Talk:Sutton Hoo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Swedish connection

I have added the Swedish connection, a connection emphasized by some and ignored by others. The link to Valsgärde should be worth a click for anyone interested in this period. I have taken the images and the information from the Swedish Wikipedia.--Wiglaf 08:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oops, it has been edited away and put under theories, whereas the text takes pains at noting the possible Celtic and Byzantine connections. I must have accidentally trodden onto unpopular terrain. That is odd, because it is common encyclopedic information.--Wiglaf 12:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Your making somthing out of nothing, or have mis-read. It says some of the items found are of Celtic and Byzantine origin, which is a fact. I left word for word the Swedish connection. Finally, who the person is, is a theory, since no body was found. Stbalbach 20:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have never mentioned the identity of the person. It is quite impossible to know. Why do you have problems with this piece "It is one of few comparable burial sites found outside of Scandinavia, and has its closest parallels at the rich ship burial sites in Sweden." From a Scandinavian perspective, the find is hardly unique. Morever, its similarity to Valsgärde and Vendel is also a fact.--Wiglaf 20:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PS. I suggest you google +Valsgarde and +"Sutton Hoo" at www.google.com if you have any problems with this piece of information.--Wiglaf 20:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I understand the Swedish connection is important. It is mentioned in the article. The details of it do not belong in the opening paragraph though .. the opening paragraph is a high-lebel abstract introductional overview, and the body of the article contains the details. See the Wiki entry on writing style.Stbalbach 21:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is OK. I reacted against you putting the connection under theories when it is usually considered to be a fact. I only have one problem with the intro. Greatest does not sound really NPOV. Would you have anthting against changing it into something like remarkable instead?--Wiglaf 22:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Remarkable is the better word. "International" is anachronistic since there are no nations untill much later, so its hard to understand in terms of the middle ages. England was under heavy Scandinavian cultural influence is typically how it is discussed. Also I don't understand this sentence: Another theory suggests Hrothmund who is mentioned in Beowulf to have been one of the ancestors of the Wuffinga dynasty. .. what is the Wuffinga dynasty? how is that connected to Beowulf and Sutton Hoo?Stbalbach 22:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alright, you can rework the page for a while (I need to go to bed). The info you find suspect is taken from the link on the bottom of the article. I thought it could be mentioned as a theory, because I have heard of it before.--Wiglaf 22:26, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

National Trust Visitor Centre

The text should be updated re the National Trust visitor centre, which is finished and up and running. I went there and nearly lost a bumper in the car park - not that it was their fault. GDL 27 Jan 2005

Picture

This page badly needs a picture of the Sutton Hoo helmet which is so famous and connected to the site. A Google Image search of "sutton hoo" will bring up the helmet in question, but I am not sure of PD status on those. Does anyone have a picture personally or plan on stopping by the BM that can snap a picture would be great. Stbalbach 10:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good addition!--Wiglaf 19:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Might I suggest that the belt buckle would be a good inclusion too, being very well preserved and a masterpiece of craftmanship. GDL 27 Jan 2005

As requested by Dr Steven Plunkett, please feel free to use any of my images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/robroy/tags/suttonhoo/ Rob Roy 17:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded the images to commons. -- Stbalbach 15:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work. There are so many things that could be illustrated, but less may be more if the right selection is made. Silver bowls and spoons, sceptre, and horse and rider grave view would all be xcellent. Also a general view of the mounds to go in the discovery section? The direct shield comparison with Vendel is great, but I'm going to move it back to the Interpretation section or the burual chamber section may become unmanageable and too diffuse? Hope Berig can approve. Dr Steven Plunkett 06:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

More images to come hopefully. We can pick and choose from the commons pool (BTW I recommend uploading images to commons so that other-language Wikipedia's can use them also, not just the en.wiki.x.io - sign in at commons.wikimedia.org). I agree that the shield comparison is probably better in the Vendel section since that is where it is discussed. -- Stbalbach 16:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

