The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard: recovery of a treasure

The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard: recovery of a treasure Kevin Leahy1 , Roger Bland2 , Della Hooke3 , Alex Jones4 & Elisabeth Okasha5 Discovery Roger Bland & Kevin Leahy The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard was found on the 5–10 July 2009 by Mr Terry Herbert while metal-detecting on arable land at a site in south Staffordshire in the English Midlands (Figure 1). Mr Herbert contacted Duncan Slarke, the Portable Antiquities Scheme’s Finds Liaison Officer for Staffordshire and the West Midlands, who visited the finder at his home and prepared an initial list of 244 bags of finds. These were then taken to Birmingham Museum and HM Coroner was informed. Duncan Slarke also contacted the relevant archaeological authorities including English Heritage, the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record, the Potteries Museum, Stoke-on-Trent, Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery and the Portable Antiquities & Treasure Department at the British Museum. A meeting was held in Birmingham on 21 July at which it was agreed that the controlled recovery of the remaining objects of the hoard and an archaeological investigation of the findspot was a priority. It was also agreed that one of the Portable Antiquities Scheme’s National Advisors, Dr Kevin Leahy, should compile a hand-list of finds in preparation for the Coroner’s Inquest. On 22 July archaeologists from Staffordshire County Council visited the site in the company of Duncan Slarke and Mr Herbert. A further 24 objects were recovered and their positions plotted on the following day. With the permission of the landowner and the active co-operation of Mr Herbert and funding from English Heritage and Staffordshire County Council, an excavation was undertaken by a small team from Birmingham Archaeology between 24 July and the 21 August. This work resulted in the discovery of a further 571 bagged finds. Mr Herbert also recovered 56 small blocks of earth or clay that gave a response to the metal detector, varying in weight from 1–99g. An X-ray examination of these blocks proved 1 2 3 4 5 National Advisor to the Portable Antiquities Scheme, British Museum, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3DG, UK (Email: [email protected]) Head of Portable Antiquities and Treasure, British Museum, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3DG, UK (Email: [email protected]) Independent researcher, 91 Oakfield Road, Selly Park, Birmingham B29 7HL, UK (Email: [email protected]) Birmingham Archaeology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK (Email: [email protected]) Language Centre, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland (Email: [email protected]) ANTIQUITY 85 (2011): 202–220 https://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/ant0850202.htm 202 Research Kevin Leahy et al. Figure 1. Location of the hoard site. 203 The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard useful and gave some indication of what they contained. There was a lot of broken sheet metal, some of which could be identified as sword hilt plates, and rivets from hilts could also be seen. Fragments of reeded strip were present and it could be seen that some of the other fragments were decorated with filigree. At least one object was decorated with cloisonné garnets. The state of the material was curious; although the fragments were crumpled they remained discrete, suggesting they may have been loosely packed in a bag, which decomposed and was infilled with earth. At this point, the hand-list contained 1381 records (37 of which were recent and not part of the hoard), attributed as follows: Mr Herbert (original discovery and subsequent finds) Staffordshire County Council Birmingham Archaeology 537 items 37 items 807 items Following the inquest in September 2009, additional work was carried out, enhancing and consolidating the record. At the time of the inquest the hand-list recorded more than 1300 objects with a total mass of more than 5.0kg of gold and more than 1.3kg of silver. The catalogue now (November 2010) contains more than 34901 pieces with masses of 5.094kg of gold and 1.442kg of silver. These figures include garnets and some earth, but will be broadly correct. The Treasure Valuation Committee (TVC) met at the British Museum on 25 November 2009 to discuss the valuation, on which occasion the committee of independent advisors deemed the Treasure to be worth £3.285 million, to be split equally between the finder (Mr Terry Herbert) and the landowner (Mr Fred Johnson). The Chairman of the TVC, Professor Norman Palmer CBE said: ‘The task of valuing this hoard required the Treasure Valuation Committee to analyse a very large amount of information in order to arrive at a fair market price, and I am personally indebted to my fellow members whose energy and expertise made this result possible in so short a time. I would also like to pay tribute to the immense amount of hard work put in by our four outside expert valuers and the secretariat. All finders of Treasure can take encouragement that the most valuable Treasure find ever made was dealt with so speedily and yet so scrupulously by all parties concerned, given that the hoard was discovered only in July. It is of course immensely important that this extraordinary hoard is acquired for public benefit and I know that [the] two museums are anxious to raise the funding to keep the hoard in the West Midlands as soon as they can.’2 The two museums referred to were Birmingham City Museum & Art Gallery and the Potteries Museum & Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent (as the museum that collects archaeological material from Staffordshire). The British Museum declined its option to acquire the hoard, 1 NB: not 3940 as Ant. J. 90 (2010); 139. 