The Staffordshire Hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold

[Muravyets]

This is interesting enough to get great attention, Archregimancy. In my opinion we may not be talking about the dark ages any more in future, more like the Saxon ages.

I agree, and I find this news very exciting.

[Tagmatium]

It's a pretty cool find, I must say.

I always feel that it would have been nice to find this sort of thing in situ, rather than being discovered by a metal detectorist. But, then, there's a hardly a chance that it would be discovered that way, unless the field was already an archaeological site of some sort. Or someone was crazy enough to start a dig in the middle of nowhere for shits and giggles. But that's hardly likely

It is surprising about the sheer amount of gold found. The people who buried it must have had a pretty damn good reason to do that.

Certainly going to give a lot of material for a lot of disserations and theses.

[Muravyets]

I'm rather curious about that question of why the gold was buried. I've been vaguely aware of buried hoards around the UK, but I know next to nothing about them. Is there any information about why they were buried, why the sites were chosen, etc?

[UNIverseVERSE]

I'm rather curious about that question of why the gold was buried. I've been vaguely aware of buried hoards around the UK, but I know next to nothing about them. Is there any information about why they were buried, why the sites were chosen, etc?

As I understand it, the general suggestion is for safekeeping. In a world without bank vaults and safe-deposit boxes, keeping a large chunk of money safe in a war isn't an easy proposition, so one might as well bury it. If one is then killed in said war, it's entirely possible one will never reclaim it, and thus we have buried treasure.

Inclusion as part of a burial of some eminent person is also possible, it depends what else is found, really.

[Muravyets]

I'm rather curious about that question of why the gold was buried. I've been vaguely aware of buried hoards around the UK, but I know next to nothing about them. Is there any information about why they were buried, why the sites were chosen, etc?

As I understand it, the general suggestion is for safekeeping. In a world without bank vaults and safe-deposit boxes, keeping a large chunk of money safe in a war isn't an easy proposition, so one might as well bury it. If one is then killed in said war, it's entirely possible one will never reclaim it, and thus we have buried treasure.

Inclusion as part of a burial of some eminent person is also possible, it depends what else is found, really.

So, aside from burial offerings, it is thought they were buried for simply pragmatic reasons, so that rulers or wealthy people could prevent their treasure falling into the wrong hands? Then I would guess that the choices of sites would be entirely idiosyncratic to the person who did the burying, right?

[Tagmatium]

As I understand it, the general suggestion is for safekeeping. In a world without bank vaults and safe-deposit boxes, keeping a large chunk of money safe in a war isn't an easy proposition, so one might as well bury it. If one is then killed in said war, it's entirely possible one will never reclaim it, and thus we have buried treasure.

Inclusion as part of a burial of some eminent person is also possible, it depends what else is found, really.

The article I read on the BBC about this just states that it was found "in a field", but I wonder if there is any other features associated with it? Undoubtedly, the entire place will be crawling with archaeologists, so if there is anything else there, it will be rapidly discovered.

Or it could just be a hole in the ground that was filled with shiny things in order to keep them safe, with nowt else there.

[UNIverseVERSE]

So, aside from burial offerings, it is thought they were buried for simply pragmatic reasons, so that rulers or wealthy people could prevent their treasure falling into the wrong hands? Then I would guess that the choices of sites would be entirely idiosyncratic to the person who did the burying, right?

Probably, and likely with a slight trend towards 'places that are unlikely to be searched for it'. Of course, I'm not an archaeologist, etc, etc.

[Muravyets]

As I understand it, the general suggestion is for safekeeping. In a world without bank vaults and safe-deposit boxes, keeping a large chunk of money safe in a war isn't an easy proposition, so one might as well bury it. If one is then killed in said war, it's entirely possible one will never reclaim it, and thus we have buried treasure.

Inclusion as part of a burial of some eminent person is also possible, it depends what else is found, really.

The article I read on the BBC about this just states that it was found "in a field", but I wonder if there is any other features associated with it? Undoubtedly, the entire place will be crawling with archaeologists, so if there is anything else there, it will be rapidly discovered.

Or it could just be a hole in the ground that was filled with shiny things in order to keep them safe, with nowt else there.

Any time I read about anything being found in the UK, it's "in a field." Makes it quite hard for me to visualize what the UK looks like. How many fields do those people have?

[Tagmatium]

Probably, and likely with a slight trend towards 'places that are unlikely to be searched for it'. Of course, I'm not an archaeologist, etc, etc.

Kind of makes me want to crack out a spade and start digging in my back garden for treasure, though.

It's a bloody patio, so it'll be hard going.

[UNIverseVERSE]

The article I read on the BBC about this just states that it was found "in a field", but I wonder if there is any other features associated with it? Undoubtedly, the entire place will be crawling with archaeologists, so if there is anything else there, it will be rapidly discovered.

Or it could just be a hole in the ground that was filled with shiny things in order to keep them safe, with nowt else there.

Given that there's things like sword hilt plates, but not the swords, it seems to me that the second possibility is more likely.