3D glasses picture

Before anybody removes the detail shot in compatible 3D, please check it out in largest size with red on left glasses. This kind of presentation will greatly inhance the pleasure and curiousity of children interested in our heritage. Images like this look truly good with the better plastic glasses.69.109.40.55 10:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an unusual thing to do for Wikipedia, but Im ok with it, got out my 3D glasses and it certainly is enlightening. My only concern is, it says "Brit Mus" at the bottom, where did this image come from? Did you make it? It says copyright and I think it will eventually get removed. --Stbalbach 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Presentation

The list of items found might read better in a different format. GDL 27 Jan 2005

Kingship sentence

re: this sentence:

Some of the finds (for instance, a sceptre in the form of a whetstone)seem to physically embody Anglo Saxon concepts of kingship and the relationship between a king and his subjects.

It needs more explanation, at least a paragraph. How does a sceptre in the form of whetstone (picture? description?) embody the Anglo-Saxon concept of kingship? What is the Anglo-Saxon concept of kingship and why is that relevant to whetstones? Stbalbach 05:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Should spangenhelm be worked into the helmet's caption? --Wetman 09:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• "A burial chamber was constructed mid-deck, and would have been powered by 40 oarsmen." Non sequitur, unless this is a hint at mass human sacrifices accompanying the burial... Has this text been vandaliozed? --08:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Article scope

Sutton Hoo is a site of international importance, not merely for the shipburial (which is almost all that is mentioned in this article at present) but for a series of ?royal graves in the context of a landscape which has its own history and (at the time of the burials) was related to royal dwellings in the Deben area. I suggest that most of the present article ought to be relocated to a page called 'Sutton Hoo ship-burial' and that the 'Sutton Hoo' page as such should contain a broader explanation of the site and its meaning. The link to 'Sutton Hoo ship-burial' would appear in the opening statement, and a briefer outline of the shipburial would be given in the 'Sutton Hoo' page. Anyone agree with this? Dr Steven Plunkett 10:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the first step is to edit the current article to include the things about Sutton Hoo that you think should be mentioned. The completed article can then be assessed for length/clarity/scope and your proposal considered with all of the information to hand.

So please do add the related info your would like to see as I'd be very interested to learn more about the site. GDallimore 10:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with both Dr Steven Plunkett and GDallimore. I would like to see more information about the history - it should be easy to re-write the article to be more encompassing, and if needed, break into separate articles. -- Stbalbach 17:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. I am acting on your recommendations and will now keep going until there is a full text, and we can worry about what to do with it then. Dr Steven Plunkett 22:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic articles are better than many small ones. When separate articles are to be created, rather than cannibalize this trunk article, cut and paste the relevant text here and enlarge and enrich it at the new article. Be sure to leave a Further details may be found... section header here. --Wetman 22:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just had a quick browse over the article. Looks to be interesting BUT, with the amount of detail in there, and the ever-burgeoning list of references, I think it really needs some inline references. Thought I'd better mention it while it was still fresh in your mind since referencing this afterwards would be a nightmare! GDallimore 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now written all I want bar a tweak or two. I now feel it stands better as a single article (agree with Wetman). I accept that some inline references might be useful, though on the whole much of it could be justified with reference to a mere handful of books (Bede, Bruce Mitford monograph, Carver & Evans, Markham, Henderson, Newton and a couple of others). Would it not be tedious and distracting for the reader (and offputting to nonscholars) to litter every separate item with repeated references to the same sources, when the sources have their own indices? I hoped the Bib would give a useful impression of the range of approaches and lead interested parties whither their interests tended. Also the headers or lead paragraphs tend to explain what the sources are. I am inclined to enter a light smattering of directions, perhaps under each header bar, what do you think? Dr Steven Plunkett 07:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article could easily be a WP:Featured article, but without in-line references, it will never reach that level. See Cædmon for a good example how its done. I know what your saying, about things being general knowledge, and using a core set of references, but it really does improve the quality and usability of the article. Remember, people are generally not allowed to cite Wikipedia, so if a student read this: It has been called "page one of English history" , the student would have no idea where that quote came from and wouldn't be able to say "I saw it on Wikipedia", they would need a real citation. If you want, I could go through and mark places where I think a reference is needed? Eventually someone will do it anyway. I'll add a fact tag to demonstrate. -- Stbalbach 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a Notes section. References follow their place in the text, enclosed within <ref></ref> html format. Very simple now to insert a note that doesn't interrupt the flow. --Stbalbach 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

