Jump to content

Talk:Sutton Hoo helmet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notification of deletion requests

[edit]

I have started deletion requests on Commons for two of the images on this page: File:The Sutton Hoo Helmet - Fragments - British Museum 1939,1010.93, 188404001.jpg and File:Sutton Hoo helmet.jpg. BabelStone (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph on end of excavation & World War II storage

[edit]

This is in regards to the hidden text suggestion by @Mineffle: to delete the paragraph, or move it to the main Sutton Hoo article. My inclination would be to keep it, as I think the paragraph serves to answer the question "what happened to the helmet between 1939 and 1947?" Otherwise the article would have an eight year gap as it jumped from discovery to restoration. I've since added a few sentences that are helmet-specific (regarding the 1939 thoughts on the unreconstructed helmet, and the inability to fully examine it), so it's not quite as general now. It's also a pretty short section (5 sentences + the 2 I just added), yet I think fairly interesting (who would have thought the helmet spent 5 years hanging out with the Elgin Marbles in a subway station?). Let me know your thoughts.

Regarding the paragraph above it (reason for shattering, compared to distorted Vendel/Valsgärde helmets), agreed that it could go in a background section rather than the discovery section. I've just added a background section, with a "Main article: Sutton Hoo" link. That could be flushed out into a brief summary of the ship-burial, with the oxidization/shattering theory there. Usernameunique (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a very brief summary of the main Sutton Hoo article in the background section, and moved the paragraph. (Please could you take a look at the sources? I'm not sure if I added them correctly.) The other paragraph is definitely improved now which the extra helmet information, and I think links to the previous paragraph better now that the shattering one has been moved. mineffle (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

[edit]

The article covers the archaeology, reconstruction and decoration of the helmet in really excellent detail. However, there is very little covering the construction of the helmet. Whilst the decoration has very close parallels to that of the Swedish helmets, the construction of the helmet is entirely different. In its remarkably deep cheekpieces the Sutton Hoo helmet is much more akin to the Anglo-Saxon Coppergate helmet than to any of the Swedish examples. Also the Sutton Hoo helmet has a number of other features that distinguish it from the Swedish helmets, it has a solid neck-guard, a full face-guard and the skull of the helmet was raised as a single piece, entirely unlike the composite skulls of other contemporary helmets. These features should find some mention in the article. Urselius (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: 100% agree with you. The "parallels" section is far from done right now, but I'm still in the process of acquiring the relevant literature on the other helmets (including, appropriately, The Anglian helmet from Coppergate by Dominic Tweddle). Should have much of it in the next couple days. That's an interesting point you make about the distinction between parallels of design and parallels of construction; you're right that while the design elements are extremely similar to the Scandinavian helmets, the construction elements are much more similar to others, such as the Coppergate and Roman helmets. If there's any literature that you recommend or other suggestions, please feel free to share it.
You also mentioned the construction of the helmet generally (as opposed to its construction vis-à-vis its parallels). I've been thinking about adding a separate "construction" section, either as a standalone or as a subsection of "design" (where there are currently a whopping two whole sentences on the construction). Any thoughts on that? it feels pretty skimpy right now. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Now the article is much bigger, the lead could do with bulking up, summarizing the delights ahead. Johnbod (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a little on the basic construction of the helmet in: A.C. Evans, The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial (British Museum, London 1986 - around p. 49, I think), however, it is not in much detail. As the Royal Armouries produced the well-known reproduction of the helmet you would imagine that they would have published something. Urselius (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's much on the construction in Bruce-Mitford (1972/74, 1978), from which the Evans section on the helmet finds its inspiration. (There's also a page-long note by Bruce-Mitford on the making of the replica, published in The Antiquaries Journal in 1974.) I was more wondering about any literature on the other helmets.
". . . the delights ahead." Quote of the day! --Usernameunique (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Urselius: Just following up now that the section on the helmet's construction is largely finished, as are those on the parallels with Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian helmets. Hopefully this largely answers your concerns. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grimhelm/Odin references

[edit]

This post is in regards to the recent edits made by @ÞunoresWrǣþþe:. I propose removing this content, as it is either covered elsewhere in the article, of questionable relevance, and/or factually questionable. In their stead, and in light of the discussion above, I think it makes sense to add a line or two about the jewelry/snakes on the helmet and how there are several possible allusions to Odin, to make it a more comprehensive introduction to the "Design" section. I would also add a "Construction" sub-section between this introductory section, and the "Dragon motifs" section. As I already removed the first edit (the line about grimhelm) only to have it restored, I feel it is better to flesh out the reasons for proposed removal here. Any comments are welcomed.

Text in question: "The helmet's face-plate makes it a grīm-helm (literally mask helmet)[31]. A case has been made that the helmet represents the god Woden, who had only one eye. Indeed, the Helmet shows signs of Woden's missing eye on the left eye-socket and eyebrow: there is no gold foil behind the eyebrow's garnets[32]. This is similar to the whetstone or sceptre found in Sutton-Hoo, which bears a man's face with a mutilated eye[33]. This would make the Sutton-Hoo helmet a religious artifact in addition to being a functional helmet."

