long period of time";[491] the differences may simply highlight the disparity between royal and patrician helmets, or may indicate that the Sutton Hoo helmet was more a product of its Roman progenitors than its Anglo-Saxon counterparts.[360]

The primary structural similarity between the Sutton Hoo and other Anglo-Saxon helmets lies in the presence of cheek guards, a feature shared by the Coppergate, Wollaston and Staffordshire helmets,[492][493][319][494] yet generally missing from their Scandinavian counterparts.[298] The construction of the Sutton Hoo helmet is otherwise largely distinguished from all other Anglo-Saxon examples. Its cap is unique in having been raised from a single piece of iron.[495] The caps of the other helmets were each composed of at least eight pieces. On the iron Coppergate, Shorwell and Wollaston helmets, a brow band was joined by a nose-to-nape band, two lateral bands, and four infill plates,[496][497][498][499][319] while the Benty Grange helmet was constructed from both iron and horn.[500][501] A brow band was joined both by nose-to-nape and ear-to-ear bands and by four strips subdividing the resultant quadrants into eighths.[502] Eight pieces of horn infilled the eight open spaces, with the eight joins each covered by an additional strip of horn.[500] The Sutton Hoo helmet is the only known Anglo-Saxon helmet to have either a face mark or a fixed neck guard;[298] the Coppergate and Benty Grange helmets, the only others to have any surviving form of neck protection,[note 17] used camail and horn, respectively,[506][507][508] and together with the Wollaston helmet protected the face by use of nose-to-nape bands elongated to form nasals.[509][510][511][308]

The decorative similarities between the Sutton Hoo helmet and its Anglo-Saxon contemporaries are peripheral, if not substantial. The helmets from Wollaston and Shorwell were designed for use rather than display;[377][306] the latter was almost entirely utilitarian, while the former, "a sparsely decorated 'fighting helmet,'"[308] contained only a boar crest and sets of incised lines along its bands as decoration.[512][513] Its boar crest finds parallel with that atop the Benty Grange helmet,[514] the eyes on which are made of garnets "set in gold sockets edged with filigree wire . . . and having hollow gold shanks . . . which were sunk into a hole" in the head.[515] Though superficially similar to the garnets and wire inlays on the Sutton Hoo helmet, the techniques employed to combine garnet, gold and filigree work are of a higher complexity more indicative of Germanic work.[515] A helmet sharing more distinct similarities with the Sutton Hoo example is the one from Coppergate. It features a crest and eyebrows, both hatched[516][517] in a manner that may reflect "reminiscences or imitations of actual wire inlays"[518][519] akin to those on the Sutton Hoo helmet.[520] The eyebrows and crests on both helmets further terminate in animal heads, though in a less intricate manner on the Coppergate helmet,[521] where they take a more two-dimensional form. These similarities are likely indicative of "a set of traditional decorative motifs which are more or less stable over a long period of rime," rather than of a significant relationship between the two helmets.[491] Compared with the "almost austere brass against iron of the Coppergate helmet," the Sutton Hoo helmet, covered in tinned pressblech designs and further adorned with garnets, gilding, and inlaid silver wires, radiates "a rich polychromatic effect."[491] Its appearance is substantially more similar to the Staffordshire helmet, which, while still undergoing conservation, has "a pair of cheek pieces cast with intricate gilded interlaced designs along with a possible gold crest and associated terminals."[522] Like the Sutton Hoo helmet it was covered in pressblech foils,[523] including a horseman and warrior motif so similar to design 3 as to have been initially taken for the same design.[373]


Significant differences in the construction of the Sutton Hoo and Scandinavian helmets belie significant similarities in their designs. The Scandinavian helmets that are capable of restoration were constructed more simply than the Sutton Hoo helmet. None has a face mask,[298] solid neck guard,[524] or cap made from one piece of metal,[298] and only two have distinct cheek guards.[298][525] The neck guards "seem without exception to have [been] either iron strips or protective mail curtains."[526] The helmets from Ultuna, Vendel 14 and Valsgärde 5 all used iron strips as neck protection; five strips hung from the rear of the Vendel 14[527][528] and Valsgärde 5[529] brow bands,[530][531] and though only two strips survive from the Ultuna helmet,[532][533] others would have hung alongside them.[534] Camail was used on the remaining helmets, from Valsgärde 6,[535][536][526][537] 7[538][539][537] and 8,[526][537] and from Vendel 1[540][541][535][537] and 12.[542][543][538][526][537] Fragmentary remains from Vendel 10[538][526] and 11,[544] and from Solberga,[426][537] likewise suggest camail. In terms of cheek protection, only two helmets had something other than continuations of the camail or iron strips used to protect the neck.[298][525] The Vendel 14 helmet had cheek guards, but of "a differing version well forward on the face" of those on the Sutton Hoo helmet.[298] Though not fully reconstructable,[545] fragments from the Broe helmet suggest a configuration similar to those on the Vendel 14 helmet.[546] Finally, the widely varying caps on each Scandinavian helmet all share one feature: None is similar to the cap on the Sutton Hoo helmet.[298] The basic form of the helmets from Vendel, Valsgärde, Ultuna and Broe all started with a brow band and nose-to-nape band. The Ultuna helmet had its sides filled in with latticed iron strips,[547][548] while each side on the Valsgärde 8 helmet was filled in with six parallel strips running from the brow band to the nose-to-nape brand.[549][550] The remaining four helmets—excepting those from Vendel 1 and 10,[551] and Broe,[552] which are too fragmentary to determine their exact construction—all employed two lateral bands and sectional infills. The Vendel 14 helmet had eight infill plates, one rectangular and one triangular per quadrant;[553][554][555] that from Valsgärde 7 helmet used four infill plates, one for each quadrant;[556][550] the one from Valsgärde 6 also used identical infills for each quadrant, but with "elaborate"[557] Y-shaped iron strips creating a latticed effect;[558][550] and the Valsgärde 5 example filled in the back two quadrants with latticed iron strips, and the front two quadrants each with a rectangular section of lattice work and a triangular plate.[559][560]

The decorative and iconographic similarities between the Sutton Hoo and Scandinavian helmets are remarkable; they are so pronounced as to have helped in the reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet's own imagery, and to have fostered the idea that the helmet was made in Sweden, not Anglo-Saxon England. Its ornate crest and eyebrows are paralleled by the Scandinavian designs, some of which replicate or imitate its silver wire inlays; garnets adorn the helmets from Sutton Hoo and Valsgärde 7; and the pressblech designs covering the Sutton Hoo and Scandinavian helmets are both ubiquitous and iconographically intertwined. Although the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian helmets almost universally have crests, hence their general classification as "crested helmets,"[561][351] the wire inlays in the Sutton Hoo crest find their closest parallel in the "Veldel-type helmet-crests in which such wire-inlay patterns are imitated in casting or engraving."[518][519] Thus the crests from the Vendel 1[562][540][563][541][564][518][300] and 12[542][563][565] helmets both have chevrons mimicking the Sutton Hoo inlays, as does the Ultuna helmet[563] and all those from Valsgärde—as well as fragments from Vendel 11[566][563][567][568] and from central Sweden.[568] The eyebrows of Scandinavian helmets are yet more closely linked, for those on the Broe helmet[459][460][461] are inlaid with silver wires,[471][472] while the Lokrume helmet fragment is either inlaid or overlaid with silver.[447][569][570][471] Even those eyebrows without silver tend to be ornate. The Valsgärde 8,[571] Vendel 1[540][541] and Vendel 10[542][565] eyebrows have chevrons following the same pattern as their crests, and though it lacks such an elaborate crest,[572][573] the Vendel 14 helmet likewise has sets of parallel lines engraved longitudinally into the eyebrows;[574][554] the lone eyebrow found at Hellvi is similarly decorated.[467][468][469][471][472] Those that lack chevrons—singular finds from Uppåkra[483][484][485][486][487][488] and Gevninge[406][575][409] in addition to the helmets from Valsgärde 5, 6,[576] and 7[577]—are still highly decorated, with the garnet-encrusted Valsgärde 7 eyebrows being the only known parallel to those from Sutton Hoo.[577]

In all these decorative respects, two Scandinavian helmets, from Valsgärde 7 and Gamla Uppsala, are uniquely similar to the Sutton Hoo example.[578] The Valsgärde 7 crest has a "cast chevron ornament";[539] the helmet "is 'jeweled', like the Sutton Hoo helmet, but showing a greater use of garnets";[579] and it contains figural and interlace pressblech patterns, including versions of the two figural designs used on the Sutton Hoo helmet.[579] Unlike on the Sutton Hoo helmet, the Valsgärde 7 rider and fallen warrior design was made with two dies, so that those on both dexter and sinister sides are seen moving towards the front, and they contain some "differing and additional elements."[579] The Valsgärde 7 version of the dancing warriors design, however, contains "only [one] major iconographic difference," the absence of two crossed spears behind the two men.[227] The scenes are so similar that it was only with the Valsgärde 7 design in hand that the Sutton Hoo design could be reconstructed.[130][223][224][226] The Gamla Uppsala version of this scene is even more similar. It was at first thought to have been struck from the same die,[580][241] and required precise measurement of the original fragments to prove otherwise.[581] Though the angles of the forearms and between the spears are slightly different, the Gamla Uppsala fragment nonetheless provides "the closest possible parallel" to the Sutton Hoo design.[219] Taken as a whole, the Valsgärde 7 helmet serves "better than any of the other helmets of its type to make explicit the East Scandinavian context of the Sutton Hoo helmet."[539] Its differences, perhaps, are explained by the fact that it was in the grave of a "yeoman-farmer," not royalty.[221] "Royal graves strictly contemporary with [it] have not yet been excavated in Sweden, but no doubt the helmets and shields such graves contained would be nearer in quality to the examples from Sutton Hoo."[221] It is for this reason that the Gamla Uppsala fragment is particularly interesting;[298][582] coming from a Swedish royal cremation and with "the dies seemingly cut by the same hand,"[298] the helmet "may have been very similar to the Sutton Hoo helmet."[219]


Whatever its Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian origins, the Sutton Hoo helmet is descended from the Roman helmets of the fourth and fifth century Constantinian workshops.[583] Its construction—featuring a distinctive crest, solid cap and neck and cheek guards, face mask, and leather lining—bears clear similarities to these earlier helmets.[584] Numerous examples have a crest similar to that on the Sutton Hoo helmet, such as those from Deurne, Concești, Augsburg-Pfersee, and Augst, and the Berkasovo 1 and 2 and Intercisa 2 and 4 helmets.[585] Meanwhile, the one-piece cap underneath, unique in this respect among the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian helmets,[495] represents the end of a Greek and Roman technique.[586] Primarily used in first and second century helmets of the early Roman Empire[587][588] before being replaced by helmets with a bipartite construction[589]—hence the role of the crest in holding the two halves together[590]—the practice is thought to have finally been forgotten around 500 AD.[586][591] The solid iron cheek guards of the Sutton Hoo helmet, likewise, derive from the Constantinian style, and is marked by cutouts towards the back.[583] The current reconstruction partly assumes the Roman influence of the cheek guards; Roman practice reinforced the belief that leather hinges were employed,[592] while the sinister and dexter cheek guards were swapped after an expert on arms and armour suggested that the cutouts should be at the back.[593] The neck guard similarly assumes leather hinges,[594][note 18] and with its solid iron construction—like the one-piece cap, unique among Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian helmets[596]—is even more closely aligned with the Roman examples,[597] if longer than was typical.[598] The Witcham Gravel helmet from the first century AD[599][600] has such a broad and deep neck guard,[601] and solid projecting guards are found on the Deurne and Berkasovo 2 helmets.[602] Another feature of the Sutton Hoo helmet unparalleled by its contemporaries—its face mask[298]—is matched by Roman examples.[603] Among others the Ribchester helmet from the turn of the first century AD,[604] and the Emesa helmet from the early first century AD,[605][606][note 19] each include an anthropomorphic face mask; the latter is more similar to the Sutton Hoo helmet,[603] being affixed to the cap by a single hinge rather than entirely surrounding the face.[610][611][603] Finally, the suggestion of a leather lining in the Sutton Hoo helmet, largely unsupported by positive evidence[612] other than the odd texture of the interior of the helmet,[613][614][590] gained further traction by the prevalence of similar linings in late Roman helmets.[615][616][note 20]