TVM for that (and for your setup just received). The article inherited that quote from its predecessor and I can't vouch for it! It would take me a little while to get the hang of the wikispeak for constructing a reference mechanism as per Caedmon (with hached links to bibliography) but will persevere. Perhaps I can just put a Harvard ref in the Notes? Maybe when Ive done a couple in that way you would kindly link one thus and I could imitate for the rest. Many thanks for your feedback, Dr Steven Plunkett 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Harvard is great. An author and date and page (if available) is perfectly fine. -- Stbalbach 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

British spelling

Hey i made a few grammar corrections. Is that fine? I dont want to get banned or anything. Cyclonus4 18:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyclonus4, Thanks for your contributions, but this article uses British spellings, and shouldn't be changed to use American spellings. The relevant policy is at WP:ENGVAR. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

oops. soz about that. Ill stop now

Cyclonus4 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've set the note apart so hopefully it is more easily seen - suspect this will be a common problem. -- Stbalbach 20:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the double columns, much better! Pressing on, Dr Steven Plunkett 04:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Links

I've gone through this excellent article and added a number of links (jewellery and textile terms, "Viking age", aurochs). Still thinking whether MOS would require links to "cemetary", "archaeology", etc. I would appreciate advice from someone on the Archeaology project as to what the standard is in this area. - PKM 19:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've linked tremisses to History of the English penny (c. 600-1066)#The Earliest Gold Coinage since the article at tremissis is the merest stub. And I have not linked "interlace ornament" anywhere since Celtic knotwork really isn't satisfactory for this purpose. We could use a more scholarly article on Interlace (ornament). Volunteers? - PKM 20:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, just found Animal_style which will do nicely. - PKM 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links they were well thought out. This article was recently entirely re-written by User:Dr Steven Plunkett who appears to be an expert on the subject and who has done an excellent job. Would you be interested seeing this article become a Featured Article WP:FA? I was thinking of putting up for nomination, but would need help in fixing any concerns that come up, such as links or formating. -- Stbalbach 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Count me in to help. - PKM 18:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Things to do... Featured Article?

User:Stbalbach mentioned the idea of having this article nominated for WP:FA status. I add resounding support to his comments that User:Dr Steven Plunkett has done a great job on the article. Before going for FA status, and/or before submitting it for WP:Peer review I thought it might be worthwhile listing some of the obvious things that might be done to improve it. I suggest adding ideas under different headings below, signing individual comments, rather than have a sequential discussion. I'll start with two headings together with my comments/suggestions. GDallimore 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Article is long, as DSP aniticipated before starting his rewrite. Now we've got the basis of the information content, how do we go about splitting it up? Do we want to?
  • I think shortening would be a good idea, but without losing too much general information from this article. My suggestion would be to put some of the detailed discussion of the specific treasures into a separate article: Sutton Hoo#The Sutton Hoo Ship-burial: Description is a fascinating article in itself, for example, and Sutton Hoo#Contents of the Sutton Hoo cemetery could also form the basis for its own article GDallimore 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think the article is too long or should be split. It makes keeping track of notes and references tricky, confusing to print out and read when there is duplication between articles, makes it less likely to be included in the CD and print editions since they have limited number of article titles. We want a good in-depth single-page article that stands on its own in any format, and this is it. The individual treasure items can all have their own articles, and should be fully expanded in time, such as with Tara Brooch, but as a group they should be included here so we have a full standalone article. I think we should get this one featured first, and then make it a future project to expand other articles into featured versions in their own right, and then figure out how to merge overlaps. -- Stbalbach 17:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Stbalbach - the length isn't an issue, and articles on individual treasurers would be great. - PKM 18:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• OK, persuaded. Guidelines say of "appropriate" length, and I think we all agree this is appropriate. GDallimore 08:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Basic WP:Style issues.
  • There are some simple style issues and ways the article could be improved, such as using "Mr" or "Mrs" in places (User:GDallimore apologises for adding these before reading the style guide properly and will dip in to help with the edits). Internal links between sections (or between articles if separated out as discussed above) could also improve funtionality of the article. GDallimore 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• • The last peer review I read pointed out that the MOS says that the main article title should not be included in the subheads, so we should update those before the peer review. (Discovery of Sutton Hoo: a modern legend > Discovery: a modern legend). - PKM 18:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding 1939 images