Grimhelm: A grimhelm is not a specific type of helmet such as a spangenhelm. The term is a poetic construct; technically speaking it is a nominal compound, one of five in Beowulf that refer to helmets. The others are beadogriman (battle-mask), heregriman (war-mask), wigheafolan (war-head) and gudhelm (war-helmet). See Caroline Brady, 'Weapons' in Beowulf, 8 Anglo-Saxon England 79–141 (1979). ÞunoresWrǣþþe is right that grimhelm is a term with use beyond Beowulf, but important to that use is its context: poetry. The other uses of the term mentioned in the citation—The Poetry of the Codex Vercellensis, and Cædmon's metrical paraphrase of parts of the holy Scriptures, in Anglo-Saxon—are both poems. (A third instance is mentioned, in The Anglo-Saxon Version of the Holy Gospels by Thorpe, but it seems that may be a conflation with cyne-helm.) Just as we wouldn't define a pattern welded sword as a "snake sword," recognizing that "snake sword" is not a technical term but a poetic compound, it is incorrect to term grimhelm a specific class of helmet. If anything, wigheafolan (war-head)—though it doesn't sound as cool as grimhelm—would be more precise (Brady, p. 90: "the word does indeed describe a helmet realistically. Wigheafola: complete head-covering, forehead, eyebrows, eye-holes, cheeks, nose, mouth, chin, even a moustache!") Yet again, it is not a class of helmet, but a term created for poetry.

The above paragraph notwithstanding, there are two other more minor problems with the line about the grimhelm. First, its relevance, if any, is left unexplained. Second, the citation does not support the assertion. The cite is to an online dictionary, yet it does not even support the translation from grimhelm to "mask helmet," since the definition given is "A helmet with a visor; galea larvata," let alone the idea that the Sutton Hoo helmet can be construed as a grimhelm.

Odin: There are a few problems here. First, the "An Eye for Odin?" paper is discussed two paragraphs below; there's no need to add a redundant reference. As said above, I would instead add a general line about how the helmet displays several possible allusions to Odin. Second, the paper cited in support of the idea that the whetstone depicts Odin actually suggests that the whetstone depicts Thor: hence the paper's concluding line, "This evidence proves that the Sutton Hoo ship burial contains not only symbols of the god Odin, but in the whetstone, a remnant of the traditions of the god Thor." (The assertion is not baseless, however; better luck would be had by citing this book.) Third, the additions by ÞunoresWrǣþþe misstate the significance of the "missing" gold foils. It is not necessarily true that "This would make the Sutton-Hoo helmet a religious artifact in addition to being a functional helmet." The helmet already probably contains religious iconography in the dancing warriors scene, which is likely some sort of sword dance to Odin. That does not make the helmet a religious artifact per se, but rather an artifact that contains allusions to religion. The cross protecting the nose of the Benty Grange helmet does not a religious artifact make, nor do all the crosses, Stars of David, and similar adorning headstones in cemeteries.

Consistency: Just as a general matter, edits should attempt to maintain homogeneity with the rest of the article. The grimhelm/Odin edits are inconsistent with the rest of the article in four ways: American vs. British English ("artifact" instead of "artefact"); Woden vs. Odin (Odin is otherwise used throughout); citations that do not utilize the sfn format and that in two instances are just links; and "Sutton-Hoo" rather than the correct "Sutton Hoo." --Usernameunique (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So much for that write-up, the guy's been blocked from Wikipedia. Just removed the text in question. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this full explanation - seems very reasonable (just in case you thought no one was reading this stuff). Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, thanks for reading it. At least word-vomiting on the talk page has the additional benefit of helping to synthesize thoughts so they (one hopes) become clearer in the article itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Owning

[edit]

Usernameunique is WP:Owning this page, and has been for the past six years. This isn't acceptable. Virtually no one else has contributed to the article in half a decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.164.126.183 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use in movie Gladiator

[edit]

I'm adding a note under cultural references that a replica of this helmet appears in the movie Gladiator. The replica can be seen in this screenshot Joecot (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool find @Joecot:, and thanks for providing the screenshot. Moved it up in the list so that it fits in chronologically (i.e., between the 1983 video game appearance and the 2003 postage stamps). --Usernameunique (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

[edit]

I believe this article would be greatly improved by including both an estimated weight of the original helmet and the weight of recovered pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.182.108 (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll add it to the article momentarily. The estimated weight is 2.5kg. The Royal Armouries replica weighs 3.74kg, but has a number of alterations, such as a solid crest (the original is hollow) and lead backings to the pressblech foils, which make it heavier than would have been the original. I have no idea what the fragments themselves weigh (or even the weight of the reconstructed helmet, jute, plaster, and all), and have never seen a figure published. The BM website just repeats the estimated 2.5kg figure. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sutton Hoo helmet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

@Usernameunique: It seems the {{open access}} (Open access icon) template has been used in cases of {{free access}} (Free access icon). We use 'free' when a source can be accessed free of charge, and 'open' refers to online access free of charge plus some additional rights to re-use the content.[1] Firebrace (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Firebrace, I've always wondered what the difference is. Guess I'll have to look into that more and make some changes. I suppose anything out of copyright would be open access? Also, any difference to keep in mind with {{closed access}} and {{subscription required}}?
While we're at it, are you sure about the source you removed? I've always thought that sources should match their claims, and when talking about a band's use of a Sutton Hoo helmet replica in concert, a blog post would be more appropriate than, say, when talking about a technical aspect of the helmet. That source makes the explicit connection between the concert-worn mask and the Sutton Hoo helmet (as opposed to, for example, simply saying he wore an "Anglo-Saxon mask" in concert), and with the first picture points out that it evolved over time. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would think public domain works are open access. 'Closed access' and 'subscription required' are the same thing. For blog see WP:UGC; there is an exception for news blogs and those written by recognised experts in their field, but personal blogs, fan sites, etc. are not reliable sources. Firebrace (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential free images of the 1967 cheek piece

[edit]

©Geni (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those look great, Geni, thanks for taking them. I've replaced the non-free image (which can now be deleted) with the second. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

moustache feature on helmet.

[edit]

Perun is the only God with a golden moustache. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.58.116 (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sutton_Hoo_helmet&oldid=1208672526"