Several of the decorative aspects of the Sutton Hoo helmet, particularly its white appearance, inlaid garnets, and prominent rivets, also derive from Roman practice.[584] Its tinned surface compares with the Berkasovo 1 and 2 helmets and those from Concești, Augsburg-Pfersee, and Deurne.[584][620] The Berkasovo 1 and Budapest helmets are further adorned with precious or semi-precious stones, a possible origin for the garnets on the Sutton Hoo and Valsgärde 7 helmets.[621] Finally, the prominent rivets seen on some of the crested helmets, such as those from Valsgärde 8 and Sutton Hoo, may have been inspired by the similar decorative effect achieved by the rivets on Roman helmets like the Berkasovo 2 and Duerne examples.[622]


Understandings of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial and Beowulf have been intertwined ever since the 1939 discovery of the former. "By the late 1950s, Beowulf and Sutton Hoo were so inseparable that, in study after study, the appearance of one inevitably and automatically evoked the other. If Beowulf came on stage first, Sutton Hoo was swiftly brought in to illustrate how closely seventh-century reality resembled what the poet depicted; if Sutton Hoo performed first, Beowulf followed close behind to give voice to the former's dumb evidence."[623] Although "each monument sheds light on the other,"[624] the connection between the two "has almost certainly been made too specific."[625] Yet "[h]elmets are described in greater detail than any other item of war-equipment in the poem,"[626] and some specific connections can be drawn. The boar imagery, crest and visor all find parallels in Beowulf, as does the helmet's gleaming white and jeweled appearance. Though the Sutton Hoo helmet cannot be said to fully mirror any one helmet in Beowulf, the many isolated similarities help ensure that "despite the limited archaeological evidence no feature of the poetic descriptions is inexplicable and without archaeological parallel."[627]

Helmets with boar motifs are mentioned five times in Beowulf,[628][629][630][631] and fall into two categories: those with freestanding boars and those without.[632][633][634] As Beowulf and his fourteen men disembark their ship and are led to see King Hrothgar, they leave the boat anchored in the water:

Gewiton him þa feran, flota stille bad,
seomode on sale sidfæþmed scip,
oa ancre fæst. Eoforlic scionon
ofer hleorbergan gehroden golde,
fah ond fyrheard, ferhwearde heold
guþmod grimmon.

So they went on their way. The ship rode the water,
broad-beamed, bound by its hawser
and anchored fast. Boar-shapes flashed
above their cheek-guards, the brightly forged
work of goldsmiths, watching over
those stern-faced men.[636]

Such boar-shapes may have been like those on the Sutton Hoo helmet, terminating at the ends of the eyebrows and looking out over the cheek guards.[632][174][175] Beowulf himself dons a helmet "set around with boar images"[637] (besette swin-licum[638]) before his fight with Grendel's mother; further described as "the white helmet . . . enhanced by treasure" (ac se hwita helm . . . since geweorðad[639]), a similar description could have been applied to the tinned Sutton Hoo example.[174][640][641][618][642] (The two helmets would not have been identical, however; Beowulf's was further described as "encircled in lordly links"[643]befongen frea-wrasnum[644]—a possible reference to the type of chain mail on the Valsgärde 6 and 8 helmets that provided neck and face protection.[645][646]) The other style of boar adornment, mentioned three times in the poem,[647] appears to refer to helmets with a freestanding boar atop the crest.[648][633][634] When Hrothgar laments the death of his close friend Æschere, he recalls how Æschere was "my right hand man when the ranks clashed and our boar-crests had to take a battering in the line of action."[649][650] These crests were probably more similar to those on the Benty Grange and Wollaston helmets,[648][633][634] a detached boar found in Guilden Morden,[374][375][376] and those seen in contemporary imagery on the Vendel 1 and Valsgärde 7 helmets and on the Torslunda plates.[651][652]

Alongside the boar imagery on the eyebrows, the silver inlays of the crest on the Sutton Hoo helmet find linguistic support in Beowulf. The helmet presented to Beowulf as a "victory gift" following his defeat of Grendel is described with identical features:

no he þære feohgyfte
for sceotendum scamigan ðorfte.
Ne gefrægn ic freondlicor feower madmas
golde gegyrede gummanna fela
in ealobence oðrum gesellan.
Ymb þæs helmes hrof heafodbeorge
wirum bewunden wala utan heold,
þæt him fela laf frecne ne meahton
scurheard sceþðan, þonne scyldfreca
ongean gramum gangan scolde.

It was hardly a shame to be showered with such gifts
in front of the hall-troops. There haven't been many
moments, I am sure, when men exchanged
four such treasures at so friendly a sitting.
An embossed ridge, a band lapped with wire
arched over the helmet: head-protection
to keep the keen-ground cutting edge
from damaging it when danger threatened
and the man was battling behind his shield.[654]

This portion of the poem was thought "probably corrupt" until the helmet was discovered, with the suggestion that "the scribe himself does not appear to have understood it";[655] the meaning of "the notorious wala,"[341] in particular, was only guessed at.[299][656][note 21] The term is generally used in Old English to refer to a ridge of land, not the crest of a helmet;[666] metaphorically termed wala in the poem, the crest is furthermore wirum bewunden, literally "bound with wires."[667][668][301] It therefore parallels the silver inlays along the crest of the Sutton Hoo helmet.[299][669] Such a crest would, as described in Beowulf, provide protection from a falling sword. "A quick turn of the head as the blow fell would enable the wearer to take it across the 'comb' and avoid its falling parallel with the comb and splitting the cap."[518][300] The discovery has led many Old English dictionaries to define wala within the "immediate context" of Beowulf, including as a "ridge or comb inlaid with wires running on top of helmet from front to back," although doing so "iron[s] out the figurative language" intended in the poem.[666] The specific meaning of the term as used within the poem is nevertheless explicated by the Sutton Hoo helmet, in turn "illustrat[ing] the intimacy of the relationship between the archaeological material in the Sutton Hoo grave and the Beowulf poem."[518][670]

A final parallel between the Sutton Hoo helmet and those in Beowulf is the presence of face masks, a feature which makes the former unique among its Anglo-Saxon and East Scandinavian counterparts.[671][281][298] The uniqueness may reflect that, as part of a royal burial,[298] the helmet is "richer and of higher quality than any other helmet yet found."[359] In Beowulf, "a poem about kings and nobles, in which the common people hardly appear,"[328] compounds such as "battle-mask" (beadogriman[672]), "war-mask" (heregriman[673]), "mask-helm" (grimhelmas[674]), and "war-head" (wigheafolan[675]) indicate the use of visored helmets.[676][677] The term "war-head" is particularly apt for the anthropomorphic Sutton Hoo helmet. "[T]he word does indeed describe a helmet realistically. Wigheafola: complete head-covering, forehead, eyebrows, eye-holes, cheeks, nose, mouth, chin, even a moustache!"[678]


The Sutton Hoo helmet was discovered over three days in July and August 1939, with only three weeks remaining in the excavation of the ship-burial. It was found in more than 500 pieces,[679] which would prove to account for less than half of the original surface area.[12] The discovery was recorded in the diary of C. W. Phillips as follows:

Friday, 28 July 1939: "The crushed remains of an iron helmet were found four feet [1.2 m] east of the shield boss on the north side of the central deposit. The remains consisted of many fragments of iron covered with embossed ornament of an interlace with which were also associated gold leaf, textiles, an anthropomorphic face-piece consisting of a nose, mouth, and moustache cast as a whole (bronze), and bronze zoomorphic mountings and enrichments."

Saturday, 29 July: "A few more fragments of the iron helmet came to light and were boxed with the rest found the day before."

Tuesday, 1 August: "The day was spent in clearing out the excavated stern part of the ship and preparing it for study. Before this a final glean and sift in the burial area had produced a few fragments which are probably to be associated with the helmet and the chain mail respectively."[680][13]

Although the helmet is now considered to be one of the most important artefacts ever found on British soil,[12][683] its shattered state caused it to go at first unnoticed. No photographs were taken of the fragments in situ, nor were their relative positions recorded,[12][11][13] as the importance of the discovery had not yet been realised.[124][note 22] The only contemporary record of the helmet's location was a circle on the excavation diagram marked "nucleus of helmet remains."[681][682] When reconstruction of the helmet commenced years later, it would thus become "a jigsaw puzzle without any sort of picture on the lid of the box,"[12][11] not to mention a jigsaw puzzle missing half its pieces.

Overlooked at first, the helmet quickly gained notice. Even before all the fragments had been excavated, the Daily Mail spoke of "a gold helmet encrusted with precious stones."[685] A few days later it would more accurately describe the helmet as having "elaborate interlaced ornaments in silver and gold leaf."[686] Despite scant time to examine the fragments,[687][688] they were termed "elaborate"[689] and "magnificent";[690] "crushed and rotted"[691] and "sadly broken" such that it "may never make such an imposing exhibit as it ought to do,"[692] it was nonetheless thought the helmet "may be one of the most exciting finds."[691] The stag found in the burial—later placed atop the sceptre—was even thought at first to adorn the crest of the helmet,[693][692][694][695][696] in parallel to the boar-crested Benty Grange helmet. This theory would gain no traction, however, and the helmet would have to wait out World War II before reconstruction could begin.