I have some images of the original 1939 excavation. How do we go about adding them here? These are unpublished images. Canada Jack 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is no joke, btw, my grandfather filmed and photographed some of the initial excavation, as his brother CW Phillips led the excavation. While there was some exitement in England when I donated copies of the film back in 2000 - it made the papers and there was a BBC report on it - there was barely any interest in the photos, even from the Sutton Hoo Society. Canada Jack 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead :-). However, I want to warn you that not every user assumes good faith, and you may turn into people who, unjustly, both question their copyright status and whether they actually depict the excavation.--Berig 19:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, administrators can quite easily establish that my name here matches the name of the individual who uncovered the film back in 2000. The Sutton Hoo Society people can vouch for the fact that the film I showed them was unknown and that it depicts individuals and events clearly associated with the 1939 excavation. I am prepared to establish their provenance if need be. Canada Jack 19:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If I were you, I would already have added the images ;-).--Berig 19:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I just tried, but I am getting bogged down in all these bloody usage issues... Didn't realize how complicated it would be... Canada Jack 19:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What might be better here would be to do a screen capture of the film. My grandfather visited the site twice, but took the photos on the second visit when the boat had been completely excavated and those images feature the ghost outline of the ship with several people measuring and dusting. There is also film of this. But the first visit - which he only filmed - shows the ship only partly excavated, though I believe after the removal of most of the artifacts. This is a more interesting sequence as I know there are identifiable people in the sequence. I recall that when I watched this with two of the Sutton Hoo Society people - Rosemary Hoppit and Angus Wainwright - we could pretty well narrow it down to several days at the end of July and start of August 1939. They were pointing out the various excavators by name, including my great-uncle of course. Not sure if you can see it, but I inserted "suttonhoo1939" in the photo archive, and was told it will be deleted. So I will instead do a screen capture of the film and others can assist in identifying the images. If there is doubt on the provenance, no doubt there are some here who know the individuals above mentioned and I can quickly establish who I am and how I am in possession of these images. Canada Jack 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish you good luck, and I look forward to seeing the result.--Berig 20:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded two images, two screen captures, of the film in question, but I don't know how to make thumbnail-sized images for them, to appear on the Sutton Hoo page. If someone out there can help, here are the images: Image:SHIP_MED.jpg; Image:SHIP_WIDE.jpg

Canada Jack 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix it for you.--Berig 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PS, if you want image captions I can help you with them too. Just tell me what you want the captions to say.--Berig 00:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the second photo should be first, it shows the site shortly after the artefacts had been removed. Maybe a caption along the lines of "The intitial excavation, August 1939." The top photo was taken probably a few days later when all the soil had been removed, completely revealing the ghost image of the ship. Something along the lines of "Ghost image of ship revealed during initial excavation, August or September 1939." Not sure if we need to include photo credit on the cutline? Canada Jack 14:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Usually, people only add the name of the artist or the photographer in the caption. Additional information, such as the source of the image, is already added by you where such information is usually found. Great pictures.--Berig 14:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You know the style better than me, so if you want to include his name in the cutline here it is: Harold John Phillips, or H.J. Phillips. He was my grandfather, Charles Phillips' brother. And I am sure he would thank you for the compliment. Canada Jack 14:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added what I hope are the proper copyright notices. These images are now to be considered in the public domain. Canada Jack 14:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, there shouldn't be any problems with the pics anymore :).--Berig 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just reverted a bunch of vandalism that was a few weeks old -- 71.191.36.194 05:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was just Vendelism ? (lol)--Streona (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Helmet