2 The members of the committee were: Professor Norman Palmer, CBE (Chairman), Mr Trevor Austin, Professor Ian Carradice, Mr John Cherry, Mr Peter Clayton, Dr Jack Ogden, Dr Tim Pestell and Mrs May Sinclair. 204 but has played a major role in facilitating its study and its successful acquisition by the two museums concerned. Staff of the Portable Antiquities Scheme rapidly placed the treasure in the public domain (see www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk), and produced an illustrated summary (Leahy & Bland 2009). Some of the objects were the subject of temporary displays at the British Museum, Birmingham City Museum and the Potteries Museum, Stoke-on-Trent where, over a period of a few weeks, they were seen by more than 90 000 people, some of whom queued for up to five hours. Work began on the preparation of a full catalogue and raising money for the acquisition of the hoard from the Crown. The two museums were very fortunate that the Art Fund led the fundraising appeal and the speed with which this large sum of money was raised exceeded all expectations. Under the guidelines of the Treasure Act, museums have four months to raise the money to pay the reward, but in this case the money was raised in three months, with no less than £900 000 of it coming from individual donations, a far higher proportion than for any of the Art Fund’s other public appeals. While some media exaggeration was inevitable, the overall response was responsible and we can only be thankful that, at this time of financial constraints, the public clearly demonstrated their interest in the past. It may be taken as read that additional money will be needed to undertake an indepth study of the material (see below). A symposium was held at the British Museum on 30–31 March 2010 (see www.finds.org.uk/staffordshirehoard), attended by over 100 European scholars of the early Middle Ages, together with the PAS and museum staff, field archaeologists and conservators who had been directly engaged with the find. What follows here reflects and develops the research agenda that was initiated on that occasion. Location Della Hooke The hoard was found within the extra-parochial area of Ogley Hay (now taken into the parish of Hammerwich) at the southern end of Cannock Chase (Figure 2). The spine of upland that extends southwards from the Cannock Hills to Aldridge once formed the boundary between two early folk groups — the Tomsæte to the east, whose focus lay in the Tame Valley, and the Pencersæte to the west, whose focus lay in the valley of the river Penk (Sawyer 1968: S 197, S 1272; Hooke 1983: 10–12). In the seventh century the area was probably a landscape of open woodland and heath with swine pastures at first used seasonally very much like those of the Weald of south-eastern England, and only gradually acquiring fixed boundaries. In the Domesday Book, the estates of Wolverhampton, including Ogintune, the earlier name for Ogley Hay, and Hilton, and those of Lichfield (including Wyrley and Norton Canes) can be seen to be almost interlocking in this marginal area (Hawkins & Rumble 1976: 2.16, 2.22, 7.1; Dean et al. 2010: 149, fig. 4). Pre-Conquest and medieval place-names in the area immediately around the findspot indicate the presence of marshland and woodland. 205 Research Kevin Leahy et al. The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard Figure 2. The locality of the findspot: place-name and documentary evidence. The boundaries shown are those of the nineteenth-century parishes. The lēah names of the region imply an association with wood pasture (Hooke 2008) and references to swine occur in a number of boundary landmarks in the area, including a ‘swine-fold’ on the boundary of Ogintune, and a ‘mast oak’ on the boundary of Hatherton (Hooke 1983: 78–81). The site of the lost Ogintune is not known and the name is not recorded after the Domesday Book entry of 1086, when the whole vill is described as ‘waste’ (Hawkins & Rumble 1976: 7.11), probably because it had already been taken into the royal forest of Cannock; later the estate is always referred to as Ogley (Horovitz 2005: 418). Ogley is ‘Hocca’s leah or wood’, the additional ‘Hay’ indicating a division or bailiwick of Cannock Forest. The charter containing the Ogley Hay boundary clause is a late forgery, purporting to be the Wolverhampton minster foundation charter, but the boundary clauses attached to it are genuinely of pre-Conquest date (Sawyer 1968: S 1380; Hooke 1983: 28–30; Keynes 1976: 624). Other charters of Wolverhampton minster estates in this region refer to a game enclosure, a hunter’s path and a harts’ wallowing-place — all features characteristic of such a marginal zone. The landscape probably consisted of a mosaic of open woodland and heath, and like most woods was pastured regularly by domestic stock. 