Any time I read about anything being found in the UK, it's "in a field." Makes it quite hard for me to visualize what the UK looks like. How many fields do those people have?

A) Lots of fields -- see Google Earth or something.
B) Most of the other areas have either already been combed by people with metal detectors (forests, etc) or already dug up (towns, etc). Fields tend to be plowed, and that's pretty much it -- something buried a few feet down can avoid discovery for a hell of a long time.

[Tagmatium]

A) Lots of fields -- see Google Earth or something.
B) Most of the other areas have either already been combed by people with metal detectors (forests, etc) or already dug up (towns, etc). Fields tend to be plowed, and that's pretty much it -- something buried a few feet down can avoid discovery for a hell of a long time.

But then ploughed fields can also show where archaeological sites are, as the soil is disturbed and fragments of masonry and pottery can be brought to the surface over the years.

Similarly, there's a lot of stuff in urban areas that just hasn't been looked at. Winchester is the most archaeologically investigated town in Europe, but below 10% of it has actually been looked at (although that satistic does sound suspect, as I can't remember where I read that). You occasionally hear stories of stuff being happened on during building work, not including the professional archaeologists who get brought on to any large-scale developments that are taking place.

[Douchebaggerry]

Makes it quite hard for me to visualize what the UK looks like.

Cities, and in between the cities lots of fields.

[UNIverseVERSE]

But then ploughed fields can also show where archaeological sites are, as the soil is disturbed and fragments of masonry and pottery can be brought to the surface over the years.

Similarly, there's a lot of stuff in urban areas that just hasn't been looked at. Winchester is the most archaeologically investigated town in Europe, but below 10% of it has actually been looked at (although that satistic does sound suspect, as I can't remember where I read that). You occasionally hear stories of stuff being happened on during building work, not including the professional archaeologists who get brought on to any large-scale developments that are taking place.

Both very true.

Of course, with hoards like this, the person burying it in the first place is going to have been looking for somewhere out of the way to put it, so they'll have been more likely to use the corner of a field or something, instead of in the middle of an old town.

[Tagmatium]

Both very true.

Of course, with hoards like this, the person burying it in the first place is going to have been looking for somewhere out of the way to put it, so they'll have been more likely to use the corner of a field or something, instead of in the middle of an old town.

Unless they were being really cunning. Hidden in plain sight, an' all.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Is it possible to tell where the gold originated by how much copper, silver and arsenic for example it contains? Or would a hoard like this have been passed around, re-smelted, mixed together that it cannot be traced to a source?

I honestly don't know - Saxon metallurgy isn't my area of specialisation...

It's not mine either; I'm a chemist. But I got to hang around for a few weeks with an archeologist who studies ancient coins, so I'm clearly an expert, right?

What he said about such things is that the answer is that they can often but not always be traced to a source. The trace elemental analysis is certainly up to it, but as West Failure suspects, melting down mixed lots makes it impossible. We also don't know anywhere near all the ancient mines, so even if we strongly suspect the metal is from a single source, we may be unable to find it.

Edit: And this is likely to be a textbook rewriting find, so three cheers for the discoverer and the folks who will analyze what he found!

[Tagmatium]

It's not mine either; I'm a chemist. But I got to hang around for a few weeks with an archeologist who studies ancient coins, so I'm clearly an expert, right?

What he said about such things is that the answer is that they can often but not always be traced to a source. The trace elemental analysis is certainly up to it, but as West Failure suspects, melting down mixed lots makes it impossible. We also don't know anywhere near all the ancient mines, so even if we strongly suspect the metal is from a single source, we may be unable to find it.

Edit: And this is likely to be a textbook rewriting find, so three cheers for the discoverer and the folks who will analyze what he found!

I suppose the best it can do is at least rule out the places where the gold can't be from.

[North Avayu]

Really beautiful pieces! Possibly we can learn a lot about Anglo-Saxon metallurgy and even if the historical value is relatively small, it will at least raise attention, as every big find does.

[The Archregimancy]

As I understand it, the general suggestion is for safekeeping. In a world without bank vaults and safe-deposit boxes, keeping a large chunk of money safe in a war isn't an easy proposition, so one might as well bury it. If one is then killed in said war, it's entirely possible one will never reclaim it, and thus we have buried treasure.

Inclusion as part of a burial of some eminent person is also possible, it depends what else is found, really.

The article I read on the BBC about this just states that it was found "in a field", but I wonder if there is any other features associated with it? Undoubtedly, the entire place will be crawling with archaeologists, so if there is anything else there, it will be rapidly discovered.

Or it could just be a hole in the ground that was filled with shiny things in order to keep them safe, with nowt else there.

I've been having a chat with some people who know some of the people who've been involved with the hoard (a friend of a friend - so they simply must be right), and part of the issue is that the landowner is insisting on anonymity - presumably because he or she doesn't want a different type of horde descending on their field. So really we know nothing about the site yet except what we know about the hoard.