Excavations at Sutton Hoo came to an end on 24 August 1939, and all items were shipped out the following day.[697] Nine days later, Britain declared war on Germany. The intervening time allowed "first-aid treatment of fragile objects and perishables," and for "the finds to be deposited in security."[698] Throughout World War II the Sutton Hoo artefacts, along with other treasures from the British Museum such as the Elgin Marbles,[699][700] were stored in Aldwych tube station.[701][683] Only at the end of 1944 were preparations made to unpack, conserve and restore the finds from Sutton Hoo.[226]

First reconstruction

The helmet was first reconstructed by Herbert Maryon between 1945 and 1946.[702][703] A retired professor of sculpture and an authority on early metalwork, Maryon was specially employed as a Technical Attaché at the British Museum on 11 November 1944.[704] His job was to restore and conserve the finds from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial, including what Bruce-Mitford called "the real headaches – notably the crushed shield, helmet and drinking horns".[226] Maryon's work on the Sutton Hoo objects continued until 1950,[705][706] of which six continuous months were spent reconstructing the helmet.[707] Stalled for years by World War II and still in the fragmentary state in which it had entered the war, by the time it reached Maryon's workbench the "task of restoration was thus reduced to a jigsaw puzzle without any sort of picture on the lid of the box,"[12] and, "as it proved, a great many of the pieces missing."[125]

Efforts on the first reconstruction began with a "process of familiarisation"[708] with the various fragments;[124] each piece was traced and detailed on a piece of stiff paper, until after "a long while" reconstruction could commence.[124] For this, Maryon sculpted a human-sized head from plaster, then "padded the head out above the brows to allow for the thickness of the lining which a metal helmet would naturally require."[214] The fragments of the skull cap were then initially stuck to the head with Plasticine, or, if thicker, placed into spaces cut into the head. Finally, strong white plaster was used to permanently affix the fragments, and, mixed with brown umber, fill in the gaps between pieces.[214] Meanwhile, the fragments of the cheek guards, neck guard, and visor were placed onto shaped, plaster-covered wire mesh, then affixed with more plaster and joined to the cap.[709]

Though visibly different from the current reconstruction, "[m]uch of Maryon's work is valid. The general character of the helmet was made plain."[133] The 1946 reconstruction identified the designs recognised today, and similarly arranged them in a panelled configuration.[143] Both reconstructions composed the visor and neck guards with the same designs: the visor with the smaller interlace (design 5), the neck guard with a top row of the larger interlace (design 4) above two rows of the smaller interlace.[710][711][712][250] The layout of the cheek guards is also similar in both reconstructions; the main differences are the added length provided by a third row in the second reconstruction, the replacement of a design 4 panel with the dancing warriors (design 1) in the middle row, and the switching of sides.[710][711][712][250]

Reception and criticism

The first reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet was met with worldwide acclaim and was both academically and culturally influential.[713] It stayed on display for more than 20 years,[133][713] during which time it became an iconic object of the Middle Ages.[133][714][715] In 1951 the helmet was displayed at the Festival of Britain,[716] where an exhibit on Sutton Hoo was curated by Rupert Bruce-Mitford.[717] That same year Life dispatched a 25-year-old Larry Burrows to the British Museum, resulting in a full-page photograph of the helmet alongside a photograph of Maryon;[718][719] five years later, on the strength of his restorations, Maryon was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire.[720][721][722] Images of the helmet made their way into television programmes,[723] books, and newspapers,[724][725] even as the second reconstruction was worked on.[726] Though the lasting impact of the first reconstruction is as a first, reversible, attempt from which problems could be identified and solutions could be found,[727][722] for two decades Maryon's reconstruction was an icon in its own right.[133][714][715]

With the helmet on public display and as greater knowledge of contemporary helmets became available,[728] the first reconstruction, Bruce-Mitford wrote, "was soon criticised, though not in print, by Swedish scholars and others."[12][729][note 23] An underlying issue was the decision to arrange the fragments around the mould of an average man's head, possibly inadvertently predetermining the reconstruction's size.[668][732] Particular criticisms also noted its exposed areas, and a neck guard that was fixed rather than movable.[733][734][713] Though envisioned by Maryon as similar to a "crash helmet of a motor cyclist" with padding of about 38 inch (9.5 mm) between head and helmet,[124] its size allowed for little such cushioning;[732][668][713] one with a larger head would have had difficulty just getting it on.[713] The missing portion at the front of each cheek piece left the jaw exposed,[732][735] there was a hole between eyebrows and nose, and the eye holes were large enough for a sword to pass through.[713] Meanwhile, as noted early on by Sune Lindqvist,[730] the projecting face mask seemed odd, and would have left the wearer's nose vulnerable to blows to the face.[713] An artistic reconstruction created in 1966 by the British Museum and the Archaeology Division of the Ordnance Survey attempted to solve some of these problems, showing a larger cap, a straighter face mask, smaller eye openings, the terminal dragon heads at opposite ends, and the rearrangement of some of the pressblech panels;[736] it too, however, came under criticism by archaeologists.[737]

A final issue raised by Maryon's construction was the use of plaster to elongate the crest by approximately 4 12 inches (110 mm).[134][667][668] The crest had largely survived its millennium of interment, perhaps given durability by the inlaid silver wires.[134][667][668] The need to replace missing portions was thus questioned;[134][667][668] it was thought that either the reconstructed crest was too long, or that original portions had been overlooked during the 1939 excavation.[134] When the ship-burial was re-excavated in the 1960s, one of the objectives was thus to search for more fragments, the absence of which could be treated as evidence that the crest had originally been shorter.[738]

Re-excavations at Sutton Hoo, 1965–70

Numerous questions were left unanswered by the 1939 excavation at Sutton Hoo, and in 1965 a second excavation began. Among other objectives were to survey the burial mound and its surrounding environment, to relocate the ship impression (from which a plaster cast was ultimately taken[739][740][741]) and excavate underneath, and to search the strata from the 1939 dumps for any fragments that may have been originally missed.[742][743][744] The first excavation had effectively been a rescue dig under the threat of impending war,[745][746] creating the danger that fragments of objects might have been inadvertently discarded;[743][747] a gold mount from the burial was already known to have nearly met that fate.[748] Additional fragments of the helmet could hopefully shed light on the unidentified third figural design, or buttress Maryon's belief that 4 inches (100 mm) of the crest were missing.[134] To this end, the excavation sought "both positive and negative evidence."[749] New crest fragments could go where Maryon had placed plaster, while their absence could be used to suggest that the crest on the first reconstruction was too long.[738]

Four new helmet fragments were discovered during re-excavation.[750] The three 1939 dumps were located during the 1967 season, and "almost at once" yielded "fragments of helmet and of the large hanging bowl ... as well as fragments of shield ornaments and a tine from the stag."[745][751] The finds were so plentiful that a single three foot by one foot section of the first dump contained sixty cauldron fragments.[752] The four pieces of the helmet came from the second dump, which contained only items from the ship's burial chamber.[752] They included a hinge piece from the dexter cheek guard,[750] a "surface flake" from the crest,[752] a small piece of iron with fluted lines, and a small piece of iron edging showing part of the larger interlace design.[750]

The most important helmet finds from the re-excavation at Sutton Hoo were the piece from cheek guard, and the lack of any substantial crest piece. The fragment of the cheek guard joined another found in 1939,[750] together completing "a hinge plate for one of the moving parts of the helmet, which could not be done previously."[753] Meanwhile, although a "surface flake" from the crest was discovered, its placement did not affect the overall length of the crest.[754] The lack of significant crest finds instead "reinforce[d] scepticism of the long plaster insertions in the original reconstruction."[752]

Current reconstruction

The current reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet was completed in 1971, following eighteen months of work by Nigel Williams.[732] Williams had joined the British Museum in his teens after studying at the same Central School of Arts and Crafts as Maryon,[755][756][757] yet in contrast to Maryon, who completed the first restoration in his 70s and "with the use of only one eye,"[721] Williams reconstructed the helmet while in his mid-20s.[755]

In 1968, with problems evident in the first reconstruction that were left unresolved by the re-excavations at Sutton Hoo, the decision was made to reexamine the evidence.[713] "After several months' consideration" it was decided to disassemble the helmet and construct it anew.[713] The cheek guards, face mask and neck guard were first removed from the helmet and x-rayed, revealing the wire mesh covered in plaster and overlaid by fragments.[709] The wire was then "rolled back like a carpet", and a saw used to separate each fragment.[758] The remaining plaster was chipped away with a scalpel and needles.[758] The final piece of the helmet, the skull cap, was next cut in half by pushing off the crest with long pins inserted through the bottom of the plaster head and then slicing through the middle of the head.[759] The central plaster core was then removed, and the remaining "thin skin of plaster and iron" separated into individual fragments as had been the ear flaps, neck guard and face mask.[679] This process of separation took four months and left the helmet in more than 500 fragments.[679] The result was "terrifying" to Williams.[760] "One of only two known Anglo-Saxon helmets, an object illustrated in almost every book on the early medieval period, lay in pieces."[679][note 24]

After four months of disassembly, work began on a new construction of the helmet.[679] This work was advanced largely by the discovery of new joins, marked by several breakthroughs in understanding.[248][761] The new joins were mostly found by looking at the backs of the fragments, which retained "a unique blackened, rippled and bubbly nature,"[613][614] "wrinkled like screwed up paper and very black in colour."[708] The distinctive nature is thought to result from a deteriorated leather lining permeated with iron oxide[613][132]—indeed, this is the evidence substantiating the leather lining in the Royal Armouries replica[762]—and allowed for the fragments' wrinkles to be matched under a microscope.[216] In this manner the skull cap was built out from the crest, aided by the discovery that only the two fluted strips bordering the crest were gilded; the six fragments with gilded moulding were consequently found to attach to the crest.[216] The cheek guards, meanwhile, were shaped and substantially lengthened by joining three fragments from the sinister side of the first reconstruction with two fragments from the dexter side.[763] The exposed areas by the jaw left by the first reconstruction were only eliminated near the end of the second, when an expert on arms and armour advised that the cheek guards should simply switch sides.[764]

When a "reasonable picture of the original helmet" was in view, more than nine months of work into the second reconstruction, the repositioned fragments were placed against a "featureless plaster dome."[765] This dome was itself built outwards with oil-free plasticine to match the original dimensions of the helmet.[765] The fragments were held in place with long pins until a mixture of jute and adhesive was molded to the shape of the missing areas, and adhered to the fragments.[766] The edges of the fragments were then coated with water-resistant resin,[767] and plaster was spread atop the jute to level and smooth the helmet's surface.[766] The plaster was painted light brown to resemble the colour of the fragments while allowing the fragments themselves to stand out;[768] lines were then drawn to indicate the edges of the panels.[201] The result was a hollow helmet in which the backs of the fragments remain visible.[767][768] On 2 November 1971,[769] after eighteen months of time and a full year of work by Williams, the second and current reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet was put on display.[732][735][770]

Cultural impact

The 1971 reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet was widely celebrated,[755] and in the five decades since it has come to symbolise the Middle Ages, archaeology, and England.[773][4][774] It is depicted on the covers of novels, textbooks, and scholarly publications, such as The Winter King by Bernard Cornwell and The Anglo-Saxons by James Campbell, and has influenced artists, filmmakers and designers.[775] At the same time, the helmet has become the face of a time once known as the Dark Ages, but now recognised for its sophistication—in part because of the finds from Sutton Hoo—and referred to as the Middle Ages.[776][777][773] It gives truth to a period of time known from depictions of warriors and mead halls in Beowulf, once thought fanciful, and personifies the Anglo-Saxons in post-Roman Britain.[778] Considered "the most iconic object"[2][3] from an archaeological find hailed as the "British Tutankhamen,"[779][780] in 2006 it was voted one of the 100 cultural icons of England alongside the Queen's head stamp, the double-decker bus, and the cup of tea.[781][782]


Although "universally acclaimed,"[755] the current reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet left "a number of minor problems unsolved"[617] and contains several slight inaccuracies. These are primarily confined to the neck guard, where "very little indeed of the original substance ... survives that can be positioned with any certainty."[783] Two blocks of fragments on the bottom edge, and four blocks of fragments in the middle, are only speculatively placed, leaving some uncertainty about their correct locations.[784] The resulting uncertainties relate to the placement of the individual fragments within the larger space, rather than to a problem with the proposed shape of the neck guard.