206 Other than Ogintune, there are only a small number of tūn names in the upland area — tūn names are more heavily concentrated in riverine areas of greater settlement density and larger settlement foci. A scatter of wīc names, indicating dependent estates associated with some special function, include Hammerwich. Taking its name from Old English (OE) hamor ‘hammer’, this may have been connected with early medieval metalworking but there is little archaeological evidence to suggest any direct connection with the hoard. Metalworkers may have been attracted to the area by the availability of charcoal in the woodlands, as at Smethwick ‘the smiths’ wīc’, another Lichfield dependency to the south. Although there is a gold and garnet pendant from Hammerwich, and a gilt copper alloy mount from the same field as the hoard but 100m away, there is nothing else to indicate a major metalworking focus here. Early medieval finds increase in number eastwards in the area around the Roman centre of Letocetum (Wall), and north-eastwards towards Lichfield which was to become the centre of the episcopal see. Several names recorded in later documents may indicate tumuli close to the major roads of the area: Muckley Corner beside the Watling Street (Mukelay C13 but later Mucklow) may have been ‘the great hlaw or tumulus’ and Catshill beside the Old Chester Road (Catteshulle C13 but Catteslowe 1300) may also have been ‘Catt’s hlaw’ (Horovitz 2005: 402, 180). OE hlaw has often been found to indicate Anglo-Saxon burial (Hooke 1980– 81). Knaves Castle (Cnaven castle c. 1308) is an enigmatic site, now destroyed, variously claimed to have been a castle or a tumulus but no evidence of any man-made features were observed during road widening in 1971 (Hooke 1980–81: 348; OS card: West Midlands 2664). The principal feature in the area’s early medieval landscape would undoubtedly have been the Roman road Watling Street, still in use in this period (Champness 2008). Other routeways can be reconstructed from charter evidence, including one from Wolverhampton to Ogley Hay which seems to have begun as a made-up street near Wolverhampton but which had degenerated into a ‘hunter’s path’ by the time it reached Ogley Hay and Watling Street (Hooke 1983: 47, fig. 120, 76–7, fig. 2iv). Some of the parish boundaries were to follow Watling Street but it seems unlikely that the Ogley Hay/Hammerwich boundary following this road influenced the location of the hoard. Much of the area was subsequently placed under forest law by the Norman kings, but the core of Cannock Forest had been granted to the Bishop of Lichfield in the twelfth century and eventually only a number of individual hays continued to be maintained by the royal officials throughout the Middle Ages, among them Ogley Hay. This discouraged development in these areas and detailed proceedings of the forest courts show how little the landscape had changed — Ogley Hay was noted for its oaks in the thirteenth century (Birrell 1999: 21–2). Although rabbit warrens and lodges were established in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, much to the dismay of tenants with grazing rights, the entire extra-parochial area of Ogley Hay and the western sector of Hammerwich parish remained waste until enclosure in the mid nineteenth century (Hammerwich Inclosure Plan and Award 1856, Ogley Hay Inclosure Plan and Award 1838, SRO Q/RDc/99, Q/RDc/90). The findspot of the hoard was on the crest of a low ridge overlooking the Roman road. Landscape study suggests that, in the early Middle Ages, it was perhaps within an open 207 Research Kevin Leahy et al. The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard patch in woodland — a relatively remote location in a sparsely populated marginal zone that formed a boundary between early medieval folk groups. Field investigation Alex Jones Fieldwork at the findspot was undertaken by Birmingham Archaeology in two stages, in July– August 2009 and in March 2010. The first stage was an emergency response to the initial discovery by the metal-detectorist, Mr Terry Herbert, working with the written permission of the landowner, Mr Fred Johnson. Following recovery of over 200 items by the detectorist, a 1m2 test-pit was dug in the area by Staffordshire County Council to establish whether all of the hoard had been recovered and to locate any evidence for associated features. It was concluded that parts of the hoard remained and appeared to be contained within the topsoil. Resources were therefore concentrated on a systematic excavation of the ploughsoil, working outwards from the test-pit, until the entire hoard was recovered. The 1m2 test-pit was expanded to 2m2 , and the decision was then taken to expand the area in blocks of 1m2 until no more objects were found. The ploughsoil in each square was systematically hand-excavated in spits, and repeatedly scanned with a metal detector, to ensure that all items, even the smallest, were recovered and plotted in two dimensions (Figures 3 & 4). A total of 152m2 was excavated, resulting in the recovery of approximately 800 items. A few features, or possible features, were identified, none stratigraphically related to the hoard (Jones 2009). Despite on-site