Discretion often is the correct way forward in these cases. If the location of the field becomes widely known before additional research can be done on the broader context of the hoard, then incalculable damage might be done to the site by individuals who want to see for themselves if there's any more gold in the field. As many of the questions that have been asked so far imply, the research value isn't necessarily in the objects themselves - important and spectacular though they are - but rather in combining what we can learn about the objects with what we can learn about the broader archaeological context that the objects were found in. That requires careful archaeological excavation, and may take decades.

The hoard itself has been extensively analysed by the appropriate expert, who has written a full report, but this should only be considered a preliminary examination of the objects themselves.

I imagine that no matter where the precise location of the field is, that - as Tagmatium indeed states - it will be crawling with archaeologists for decades to come. I'll put some context (no archaeological pun intended) on this for you. Sutton Hoo was discovered in the 1930s; colleagues of mine at the department I was based at in the early 1990s were still excavating the site 60 years later. Perhaps further fieldwork might take place yet again in the future. It all depends on what the nature of this site is. If it's a discreet hoard dumped (as has already been suggested) for safekeeping in a period of instability - perhaps when Oswiu of Northumbria briefly took control of Mercia following Penda's death, for example - then there may be little else to find. If it turns out to be a burial, or perhaps part of a residential complex or palace, then they could be out there for years. The thing is, we just don't know yet; for the reasons described above, cards are being held very close to chests.

I do know a couple of people at the Stoke Museum (though not the Birmingham museum where the hoard is being kept) so maybe tomorrow I'll see if I can find out a little more, though even if I do, don't be surprised if they ask me not to share in a public forum like this one (sorry).

, Any time I read about anything being found in the UK, it's "in a field." Makes it quite hard for me to visualize what the UK looks like. How many fields do those people have?

Small country, lots of fields; just to help you with that visualisation, here's a field in Staffordshire, possibly - but possibly not - just like the one the hoard was found in...

[Tagmatium]

-snip-

Since this will drop off the popular media's radar in a couple of days (weeks at the most), it'll be a case of keeping an ear to the ground towards the publications and magazines out there to get any real information when it does finally come to light. Because this'll take years before anything concrete comes out, the general public's attention span will have forgotten this by then, so it'd be doubtful that we'll hear of it again any time soon once all the hype as died down.

[Hydesland]

I think that the only just thing to do is give it all to me.

You can't trust archaeologists and museum workers with this treasure as their salaries have been hit bad by the recession and they are more than likely to help themselves. It is therefore most sensible to have the treasure administered by me as I am already super rich and have no need to acquire any more treasure, don't worry I will keep it perfectly safe.

[Der Teutoniker]

It is therefore most sensible to have the treasure administered by me as I am already super rich and have no need to acquire any more treasure, don't worry I will keep it perfectly safe.

Ahem, ok Mr. Burns, and the trillion dollar bill.

[The Archregimancy]

It turns out that Birmingham University have undertaken an excavation in the immediate vicinity of the initial find.

Ooooooh, look, video!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/3950826604/

I've been given to understand that the video was taken by the Birmingham team themselves as they didn't want to give away the location by inviting in a professional film crew!

I've also been given to understand - though this may need further confirmation - that the hoard was recovered from ploughzone. I say 'may need further confirmation' because I find it hard to believe that no one has ever noticed the objects coming to the surface (which ploughzone artefacts do) during normal agricultural activity.

But let's assume they were in ploughzone. For the benefit of everyone except Tagmatium, ploughzone (plowzone to our American cousins) is - reasonably enough - the layer of topsoil disturbed by ploughing activity. I've written two published papers on the topic of ploughzone archaeology, so no doubt could bore you all to tears with technicalities, but summing up the most important details....

While ploughing disturbs the edges of an artefact distribution, it doesn't destroy the core location of an artefact distribution. In other words, despite 1400 years of agricultural activity, the overwhelming majority of those artefacts are still roughly in the location they were deposited in.

Ploughing does, however, destroy the specific archaeological context. You can guess at what sort of pit or room or other feature ploughzone concentrations might have once been located in, but it's often hard to say for sure, and it's very, very hard indeed to relate that to any adjacent features - which will also have been destroyed by ploughing. So as long as he recorded the location the objects were located in, and didn't go under the ploughzone, the metal detectorist hasn't destroyed any contextual data by removing from the site the objects that he discovered.

The trick here will be whether there's anything significant in the undisturbed layers underneath the ploughzone.


Incidentally, for Muravyets' benefit, there is a technical reason why discoveries like these so often take place in fields rather than towns and cities.... Rural land hasn't usually been disturbed as much as urban land. Let's take London as an example; London has been a major urban centre for 2000 years. As a result, layer has been built on - and often through - layer. Almost every time construction takes place over the centuries, something underneath that construction is destroyed. Interesting urban sites often survive over time, but realistically, where are you more likely to find an undisturbed Saxon hoard? In the middle of city that's been the site of constant disturbance over centuries, or the middle a field that's remained open agricultural land for the same period of time? And always assuming you don't live in Hong Kong, Monaco or Singapore, most countries - even now - also simply have far more rural land than urban land. Even without the disturbance issue, statistically speaking, there's more countryside to find things in.