As currently reconstructed, the Sutton Hoo neck guard has three principal problems. Several fragments of design 5 are placed too high on the neck guard, which "shows more space below the lengths of transverse fluted strips than above them. The space left below is greater than the length of the die, while the space above is less than the length of the die."[785] Corrected on the Royal Armouries replica, the configuration should allow for two full impressions of design 5, of equal length, joined vertically at their ends.[786] Furthermore, the lack of fragments from the neck guard leaves open the question of how many vertical strips of design 5 were used.[787] Although seven strips were suggested in the reconstruction,[788][789] "[t]here is no evidence to indicate that there were seven vertical ornamental strips on the lower portion of the neck-guard, and the suggestion . . . that the number should be cut to five is equally possible."[787] Even if seven is the accurate number, the current reconstruction shows an "implausible inward tilt" by the two strips flanking the central one; straightening the strips "would have the effect of allowing the ornamental strips to fan out naturally, leaving evenly-expanding wedges of plain surface between them."[784] Finally, the neck guard hangs lower on the current reconstruction than it would have when made, for the top of the neck guard originally fitted inside the cap.[767] This leaves the abutting edges of the dexter cheek and neck guards at different levels, and was corrected on the Royal Armouries replica.[767]

Royal Armouries replica

In 1973 the Royal Armouries collaborated with the British Museum to create a replica of the newly restored Sutton Hoo helmet.[790][791] The museum provided a general blueprint of the design[618] along with electrotypes of the decorative elements—nose and mouth piece, eyebrows, dragon heads, and pressblech foils—leaving the Master of the Armouries A. R. Duffy, along with his assistant H. Russell Robinson and senior conservation officer armourers E. H. Smith and A. Davis to complete the task.[617][792] A number of differences in construction were observed, such as a solid crest, lead solder used to back the decorative effects, and the technique employed to inlay the silver, although the helmet hewed closely to the original design.[123] The differences led to the replica's weight of 3.74 kg (8.2 lb), or 1.24 kg (2.7 lb) heavier than the estimated weight of the original.[123] The finished replica was unveiled before an address at the Sachsensymposion in September 1973[793] with theatrical flair: the lights were dimmed; down the aisle came Nigel Williams holding a replica of the Sutton Hoo whetstone; and behind him followed Rupert Bruce-Mitford, wearing a carriage rug and with hands hieratically crossed, wearing the Royal Armouries helmet and reciting the opening lines of Beowulf.[794]

The Royal Armouries replica clarified a number of details of the original helmet, and provided an example of what it looked like when new.[790][791][795] It could also be worn and subjected to experimentation in a way the original could not.[641][618][796] In particular the reproduction showed that the neck guard would have originally been set inside the cap, allowing it to move with more freedom and ride up, and thereby demonstrated an inaccuracy in the 1971 reconstruction, where the neck guard and the dexter cheek guard are misaligned.[767] The replica also corrected a second error in the reconstruction of the neck guard by affording an equal length to both the lower and upper instances of design 5, although it probably introduced an error by placing a visible billeted border on all four sides of each design 5 impression.[786] That the replica could be worn also evinced several attributes of the original.[641][618][796] It demonstrated the ranges of motion and vision that a wearer would have,[641][618] and that with adequate padding in addition to the leather lining, people with heads of different sizes could comfortably wear the helmet.[795] It also showed that the helmet, while stifling, could realistically be worn in battle,[797] and that it would bestow upon its wearer a commanding and sonorous voice.[798] Finally, and most strikingly, the Royal Armouries replica simply showed how the Sutton Hoo helmet originally appeared.[799][792][123] It showed the helmet as a shining white object rather than a rusted brown relic, and in doing so illustrated the lines in Beowulf referring to "the white helmet . . . enhanced by treasure" (ac se hwita helm . . . since geweorðad[800]).[641][618][801]

The replica is displayed in the British Museum alongside the original helmet in Room 41.[802][6] It has also been exhibited worldwide, including stops in the United States,[803] Japan,[804] South Korea, China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.[802]


  1. These works actually record 599 as the year of Rædwald's death, before recording his death again in 624.[28][29] The former record appears to be a scribal error in which Tytila's death was mistranscribed.[28][29]
  2. A lack of syntactical precision by Bede has led to at least four different interpretations of his description of Rædwald reign.[32] Bede's Latin reads "quartus Reduald rex Orientalium Anglorum, qui etiam uiuente Aedilbercto eidem suae genti ducatum praebebat, obtenuit".[33] The traditional interpretation has been that even during the life of Æthelberht of Kent, Rædwald was building his imperium.[34] A second, controversial, reading states that Rædwald gained his imperium during Æthelberht's life, but allowed him to continue to rule Kent.[35] A third take suggests that Æthelberht held his rule throughout his life, and that during this time Rædwald conceded rule over East Anglia to him.[36][37][38][39][40][33] Finally, a fourth translation interprets Æthelberht's reign as beginning to crumble before his death, and losing control of East Anglia to Rædwald.[41][27]
  3. "Bede's Magnificent Seven", as Keynes terms them, were Ælle of Sussex, Ceawlin of Wessex, Æthelberht of Kent, Rædwald, Edwin of Northumbria, Oswald of Northumbria, and Oswiu.[45] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle added Ecgberht of Wessex to this list.[46]
  4. The utility of the coins as a dating mechanism was recognised from the outset,[53][54][55] but their purpose in the context of a 7th-century burial was less clear.[56] If mere evidence of wealth, the coins would be surprisingly meagre;[57][58] at just more than 61 grams between coins, blanks, and ingots—the former two of which are approximately equal to a Germanic shilling each and the latter of which are each about four shillings in weight—the overall weight barely equals the amount of gold in even a minor piece of jewelry from the burial.[57][59][60] The great gold buckle itself weighs 412.7 grams, or nearly a pound.[57][61] Moreover, there would be no need to round out the real coins with unstruck blanks and ingots.[62] One theory suggests that the number of coins is more important than their weight and mintage, and that it coincides with the number of oarsmen, suggested to be 40.[63][56] The gold could thus be Charon's obol, one coin apiece for the supernatural oarsmen, and two ingots for the steersman, who would carry the interred into the other world.[64][65]
  5. As T. D. Kendrick (later Sir Thomas) wrote in 1939, "Nothing like this monstrous stone exists anywhere else. It is a unique, savage thing; and inexplicable, except perhaps as a symbol, proper to the King himself, of the divinity and the mystery which surrounded the smith and his tools in the northern world."[70][92][93][94]
  6. The impression of design 4 on the top left corner of the replica cheek guard is actually upside down.
  7. With that said, the evidence for the unidentified design has changed over time, from one piece which later turned out to be part of design 2, to the seven pieces recognised today. Maryon suggested an unidentified design because of a single piece showing "a solitary leg, from knee to foot, about 12 inch [13 mm] high."[130] Williams's reconstruction moved this piece "from the bottom edge of the cap at the rear up to a position against the crest at top centre," where it was revealed to be a part of the second design after all.[131][132] The existence of an unidentified pattern was thus putatively eliminated when Bruce-Mitford claimed in his 1972 article on the new reconstruction that there were only four designs.[133] Even in the first volume of The Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial, published in 1975, he referred to the unidentified scene in the past tense, stating that "at the time of the re-excavation [1965] it was believed that there was a third figural scene on the helmet."[134] Indications of a third scene did not return until volume two of the same work, published in 1978, where seven small fragments were discussed as being incapable of placement within the four known designs.[135]
  8. There is nothing to suggest that the cap was made from more than one piece of metal, although its fragmentary state prevents this from being conclusively proven.[141] Radiographs show no "welded, forged or riveted join," while the "joining of certain fragments at the crown of the helmet demonstrates that the iron sheeting of the cap ran continuously through under the crest."[142] Based on this evidence it seems likely that the cap was made from a single piece of metal.[142]
  9. This technique is distinguished from repoussé work, a much more labor intensive process. Repoussé work uses small punches to raise individual details from behind a metal sheet,[159][160] which are then refined from the front by chasing,[159] whereas pressblech work raises a design in one operation from a single die.[157] Permutations of pressblech work involving multiple operations do, however, exist. The die used for design 5 on the Sutton Hoo helmet, for example, appears to have had a billeted border on only one each of its long and short sides,[161] while on the neck guard the design is seen with borders along both long sides.[162] "If the die was applied not one impression at a time but as seen on the face-mask, as a continuous series of impressions carefully juxtaposed, on a large sheet of foil, this could be cut in such a way as to leave the pattern with double borders down each side. It seems that this was the method used on the neck-guard."[162]
  10. Maryon states that niello was used to separate the inlaid silver wires of the eyebrows, to fill in the punched-down designs on the nasal ridge, and to surround the punched circles on the nasal bridge and lower lip.[190] Oddy, however, does not identify the helmet among the objects in the Sutton Hoo burial that exhibit the use of niello—the shield, the large hanging bowl, the great gold buckle, and the drinking horns.[191][192] With regards to the suggestion of niello on the nose, Oddy states that "[t]he metal of which these inlays are made is compact and is not corroded. In view of its condition it must be interpreted as a metallic inlay and not as niello which has subsequently been reduced to silver metal."[185]
  11. Bruce-Mitford suggests there were 23 garnets in the dexter eyebrow and 25 in the sinister,[194] but a technical report appending the chapter posits 21 and 22 respectively.[195]
  12. An alternative theory suggests that the discrepancy between eyebrows is the result of a repair job.[208] "That the absence of foils might result from a repair," however, "and presumably therefore a shortage of gold, seems unlikely in view of the minute quantities needed. Additionally, given the evident skill required to shape the gold cell walls and cut the garnets so precisely, the decision to omit the gold foils on the left eyebrow appears all the more deliberate."[193] The repair theory does not account for the absence of gold foil behind one of the garnet dragon eyes.[193] On the other hand, a repair could explain the other subtle differences between the eyebrows, such as their slightly different lengths and colours, which are not addressed by the theorized allusion to Odin.[209]
  13. The image appears as it would once mounted on a helmet.[155] The eye that was struck from the plate is the leftmost eye from the perspective of one viewing the plate—i.e., that which is furthest from the animal-like figure—but the right eye from the perspective of the possible Odin figure.
  14. Assuming that this figure, which is only partly preserved on the Sutton Hoo helmet, takes the form of the like figure on the Pliezhausen bracteate.[271]
  15. Bruce-Mitford appears reluctant to even acknowledge fragment (c) as part of Design 3. Despite writing in 1978 that "[t]he fragment is mounted in the present helmet reconstruction on the right side towards the back,"[278] in 1982 he wrote that "none of the fragments that show portions of Design 3 are mounted in the helmet. Since we know neither what this scene depicted, nor how many times it was employed, to place such fragments in the reconstructed helmet could give a false impression both of the subject and of the position it may have occupied in the decorative layout of the helmet."[284] These contradictory statements would be reconciled by accepting Bruce-Mitford's theory that fragment (c) was a scrap, and not meant to be seen.
  16. This number consolidates the work of multiple scholars. Steuer numbers the helmets from 1 through 30,[349] although he groups the five Vendel examples—three whole, two fragmentary—as #13, and the four Valsgärde examples as #15.[350] His list thus truly encompasses 37 helmets. Tweddle adds six to Steuer's list[351]—a seventh turned out not to be the tenth-century helmet that he suggested, but rather a World War II SSK 90 Luftwaffe helmet manufactured by Siemens[352][353]—but makes no mention of the fact that Steuer grouped nine helmets into two spots on his list. Tweddle's addition therefore makes 44 (37+6)—not the 37 (30+7) that he claimed.[351] To these may be added the subsequent discoveries from Wollaston, Staffordshire, Horncastle, Uppåkra, Inhåleskullen, and Gevninge, along with the boar from Guilden Morden, for a total of 50 known crested helmets.
  17. The Wollaston helmet, which was designed similarly to the Coppergate helmet,[503][307][308] may have originally had some form of neck protection. Ploughing of the field in which it was buried, however, destroyed much of the helmet, including most of the dexter side.[504] "The rear edge of the helmet's brow band is almost entirely lost through ploughing but the short section that did survive, when x-rayed, appeared to have part of at least 2 possible perforations on its damaged edge. The purpose of perforations in this position could only be to fix a neck guard of some type."[505] The remaining section of the rear edge of the brow band is only 26 mm long, however, rendering "[t]he purpose, and on such a small length the existence, of the perforations . . . uncertain."[505]
  18. In contrast to the Constantinian group, however, the cheek and neck guards on the Sutton Hoo helmet were affixed directly to the bowl.[590] Late Roman helmets tended to have an iron band along the bottom of the cap to which the lower pieces were attached, as is seen on the Duerne, Augsburg-Pfersee, and Berkasovo 1 and 2 helmets.[595]
  19. The Emesa helmet was also restored by Herbert Maryon,[607][608] who carried out the first reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet.[129] An account of the restoration was published by H. J. Plenderleith in 1956.[609]
  20. Indeed, H. Russell Robinson, an expert on Roman armour who worked at the Royal Armouries and helped with its replica of the Sutton Hoo helmet,[617][618] was the one who suggested the leather lining used in the replica.[619]
  21. In 1882, for instance, wala was defined as "some part of a helmet," with the particular lines in Beowulf only partially translated as "about the helm's top a 'wal' wire-girt guarded on the outside the head's defense (i.e. the helmet)."[657] By 1916 it was termed a "rib, comb (of helmet),"[658] and in 1922 it was said that "[t]he exact nature of a wala, which seems to be an ornamental as well as useful part of the helmet, is not known."[659] This confusion led to incorrect or speculative translations of the relevant lines, such as (1837) "[a]bout the crest of the helm, the defense of the head, it held an amulet fastened without with wires";[660] (1855) "[a]round the helmet's roof, the head-guard, with wires bound round";[661] (1914) "[r]ound the crown of the helm, as guard for the head, without, ran a rib to which plates were made fast";[662] (1921) "[a]bout the roof of that helmet / his head's safety, With wires ywounden, / a wreath guarded without";[663] and, by J. R. R. Tolkien in 1926, "[r]ound the helmet's crown the wale wound about with wire kept guard without over the head."[664] Despite the many mistranslations, a correct interpretation of the use of the word wala was theorized at least twice before the discovery of the Sutton Hoo helmet.[341] With the Vendel 1 helmet, which had a crest with "reminiscences or imitations of actual wire inlays on earlier or richer helmets,"[518][519] as his inspiration, Knut Stjerna suggested in 1912 that the "helmet had a rib or comb running up to it to its whole height and down again at the back, and this must have been the part of the helmet which is spoken of as the walu."[562] Elizabeth Martin-Clarke posed a similar idea during a 1945 lecture, stating that "probably here we may have a reference to a special part of the helmet also which resists the sword cut . . . well represented in the picture of a reconstructed helmet from Vendel [1]."[665]
  22. In a list of thirteen "hard-learned lessons" for the excavation of any future ship-burial that were given in a 1973 lecture, Bruce-Mitford would start the list with "[y]ou cannot take too many photographs" and "[y]ou cannot use too much colour film."[684]
  23. The only published criticism may have been that of Sune Lindqvist, who wrote that the reconstruction "needs revision in certain respects."[730][731] Lindqvist's only specific criticism, however, was that the face mask was "set somewhat awry in the reconstruction."[730] Bruce-Mitford was undoubtedly aware of Lindqvist's criticism when he wrote that the first reconstruction was not criticised in print, for he was the English translator of Lindqvist's article. He was thus likely referring to the more substantial criticisms of the reconstruction, such as its gaps in afforded protection, which indeed do not seem to have been published.
  24. Although Bruce-Mitford wrote that the new reconstruction had to be done "without sustaining the slightest damage",[131][132] some damage did occur during the process. Part of the fragment of design 1 showing the face and body of a dancing warrior was crushed; its nose and mouth was later restored.[233]
  25. These are primarily limited to metal albums, and include some anachronistic depictions on Viking Metal album covers.[826] If viking metallers have "read extensively" they have often done so "uncritically," eliding several centuries to join the Sutton Hoo helmet with the Viking Age.[826]