I think that there is some misunderstanding about the helmet. The decoration of the helmet is undoubtedly very close to the Swedish examples, and some have suggested that the dies used for the decorative panels might have been made in a Swedish workshop. However, objects can be decorated and redecorateed over time, and the armourer and the decorative smith were in all probability not the same person (as very different skills are involved). The construction of the helmet is very much not the same as the Swedish examples, it has a single piece bowl, all the Swedish helmets have composite bowls. It has deep cheek-pieces and a solid neck-guard, the Swedish helmets have mail or metal-strip defences. In general the Sutton Hoo helmet has more in common with other insular helmets, such as the Coppergate and Pioneer helmets and even Late Roman Helmets, in its construction than with the Swedish examples.

Urselius (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

a silly piece of editing

I'm deleting several frivolous "citation needed" tags from the intro. The purpose of an introduction is to provide generalizing statements; if these are not supported by the article itself, that's a different question. But in a long, substantial article, you shouldn't clutter an intro with a string of citations for statements that are uncontroversial. (Some statements in introductions require citations, of course.)

For example, "a period of English history which is on the margin between myth, legend and historical documentation" is perhaps not clearly stated, but strikes me as indisputably true. What we know about the period from written sources is a muddle of legend and history; this significant archaeological find clarifies some issues and raises others. The burden is thus on the editor who inserted the tag to provide evidence to the contrary: are you saying that what we know about the period is unambiguously historical, or completely shrouded in myth, or what?

Another tag seemed to dispute whether there was an "undisturbed ship-burial" on the site. Questioning the "undisturbed" condition of the ship-burial? The placement of the tag, however, indicates that the editor questions whether there was a ship-burial. The article later expands on the discovery of the ship-burial and its survival; this section may not be thoroughly supported by citations, but if this is true, it doesn't need to be given a footnote in the intro unless this assertion is controversial. (Maybe it is, in which case that portion of the article should be corrected.)

I also deleted the tag from the following statement:

"The ship-burial … is one of the most magnificent archaeological finds in England for its size and completeness, far-reaching connections, quality and beauty of its contents."

Yes, this is in some sense an opinion, but it is a consensus opinion that qualifies as common knowledge; anyone who wishes to dispute the statement should produce a source that regards the Sutton Hoo ship burial as lacking in magnificence, small in size, relatively incomplete, etc. "Far-reaching connections", I agree, is very vague and should be defined better. Anyone who doubts the "quality and beauty of its contents" should again find a scholarly source that says the artifacts are of poor quality and lack aesthetic value. When a statement appears to be self-evidently true, the burden of proof is on the one who challenges it.

If an editor really wants to make a difference in an article, the reasons behind this kind of tagging should be discussed on the talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely right! Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Connection with Raedwald

The connection between Sutton Hoo and the East Anglian dynasty, and particularly Raedwald, seems to be generally accepted as likely although unproven. However, Judith McClure and Roger Collins in their notes to Bede's Ecclesiastical History (Oxford World's Classics, 1994, p. 381) describe the evidence as "almost non-existent". They cite two books included in the bibliography of the Sutton Hoo article in support of their doubts, J. Campbell in Kendall & Wells, pp. 79-101 and M. Carver, The Age of Sutton Hoo, pp. 343-71. Are these doubts not mentioned in the article because this is a minority opinion?Dudley Miles (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Are they doubts? There is certainly a lack of certainty, as the evidence is purely circumstantial, but no other candidates, or reasons why the owner of the burial should be an unknown figure, have gained much support in recent years. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence

People editing here might be interested in a discussion I've just posted at the talkpage to the article on the British museum, here: Talk:British_Museum#Wikipedian_in_Residence. Sincerely, Witty Lama 05:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sutton (17)

... one ('the Sutton Hoo cemetery') has always been known to exist because it consists of a group of around 20 earthen burial mounds which rise slightly above the horizon of the hill-spur when viewed from the opposite bank

"Sjutton" is modern Swedish, means "seventeen", "hög" = man made hill (before ö was intruduced, some 500 years ago, we used oo instead, hoog). Seventeen hills... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.240.136 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)