  1. Donahue 2006, 13:46.
  2. Google Arts & Culture.
  3. Davis 2013.
  4. Richards 1992, p. 131.
  5. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. xxxvii, 718–731.
  6. British Museum a.
  7. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 138–231.
  8. Evans 1986, pp. 32–40, 46–49.
  9. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 144, 156.
  10. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 488–577.
  11. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 198.
  12. Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 120.
  13. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 138.
  14. Lindqvist 1950, pp. 3–4, 24.
  15. Arwidsson 1942, pp. 30–31.
  16. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 138 n.2.
  17. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 683.
  18. Phillips 1987, p. x.
  19. Campbell 1992, p. 80.
  20. Campbell 2000, pp. 57–58.
  21. Keynes 1992, p. 103.
  22. Bruce-Mitford 1948c, p. 228.
  23. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 73.
  24. Campbell 1992, p. 82.
  25. Campbell 2000, p. 61.
  26. Campbell 2014.
  27. Keynes 1992, pp. 106–107.
  28. Chadwick 1940, p. 79.
  29. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 696.
  30. Keynes 1992, p. 104.
  31. Chadwick 1940, p. 80.
  32. Keynes 1992, pp. 104–107.
  33. Keynes 1992, p. 106.
  34. Keynes 1992, pp. 105–106.
  35. Vollrath-Reichelt 1971, pp. 80–88.
  36. Giles 1849, p. 76.
  37. Wormald 1983, p. 106 n.30.
  38. Wormald 2006, p. 110 n.30.
  39. Brooks 1984, pp. 63–64, 64 n.3.
  40. Wallace-Hadrill 1988, p. 59.
  41. Wallace-Hadrill 1971, pp. 31–32.
  42. Wormald 2006, p. 131 n.1.
  43. Keynes 1992, pp. 103–104, 111.
  44. Chadwick 1940, pp. 79, 79 n.5.
  45. Keynes 1992, pp. 104–105, 109.
  46. Keynes 1992, p. 111.
  47. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 699.
  48. Wilson 1992, p. 10.
  49. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 578.
  50. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 578, 588.
  51. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 578, 586.
  52. Grierson 1970.
  53. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 588.
  54. Kendrick, Kitzinger & Allen 1939, p. 126.
  55. Crawford 1940, p. 64.
  56. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 586–587.
  57. Grierson 1970, p. 15.
  58. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 587.
  59. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 587, 652.
  60. Stahl 1992, p. 11.
  61. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 536.
  62. Grierson 1970, p. 17.
  63. Grierson 1970, pp. 15–16.
  64. Grierson 1970, pp. 16–17.
  65. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 586–587, 684.
  66. Lafaurie 1959–1960, p. 165.
  67. Prou 1892.
  68. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 580–582, 588.
  69. Bruce-Mitford & Allan 1952, pp. 78–82.
  70. Kendrick, Kitzinger & Allen 1939, p. 128.
  71. Bruce-Mitford 1947, pp. 42–43.
  72. Bruce-Mitford & Allan 1952, p. 82.
  73. Chadwick 1940, p. 82.
  74. Oddy & Hughes 1972.
  75. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 589–590, 648–653, 698.
  76. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 606–607.
  77. Brown 1981, p. 84.
  78. Stahl & Oddy 1992, p. 136.
  79. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 584–585, 589.
  80. Maddicott 1993, p. 968.
  81. Keynes 1992, pp. 103, 103 n.1.
  82. Donahue 2006, 11:43.
  83. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 688–689.
  84. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 532–534.
  85. Hines 2010, pp. 154–155, 166–168.
  86. Price & Mortimer 2014, pp. 521–522, 533–534.
  87. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 352–354.
  88. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 352–354, 394–400.
  89. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 315, 346.
  90. Mortimer & Pollington 2013, pp. 141–144, 166–168.
  91. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 311, 346.
  92. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 77.
  93. Wallace-Hadrill 1975, p. 47.
  94. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 373.
  95. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 715–716.
  96. Carver 1992, pp. 180–181.
  97. Carver 1995, pp. 116, 120, 122.
  98. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 707.
  99. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 706–710.
  100. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 294–297, 304–305.
  101. Kaske 1967.
  102. Ward 1952, pp. 9–10.
  103. Sherlock 1972, pp. 94–95.
  104. Kitzinger 1940, p. 59.
  105. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 707–709.
  106. Wilson 1992, pp. 9–10.
  107. MacGregor 2011, p. 305.
  108. Chadwick 1940, p. 77.
  109. Wallace-Hadrill 1975, p. 40.
  110. Carver 1986, p. 83.
  111. Wallace-Hadrill 1975, pp. 40–41.
  112. Carver 1986, p. 84.
  113. Campbell 1992, p. 85.
  114. Campbell 2000, p. 65.
  115. Maddicott 1993, p. 969.
  116. Wallace-Hadrill 1975, pp. 41–49.
  117. Wilson 1992, p. 9.
  118. Carver 1986, pp. 88, 97.
  119. Hines 2010, pp. 156, 161.
  120. Campbell 1992, p. 84–85.
  121. Campbell 1992, p. 64–65.
  122. Wood 1983, p. 14.
  123. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 185.
  124. Maryon 1947, p. 137.
  125. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 140.
  126. Maryon 1947, p. 138.
  127. Maryon 1947, pp. 137–140, 143.
  128. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 146–150, 186–202.
  129. Maryon 1947.
  130. Maryon 1947, p. 139.
  131. Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 128.
  132. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 207.
  133. Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 121.
  134. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 232.
  135. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 197–199.
  136. Bruce-Mitford 1949, p. 47–50.
  137. Bruce-Mitford 1972, pp. 121–122, 128–130.
  138. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 199–200, 207–208.
  139. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 140–146.
  140. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 152, 203.
  141. Hood et al. 2012, p. 95 n.4.
  142. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 152.
  143. Maryon 1947, p. 140.
  144. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 171.
  145. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 204.
  146. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 172.
  147. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 171–172.
  148. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 174.
  149. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 163–164.
  150. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 163.
  151. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 167.
  152. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 146, 204.
  153. Bruce-Mitford 1949, p. 47 n.194.
  154. Bruce-Mitford 1982, p. 220.
  155. Coatsworth & Pinder 2002, pp. 109–110.
  156. Bruce-Mitford 1968b, p. 233.
  157. Coatsworth & Pinder 2002, pp. 109–114.
  158. Hawthorne & Smith 1979, pp. 153–154.
  159. Maryon 1971, pp. 113–116.
  160. Coatsworth & Pinder 2002, pp. 108–109.
  161. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 201–202.
  162. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 202.
  163. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 111 n.1, 226–227.
  164. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 150, 205, 227.
  165. Williams 1992, pp. 80–81.
  166. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 146, 227.
  167. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 146.
  168. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 158, 203.
  169. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 152–155.
  170. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 159.
  171. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 205.
  172. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 161.
  173. Maryon 1947, p. 141.
  174. Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 122.
  175. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 200.
  176. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 168–169.
  177. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 169, 228–230.
  178. Maryon 1947, pp. 141–142.
  179. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 163–164, 168–169.
  180. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 164.
  181. Maryon 1947, p. 142.
  182. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 164–167.
  183. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 165.
  184. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 165–167.
  185. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 231.
  186. Maryon 1971, p. 120.
  187. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 167–168.
  188. Maryon 1947, pp. 142–143.
  189. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 168.
  190. Maryon 1947, pp. 141–143.
  191. Oddy 1980, pp. 182–183.
  192. Oddy 2004, pp. 275–276.
  193. Price & Mortimer 2014, p. 521.
  194. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 169.
  195. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 229–230.
  196. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 229.
  197. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 160, 169.
  198. Coatsworth & Pinder 2002, pp. 141–142.
  199. Price & Mortimer 2014, p. 520.
  200. Brunning 2019.
  201. Williams 1992, p. 86.
  202. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 204–205.
  203. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 160, 205.
  204. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 169, 204–205.
  205. Newton 1993, p. 37.
  206. Price & Mortimer 2014, p. 532.
  207. Price & Mortimer 2014, p. 522.
  208. Marzinzik 2007, pp. 29–30.
  209. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 239.
  210. Maryon 1947, pp. 140, 144.
  211. Bruce-Mitford 1972, pp. 122, 124.
  212. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 200, 204.
  213. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 155, 158, 169, 205.
  214. Maryon 1947, p. 144.
  215. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 186–189.
  216. Williams 1992, p. 80.
  217. Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 207.
  218. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 172–173.
  219. Bruce-Mitford 1949, p. 50.
  220. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 187.
  221. Bruce-Mitford 1948a, p. 6.
  222. Archaeological News Letter 1948.
  223. Bruce-Mitford 1949, pp. 49–50.
  224. Bruce-Mitford 1950a, p. 449.
  225. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 186.
  226. Bruce-Mitford 1989a.
  227. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 188.
  228. Holmqvist 1960, pp. 103, 109.
  229. Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 129.
  230. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 208.
  231. Holmqvist 1960, p. 109.
  232. Holmqvist 1960, pp. 121–122.
  233. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 189.
  234. Holmqvist 1960, pp. 104–106.
  235. Tacitus 1868, p. 17.
  236. Tacitus 1886, p. 14.
  237. Holmqvist 1960, p. 122.
  238. Holmqvist 1960.
  239. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 189 n.3.
  240. Bruce-Mitford 1949, p. 49.
  241. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 208.
  242. Nerman 1948, pp. 79–81.
  243. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 214.
  244. Arrhenius & Freij 1992, p. 76.
  245. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 190–197.
  246. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 190.
  247. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 199.
  248. Bruce-Mitford 1972, pp. 126–127.
  249. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 202–203.
  250. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 146–149.
  251. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 192.
  252. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 197.
  253. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 190–193.
  254. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 192–193, 195–197.
  255. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 193, 197.
  256. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 193–194, 196–197.
  257. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 37–39.
  258. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 193–196.
  259. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 196.
  260. Haseloff 1979, p. 82.
  261. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 194.
  262. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 193.
  263. Arwidsson 1977, p. 121.
  264. Bruce-Mitford 1986, pp. 198, 200.
  265. Carver 2005, p. 240.
  266. Mackintosh 1986.
  267. Mackintosh 1986, p. 1.
  268. Haseloff 1979, p. 80.
  269. Beck 1964, p. 6.
  270. Beck 1964, p. 43.
  271. Haseloff 1979, pp. 82–83.
  272. Beck 1964, pp. 42–43.
  273. Beck 1964, pp. 43–44.
  274. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 186–187.
  275. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 190–191.
  276. Arwidsson 1942, pp. 29–31.
  277. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 197–198.
  278. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 198.
  279. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 154.
  280. Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 125.
  281. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 205.
  282. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 159–163.
  283. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 224–225.
  284. Bruce-Mitford 1982, p. 272 n.31.
  285. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 146–150.
  286. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 149.
  287. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 150.
  288. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 200–201.
  289. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 200.
  290. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 201.
  291. Steuer 1987, p. 200 n.32.
  292. Bruce-Mitford 1952, pp. 724–725.
  293. Christensen 2000, pp. 34–35.
  294. Christensen 2002, pp. 43–44.
  295. MacGregor 2011, p. 304.
  296. Almgren 1983, pp. 12–13.
  297. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1167–1169.
  298. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 214.
  299. Bruce-Mitford 1952, pp. 707, 752 n.21.
  300. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 210.
  301. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 158.
  302. Donahue 2006, 13:59.
  303. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 157.
  304. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 199, 224–225.
  305. Donahue 2006, 13:32.
  306. Hood et al. 2012, p. 93.
  307. Meadows 2004, p. 25.
  308. Read 2006, p. 39.
  309. Christensen 2000, p. 34.
  310. Christensen 2002, p. 43.
  311. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1067–1070.
  312. Stjerna 1912, pp. 1–2.
  313. Tweddle 1992, p. 1169.
  314. Cramp 1957, pp. 57, 60.
  315. Hood et al. 2012, pp. 93, 93 n.8.
  316. Butterworth et al. 2016, p. 41 n.27.
  317. Tweddle 1992, p. 1167.
  318. Hood et al. 2012, pp. 83–84.
  319. Read 2006, p. 38.
  320. Johnson 1980, p. 303.
  321. Donahue 2006, 13:22.
  322. Lindqvist 1948b, p. 137.
  323. Lindqvist 1948a, p. 105.
  324. Bruce-Mitford 1949, p. 74.
  325. Bruce-Mitford 1950b, p. 71.
  326. Whitelock 1958, p. 91.
  327. Brady 1979, p. 91.
  328. Stjerna 1912, p. 1.
  329. Christensen 2000, p. 35.
  330. Christensen 2002, p. 44.
  331. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 210–214.
  332. Tweddle 1992, p. 1170.
  333. Alföldi 1934, p. 140.
  334. Donahue 2006, 12:31.
  335. Almgren 1983, p. 12.
  336. Ambrosiani 1983, p. 25.
  337. Gamber 1966, p. 285.
  338. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 225.
  339. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 224.
  340. Frank 1992, p. 47.
  341. Frank 1992, pp. 54–55.
  342. Steuer 1987, pp. 199–203, 230–231.
  343. Tweddle 1992, p. 1086.
  344. Steuer 1987, pp. 190–197, 227–229.
  345. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1082–1084, 1087.
  346. Steuer 1987, pp. 197–198, 229–230.
  347. Tweddle 1992, p. 1082–1083, 1085.
  348. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1083, 1086.
  349. Steuer 1987, pp. 230–231.
  350. Steuer 1987, p. 231.
  351. Tweddle 1992, p. 1083.
  352. Strong 2002.
  353. Nederlandse Munten.
  354. Tweddle 1992, p. 1090.
  355. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1083, 1086, 1125.
  356. Steuer 1987, pp. 199–200.
  357. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1086–1087.
  358. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 223.
  359. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 210.
  360. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 212–214.
  361. Meadows 1996–97.
  362. Meadows 1997a.
  363. Meadows 1997b.
  364. Meadows 2004.
  365. Read 2006.
  366. Saraceni 1997.
  367. Webster & Meadows 1997.
  368. Marzinzik 2007, pp. 40–42.
  369. Frank 2008, pp. 76, 78, 87.
  370. Mortimer 2011, pp. 38–39.
  371. Butterworth et al. 2016.
  372. Fern & Speake 2014, pp. 34–37.
  373. Pilkington 2012.
  374. Fordham 1904.
  375. Foster 1977a.
  376. Foster 1977b, pp. 23, 27.
  377. Meadows 2004, p. 16.
  378. Marzinzik 2007, p. 42.
  379. Mortimer 2011, p. 40.
  380. British Museum e.
  381. Jarvis 1850.
  382. Meaney 1964, pp. 152–153.
  383. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 208, pl. 54b.
  384. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 206–207.
  385. Storms 1978, p. 337.
  386. Wilson 1983, p. 165.
  387. Steuer 1987, pp. 199, 230.
  388. British Museum f.
  389. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1083, 1086, 1092.
  390. Leeds 1924.
  391. Meaney 1964, p. 203.
  392. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 207.
  393. Dickinson & Speake 1992.
  394. MacGregor & Bolick 1993, p. 15.
  395. Ashmolean 2005.
  396. Meaney 1964, pp. 228, 231.
  397. Evans 2004.
  398. Portable Antiquities Scheme 2012.
  399. Boye 1858.
  400. Ohlhaver 1939.
  401. Munksgaard 1984.
  402. Leth-Larsen 1984.
  403. Lund 2006.
  404. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1086, 1125–1129.
  405. Nationalmuseets.
  406. Christensen 2002, pp. 42–43.
  407. Mortimer 2011, p. 37.
  408. Price & Mortimer 2014, pp. 523–524.
  409. Christensen 2015, pp. 232–233.
  410. Grieg 1947.
  411. Addyman, Pearson & Tweddle 1982, p. 192.
  412. Tweddle 1983a, p. 109.
  413. Munksgaard 1984, pp. 87–88.
  414. Steuer 1987, pp. 200, 231.
  415. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1059, 1086, 1125–1129.
  416. Grieg 1924, pp. 6–7.
  417. Gudesen 1980, pp. 55, pl. 20.
  418. Arwidsson 1954, p. 32.
  419. Nicolaysen 1882, p. 71.
  420. Grieg 1924, pp. 3–4.
  421. Arwidsson 1934, pp. 252–253.
  422. Herben Jr. 1937, pp. 34–35.
  423. Grieg 1924, pp. 3–6.
  424. Nerman 1953.
  425. Steuer 1987, pp. 199, 231.
  426. Arwidsson 1977, p. 27.
  427. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1086, 1092.
  428. Statens Historiska Museum.
  429. Stolpe & Arne 1912, pp. 39, pl. XXVII figs. 11, 16.
  430. Stolpe & Arne 1927, pp. 39, pl. XXVII figs. 11, 16.
  431. Arwidsson 1934, pp. 253–254.
  432. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 208, 208 n.2.
  433. Stolpe & Arne 1912, pp. 42–43, pl. XXX figs. 4–6, pl. XXXI fig. 1, pl. XXXII fig. 2.
  434. Stolpe & Arne 1927, pp. 42–43, pl. XXX figs. 4–6, pl. XXXI fig. 1, pl. XXXII fig. 2.
  435. Lindqvist 1950, pp. 1, 9–11, 21.
  436. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 208, 208 n.1.
  437. Lindqvist 1936, pp. 171–172.
  438. Bruce-Mitford 1949, pp. 50, 64, pl. X.
  439. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 40, 50, pl. 14.
  440. Arwidsson 1977, pp. 27, 29, 117, fig. 31.
  441. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 208, 214–215, 218, 225.
  442. Steuer 1987, pp. 199–200, 231.
  443. Arrhenius & Freij 1992.
  444. Seiler 2011.
  445. Seiler & Appelgren 2012.
  446. Sjösvärd, Vretemark & Gustavson 1983, p. 137.
  447. Fornvännen 1907, p. 208.
  448. Lindqvist 1925, pp. 192–194, 205.
  449. Grieg 1947, pp. 44–45.
  450. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 158 n.3, 209.
  451. Munksgaard 1984, p. 87.
  452. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1125–1126.
  453. Thunmark-Nylén 1998, taf. 264.
  454. Thunmark-Nylén 2000b, pp. 521–522.
  455. Thunmark-Nylén 2000c, p. 1070.
  456. Thunmark-Nylén 2006a, p. 317.
  457. Månadsblad 1907, pp. 169–171.
  458. Lindqvist 1925, pp. 193–194.
  459. Nerman 1969a, Fig. 601.
  460. Nerman 1969b, p. 13.
  461. Nerman 1975, pp. 29, 102–103, 158.
  462. Arwidsson 1977, pp. 27, 29.
  463. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1086, 1104–1109.
  464. Nerman 1969a, Fig. 602.
  465. Nerman 1975, pp. 29, 104–105, 158.
  466. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1086, 1090.
  467. Nerman 1969a, Fig. 607.
  468. Nerman 1969b, p. 14.
  469. Nerman 1975, pp. 30, 158, 187.
  470. Arwidsson 1977, pp. 27, 29, 29 n.4, abb. 30.
  471. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 158 n.3.
  472. Marzinzik 2007, p. 34.
  473. Nerman 1969a, Fig. 609.
  474. Nerman 1975, pp. 30, 104–105, 158.
  475. Nerman 1969a, Fig. 603.
  476. Nerman 1975, pp. 29, 158, 198.
  477. Nerman 1969a, Fig. 604.
  478. Nerman 1975, pp. 29, 158, 184.
  479. Nerman 1969a, Fig. 605.
  480. Nerman 1975, pp. 29, 94–95, 158.
  481. Nerman 1969a, Fig. 606.
  482. Nerman 1975, pp. 29, 98–99, 158.
  483. Helgesson 2004, pp. 231–232.
  484. Stjernquist 2004, pp. 126–127.
  485. Larsson 2007, pp. 19–20.
  486. Larsson 2011, p. 196.
  487. Uppåkra Arkeologiska Center.
  488. Price & Mortimer 2014, pp. 523, 525, 531.
  489. Kirpichnikov 1971, pp. 24, fig. 24.
  490. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1083, 1086–1087, 1125–1132.
  491. Tweddle 1992, p. 1095.
  492. Tweddle 1984, p. 20.
  493. Tweddle 1992, pp. 989, 1094.
  494. Butterworth et al. 2016, pp. 32, 41.
  495. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 152, 203, 214.
  496. Tweddle 1984, pp. 13, 15.
  497. Tweddle 1992, pp. 941, 946.
  498. Hood et al. 2012, pp. 83, 85.
  499. Meadows 2004, pp. 9–10.
  500. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 231–232.
  501. Lester 1987, p. 34.
  502. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 230–231.
  503. Meadows 1996–97, pp. 192–193.
  504. Meadows 2004, pp. 2–3, 9, 25.
  505. Meadows 2004, p. 9.
  506. Tweddle 1984, pp. 20–21.
  507. Tweddle 1992, pp. 999–1009.
  508. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 233.
  509. Tweddle 1992, pp. 946, 952.
  510. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 231.
  511. Meadows 2004, p. 11.
  512. Meadows 2004, pp. 9, 16.
  513. Read 2006, p. 42.
  514. Meadows 2004, p. 6.
  515. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 241.
  516. Tweddle 1984, p. 15.
  517. Tweddle 1992, p. 1094.
  518. Bruce-Mitford 1952, p. 752 n.21.
  519. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 211.
  520. Webster 1998, p. 188.
  521. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1094–1095.
  522. Butterworth et al. 2016, p. 41.
  523. Butterworth et al. 2016, p. 31.
  524. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 210–212.
  525. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1092, 1104–1106.
  526. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 212.
  527. Lindqvist 1931a, p. 9.
  528. Lindqvist 1932, p. 31.
  529. Lindqvist 1932, pp. 25–26.
  530. Gamber 1982, p. 210.
  531. Bruce-Mitford 1982, p. 253.
  532. Lindqvist 1925, pp. 183–184.
  533. Lindqvist 1932, pp. 30–31.
  534. Tweddle 1992, p. 1111–1112.
  535. Arwidsson 1934, pp. 244–245, 253–254.
  536. Arwidsson 1942, pp. 28–29.
  537. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1092, 1115, 1119.
  538. Arwidsson 1934, p. 254.
  539. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 215.
  540. Stolpe & Arne 1912, p. 13.
  541. Stolpe & Arne 1927, p. 13.
  542. Stolpe & Arne 1912, p. 46.
  543. Stolpe & Arne 1927, pp. 46–47.
  544. Arwidsson 1934, p. 253.
  545. Tweddle 1992, p. 1105.
  546. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1104–1106.
  547. Lindqvist 1925, pp. 182–183.
  548. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1111–1112, 1112.
  549. Arwidsson 1954, pp. 22–23.
  550. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1119–1121.
  551. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1119–1120.
  552. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1106–1107.
  553. Stolpe & Arne 1912, p. 53–54.
  554. Stolpe & Arne 1927, p. 54.
  555. Tweddle 1992, p. 1106.
  556. Arwidsson 1977, pp. 21–22.
  557. Tweddle 1992, p. 1119.
  558. Arwidsson 1942, pp. 26–27.
  559. Lindqvist 1931a, pp. 5, 8.
  560. Tweddle 1992, pp. 1111, 1113–1114.
  561. Steuer 1987, p. 200.
  562. Stjerna 1912, p. 14.
  563. Lindqvist 1925, pp. 198–199.
  564. Martin-Clarke 1947, pp. 63, pl. XV.
  565. Stolpe & Arne 1927, p. 46.
  566. Stolpe & Arne 1912, p. 42.
  567. Stolpe & Arne 1927, p. 42.
  568. Nerman 1953, p. 123.
  569. Lindqvist 1925, pp. 192–194.
  570. Grieg 1947, p. 45.
  571. Arwidsson 1954, pp. 25–26.
  572. Stolpe & Arne 1912, p. 53.
  573. Stolpe & Arne 1927, p. 53.
  574. Stolpe & Arne 1912, p. 54.
  575. Price & Mortimer 2014, pp. 523–524, 531.
  576. Arwidsson 1954, p. 28.
  577. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 218–220.
  578. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 214–215.
  579. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 218.
  580. Bruce-Mitford 1948b, pp. 397–398.
  581. Bruce-Mitford 1986, p. 198.
  582. Evans 2001, p. 59.
  583. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 220.
  584. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 219–223.
  585. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 219–222.
  586. Nickel 2002, p. 112.
  587. Johnson 1980, p. 309.
  588. James 1986, p. 113.
  589. James 1986, pp. 109, 131–132.
  590. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 203.
  591. Hood et al. 2012, p. 92.
  592. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 171–172, 185.
  593. Williams 1992, pp. 85–85.
  594. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 174, 174 n.1, 185.
  595. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 203, 219, 221.
  596. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 210–212, 214.
  597. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 178–179, 219–220.
  598. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 176.
  599. Kaminski & Sim 2014, pp. 71, 75, 79, 81.
  600. British Museum g.
  601. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 178–179.
  602. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 219–220, 222–223.
  603. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 223–224.
  604. British Museum h.
  605. Seyrig 1952a, p. 69.
  606. Seyrig 1952b, p. 105.
  607. Huey 1962a.
  608. Huey 1962b.
  609. Plenderleith 1956.
  610. Seyrig 1952a, p. 66–67.
  611. Seyrig 1952b, p. 101.
  612. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 179, 231.
  613. Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 127.
  614. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 206–207.
  615. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 203, 203 n.2.
  616. Robinson 1975, p. 144.
  617. Bruce-Mitford 1974b, p. 6.
  618. Bruce-Mitford 1974c, p. 286.
  619. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 203 n.2.
  620. Webster 1998, pp. 188–189.
  621. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 219–220.
  622. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 219, 222–223.
  623. Frank 1992, p. 59.
  624. Frank 2008, p. 78.
  625. Stanley 1981, p. 205.
  626. Cramp 1957, p. 60.
  627. Cramp 1957, p. 63.
  628. Beowulf, ll. 303–306, 1110–1112, 1286, 1327–1328, 1448–1454.
  629. Hatto 1957a, pp. 155–156.
  630. Speake 1980, p. 80.
  631. Bateman 1861, p. 33.
  632. Cramp 1957, pp. 62–63.
  633. Davidson 1968, p. 354.
  634. Chaney 1970, pp. 123–124.
  635. Beowulf, ll. 301–306.
  636. Heaney 2000, pp. 21–23.
  637. Cramp 1957, p. 62.
  638. Beowulf, l. 1453.
  639. Beowulf, ll. 1448–1450.
  640. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 200–201.
  641. Bruce-Mitford 1974b, p. 7.
  642. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 185, 205, 205 n.1.
  643. Newton 1993, p. 41.
  644. Beowulf, l. 1451.
  645. Cramp 1957, pp. 61–62.
  646. Herben Jr. 1937.
  647. Beowulf, ll. 1110–1112, 1286, 1327–1328.
  648. Cramp 1957, pp. 59, 62–63.
  649. Heaney 2000, p. 93.
  650. Beowulf, ll. 1326–1328.
  651. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 208–210, 216–217.
  652. Stolpe & Arne 1927, pl. V.
  653. Beowulf, ll. 1025–1034.
  654. Heaney 2000, p. 69.
  655. Arnold 1876, p. 70.
  656. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 210–213.
  657. Bosworth & Toller 1882, p. 1163.
  658. Hall 1916, p. 342.
  659. Klaeber 1922, p. 164.
  660. Kemble 1837, p. 43.
  661. Thorpe 1855, p. 69.
  662. Hall 1914, p. 37.
  663. Moncrieff 1921, p. 39.
  664. Tolkien 2014, p. 42.
  665. Martin-Clarke 1947, p. 63.
  666. Frank 1992, p. 55.
  667. Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 124.
  668. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 204.
  669. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 210–211.
  670. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 213.
  671. Bruce-Mitford 1972, pp. 124–125.
  672. Beowulf, l. 2257.
  673. Beowulf, ll. 396, 2049, 2605.
  674. Beowulf, l. 334.
  675. Beowulf, l. 2661.
  676. Newton 1993, p. 33.
  677. Cramp 1957, pp. 63, 63 n.30.
  678. Brady 1979, p. 90.
  679. Williams 1992, p. 77.
  680. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 742–743.
  681. Bruce-Mitford 1979, p. 13.
  682. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 138–140.
  683. Williams 1992, p. 73.
  684. Bruce-Mitford 1979, p. 10.
  685. Daily Mail 1939a.
  686. Daily Mail 1939b, p. 10.
  687. Kendrick, Kitzinger & Allen 1939, p. 111.
  688. Kendrick 1940, p. 180.
  689. Phillips et al. 1940, p. 163.
  690. Kendrick, Kitzinger & Allen 1939, p. 113.
  691. Kendrick, Kitzinger & Allen 1939, p. 130.
  692. Kendrick 1940, p. 174.
  693. Phillips et al. 1940, pp. 163, 168.
  694. Phillips 1940, p. 14.
  695. Phillips 1941, p. 256.
  696. Bruce-Mitford 1949, p. 9 n.34.
  697. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 747.
  698. Bruce-Mitford 1947, p. 11.
  699. Lambert 2014.
  700. Cunliffe 2016.
  701. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. xxxvii.
  702. Bruce-Mitford 1946, pp. 2–4.
  703. Martin-Clarke 1947, p. 63 n.19.
  704. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 228.
  705. Bruce-Mitford 1989b, p. 14.
  706. Carver 2004, p. 25.
  707. Bruce-Mitford 1947, p. 24.
  708. Williams 1992, p. 78.
  709. Williams 1992, pp. 74–75.
  710. Maryon 1947, pp. 143–144.
  711. Bruce-Mitford 1972, pp. 121, 126.
  712. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 200, 203.
  713. Williams 1992, p. 74.
  714. Williams 1992, p. 6.
  715. Williams 1992, pp. 74, 77.
  716. Donahue 2006, 23:39.
  717. Festival of Britain Catalogue 1951, pp. 106, 114.
  718. Life 1951, pp. 19, 82–83.
  719. Gerwardus 2011.
  720. London Gazette 1956, p. 3113.
  721. Bruce-Mitford 1965.
  722. Bruce-Mitford 1983a, p. xliii.
  723. Marzinzik 2007, pp. 16–17.
  724. Mitchell 1970.
  725. Mitchell 1971.
  726. Grohskopf 1970, p. 68.
  727. Caple 2000, pp. 133–134.
  728. Caple 2000, p. 133.
  729. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 199.
  730. Lindqvist 1948b, p. 136.
  731. Green 1963, p. 69.
  732. Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 123.
  733. Bruce-Mitford 1972, pp. 123–124.
  734. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 201, 204.
  735. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 201.
  736. Ordnance Survey 1966, pp. i, iii.
  737. Browne 1991, p. 56.
  738. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 232, 278.
  739. Van Geersdaele 1969.
  740. Van Geersdaele 1970.
  741. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 280–288, 301–302.
  742. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 230–236.
  743. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 170–171.
  744. Bruce-Mitford 1968a, pp. 36–37.
  745. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 170.
  746. Bruce-Mitford 1979, p. 5.
  747. Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 232, 311.
  748. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 232 n.3.
  749. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 171.
  750. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 335.
  751. Bruce-Mitford 1968a, p. 36.
  752. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 278.
  753. Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 279.
  754. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 156.
  755. Oddy 1992.
  756. Institution of Mechanical Engineers 1918.
  757. Mapping Sculpture 2011.
  758. Williams 1992, p. 75.
  759. Williams 1992, pp. 75–77.
  760. Williams 1989, p. 6.
  761. Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 206.
  762. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 179.
  763. Williams 1992, p. 79.
  764. Williams 1992, pp. 85–86.
  765. Williams 1992, p. 84.
  766. Williams 1992, p. 85.
  767. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 181.
  768. Bruce-Mitford 1982, p. 251.
  769. Marzinzik 2007, p. 28.
  770. Blake 1971.
  771. English Rural Life helmet.
  772. Butcher & Mitchell 2010, p. 16.
  773. Marzinzik 2007, p. 61.
  774. MacGregor 2011, pp. 301–303.
  775. Marzinzik 2007, pp. 59–60.
  776. MacGregor 2011, pp. 301, 305.
  777. BBC 2010.
  778. MacGregor 2011, pp. 303–305.
  779. Daily Mail 1939b.
  780. MacGregor 2011, p. 303.
  781. BBC News 2006.
  782. Culture24.
  783. Bruce-Mitford 1982, p. 257.
  784. Bruce-Mitford 1982, p. 259.
  785. Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 176 n.1.
  786. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 176, 176 n.1.
  787. Bruce-Mitford 1982, p. 258.
  788. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 144, 148.
  789. Bruce-Mitford 1982, pp. 258–259.
  790. Bruce-Mitford 1974b.
  791. Bruce-Mitford 1974c.
  792. Bruce-Mitford 1974c, pp. 285–286.
  793. Sachsensymposion.
  794. Biddle 2015, p. 84.
  795. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 181–185.
  796. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 152 n.1, 181–185.
  797. Donahue 2006, 13:51.
  798. Donahue 2006, 8:27.
  799. Bruce-Mitford 1974b, pp. 6–7.
  800. Beowulf, ll. 1448–1450.
  801. Bruce-Mitford 1978, pp. 185, 205, 205 n.1, 214.
  802. British Museum replica.
  803. Connor 2003, pp. 42, 98.
  804. Asahi Shimbun 2003, pp. 146–147.
  805. Phillips 1987, pp. 148, 162.
  806. Bruce-Mitford 1982, p. 272 n.28.
  807. van der Heide.
  808. Sinclair User 1983.
  809. Brunning 2017.
  810. Porck 2015.
  811. Weetch 2014.
  812. Brookes 2016.
  813. Porck 2017.
  814. Money & Medals Net 2017.
  815. Cocke 2009.
  816. Cocke 2013, pp. 251–252.
  817. Axle Arts 2015a.
  818. Axle Arts 2015b.
  819. CollectGBStamps.
  820. Ipswich Star 2003.
  821. Daily Mail 2003.
  822. British Museum b.
  823. British Museum c.
  824. British Museum d.
  825. Subsaga.
  826. Trafford & Pluskowski 2007, p. 65.
  827. Manillaungol 2016.
  828. Songfacts.
  829. Up the Downstair 2012.
  830. Marzinzik 2007, pp. 58–59.


Other helmets


Benty Grange





  • Meadows, Ian (1996–97). "The Pioneer Helmet". Northamptonshire Archaeology. Northamptonshire Archaeological Society. 27: 191–193.
  • Meadows, Ian (September 1997). "Wollaston: The 'Pioneer' Burial". Current Archaeology. Current Publishing. 13 (154): 391–395. ISSN 0011-3212.
  • Meadows, Ian (Autumn–Winter 1997b). "The Pioneer Helmet: A Dark-Age Princely Burial from Northamptonshire". Medieval Life. Medieval Life Publications (8): 2–4. ISSN 1357-6291.
  • Meadows, Ian (March 2004). "An Anglian Warrior Burial from Wollaston, Northamptonshire". Northamptonshire Archaeology Reports (2010 digital ed.). Northamptonshire County Council. 10 (110).
  • Read, Anthony (2006). "The conservation of the Wollaston Anglian helmet". In Smith, Robert Douglas (ed.). Make all sure: The conservation and restoration of arms and armour. Leeds: Basiliscoe Press. pp. 38–43. ISBN 0-9551622-0-3.
  • Saraceni, Jessica E. (November–December 1997). "Saxon Helmet Restored". Newsbriefs. Archaeology. Archaeological Institute of America. 50 (6): 18. ISSN 0003-8113.
  • Webster, Leslie & Meadows, Ian (July–August 1997). "Discovery of Anglo-Saxon Helmet helmet with Boar Crest". Minerva. 8 (4): 3–5.



Gamla Uppsala


  • Nerman, Birger (1969a). Die Vendelzeit Gotlands (II): Tafeln. Monographien Herausgegehen von der Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien (in German). 48. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
  • Nerman, Birger (1969b). Die Vendelzeit Gotlands: Provisorisches Verzeichnis der Tafelfiguren (in German). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
  • Nerman, Birger (1975). Die Vendelzeit Gotlands (I:1): Text. Monographien Herausgegehen von der Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien (in German). 55. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. ISBN 91-7402-016-1.
  • "Statens Historiska Museum och k. Myntkabinettet: Tilväxten år 1904". Månadsblad: 1903–1905 (in Swedish). Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities. 31–34: 126–189. 1907.
  • Thunmark-Nylén, Lena (1995). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands (I): Abbildungen der grabfunde (in German). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. ISBN 91-7402-241-5.
  • Thunmark-Nylén, Lena (1998). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands (II): Typentafeln (in German). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. ISBN 91-7402-287-3.
  • Thunmark-Nylén, Lena (2000a). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands (IV:1): Katalog (in German). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. ISBN 91-7402-307-1.
  • Thunmark-Nylén, Lena (2000b). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands (IV:2): Katalog (in German). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. ISBN 91-7402-308-X.
  • Thunmark-Nylén, Lena (2000c). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands (IV:3): Katalog (in German). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. ISBN 91-7402-309-8.
  • Thunmark-Nylén, Lena (2006a). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands (III:1): Text (in German). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. ISBN 91-7402-354-3.
  • Thunmark-Nylén, Lena (2006b). Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands (III:2): Text (in German). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. ISBN 91-7402-355-1.
  • "Ur främmande samlingar: 2" (PDF). Fornvännen (in Swedish). 2: 205–208. 1907. ISSN 0015-7813.


  • Lindqvist, Sune (1931a). En Hjälm från Valsgärde. Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift (in Swedish). 3. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
  • Lindqvist, Sune (1931b). "Båtgravarna vid Valsgärde" (PDF). Fornvännen (in Swedish). 26: 372–377. ISSN 0015-7813.
  • Lindqvist, Sune (1932). "Vendel-time Finds from Valsgärde in the Neighbourhood of Old Uppsala". Acta Archaeologica. III: 21–46. ISSN 0065-101X.
  • Arwidsson, Greta (1934). "A New Scandinavian Form of Helmet from the Vendel-Time". Acta Archaeologica. V: 243–257. ISSN 0065-101X.
  • Arwidsson, Greta (1942). Valsgärde 6. Die Gräberfunde von Valsgärde (in German). I. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri A.B.
  • Arwidsson, Greta (1954). Valsgärde 8. Die Gräberfunde von Valsgärde (in German). II. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri A.B.
  • Arwidsson, Greta (1977). Valsgärde 7. Die Gräberfunde von Valsgärde (in German). III. Uppsala: Uppsala universitets museum för nordiska fornsaker. ISBN 91-506-0113-X.
  • Arwidsson, Greta (1983). "Valsgärde". In Lamm, Jan Peder & Nordstrom, Hans-Åke (eds.). Vendel Period Studies: transactions of the Boat-Grave Symposium in Stockholm, February 2–3, 1981. Studies – The Museum of National Antiquities, Stockholm. 2. Stockholm: Statens Historiska Museum. pp. 71–82. ISBN 978-91-7192-547-3.
  • Grimberg, Carl (1985). "Praktgravar från vår yngre järnålder". Supplement till bd I och II. Svenska folkets underbara öden (in Swedish). X: 1. Stockholm: Norstedt. pp. 85–92. ISBN 91-1-853442-2.





First reconstruction

  • Colour photo by Larry Burrows for LIFE magazine in 1951
  • Colour photo by Larry Burrows published in LIFE magazine on 16 July 1951
  • Colour photo by Larry Burrows for LIFE magazine in 1951, seen with the Sutton Hoo sword and photos of the Vendel 14 helmet and Valsgärde 6 sword hilt
  • Colour photo by Larry Burrows for LIFE magazine in 1951, seen with Herbert Maryon and photos of the Vendel 14 (right) Valsgärde 6 (left) helmets
  • Colour photo by Larry Burrows for LIFE magazine in 1951, seen with Herbert Maryon and photos of the Vendel 14 (right) Valsgärde 6 (left) helmets
  • Colour photo by Larry Burrows for LIFE magazine in 1951, seen with much of the rest of the Sutton Hoo treasure
  • Colour photo by the British Museum, available here upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
  • Colour photo by the British Museum, available here upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
  • B&W photo by the British Museum, front view
  • B&W photo by the British Museum, profile (dexter) view
  • B&W photo by the British Museum, profile (sinister) view

Second reconstruction

  • 32 photos by the British Museum, available upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
  • B&W photo by the British Museum showing the three dragon heads, available here upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
  • B&W photo by the British Museum showing the back of the helmet during reconstruction, available here upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
  • Colour photo by the British Museum showing the placement of the upwards-facing dragon, available here upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license

Royal Armouries replica

  • 13 photos by the British Museum
  • Colour photo by the British Museum, available here upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
  • Colour photo by the British Museum, available upon request in high resolution with a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.