security, the threat from night-hawking (looting) was thought to be high, because of the proximity of the A5 road (Roman Watling Street, Figure 1), so the excavation methodology was intended to recover the hoard as rapidly as possible. It is worth emphasising that priority was given to the safe recovery of the artefacts. The extent of the hoard scatter, extending over 90m2 clearly refutes the suggestion that it was buried only recently. The recorded distribution suggests that the larger objects may have been ‘dragged’ by recent ploughing in both east–west and north–south directions. The main finds concentration lay within an area measuring 3 × 5m, centred on the original discovery. Another important element of the first stage of work was an extensive magnetometer survey (using a Ferex 4.032 magnetometer), covering 5.3ha, intended to provide further details of the archaeological context. The main magnetometer anomalies comprised a curving field boundary and a curvilinear feature, adjoining the hoard (Figures 3 & 4). The first stage of fieldwork was successful in safely recovering the hoard. This process of emergency recovery failed to find evidence for its archaeological context — except that it was located wholly within the ploughsoil. This emergency response, as well as the emerging information from the cataloguing of the hoard by Dr Kevin Leahy (see below), left many questions unanswered. Why was the hoard buried at this location? How was it buried? By whom? And when? The central aim of the second stage of archaeological fieldwork undertaken in March 2010 was to provide an understanding of the immediate archaeological context of the hoard. The techniques chosen at this stage included resistivity survey, trial-trenching and test-pitting. The trenches were positioned to test a representative 208 Research Kevin Leahy et al. Figure 3. The site, its topography, the area of spread of fragments from the hoard and located features. sample of the resistivity anomalies, some of which had also been recognised in the preceding magnetometer survey. The main features identified by trenching were two palisade trenches, neither containing any datable evidence (Burrows & Jones 2010). Trenching also identified a curvilinear magnetometer and resistivity anomaly that was probably of geological origin. A postmedieval field boundary was also sampled by hand-excavation. Other resistivity anomalies corresponded with variations in the natural subsoil. Equally important was the absence of further finds of Anglo-Saxon date (with the exception of a single glass bead) — confirming that the hoard had been fully recovered in August 2009. During the 2010 fieldwork the landowner recounted the story of a previous farmer having flattened an earthwork ‘bump’ in the approximate location of the hoard using a machine. A search of air photographs did indeed identify an oval ‘bump’ or mound of either anthropogenic or natural origin recorded in 1968. Intriguingly, an aerial photograph dated 1971 shows a faint oval cropmark ditch near the location of the ‘bump’ or mound, presumably revealed by ‘machining away’ the ‘bump’ or mound. The cropmarked oval ditch 209 The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard Figure 4. Excavated areas, 2009 and 2010. measured approximately 50 × 28m, its long axis positioned at a tangent to the natural ridge, approximately parallel with Watling Street. Significantly, the palisade trench segments dug in Trenches 3 and 5 corresponded in position and alignment with the eastern ‘end’ of the cropmark feature. Interpretation What can the field archaeology contribute to the debate concerning the purpose of original deposition? Originally the items were probably buried in a pit, which had been 210 ploughed-out over time. This would explain the recorded distribution of the items, recorded over an area of over 90m2 , suggesting ploughing in east–west and north–south directions. The topographic location of the findspot is surely significant. The hoard was buried along the crest of a natural ridge (Figure 3). The north-western spur of the ridge, adjoining Watling Street, was chosen for burial rather than the higher ground away from the road, suggesting that a roadside location was important. The nearby earthwork ‘bump’ could have acted as a marker to facilitate recovery of the hoard, although there is no present evidence to link the two. The oval cropmark feature is enigmatic. The hoard was located outside (to the west of ) the ditch circuit, and there is no present evidence to link the hoard and the cropmark. The form of the cropmark does not necessarily suggest a prehistoric date (e.g. ring-ditch). Currently, the best dating evidence for this feature is its alignment — parallel with Watling Street, which suggests a Roman or post-Roman context, although, again, there are no obvious parallels. There is no clear evidence to link the hoard with any other buried feature. It is perhaps easier to identify those categories of evidence that are absent. There is no evidence for burial, or monumental burial in particular as at contemporary Sutton Hoo (cf. Carver 2005). Equally, there is no evidence of settlement, although the oval cropmarked feature could be part of a farmstead of unknown date. At this stage, further interpretation of the fieldwork evidence is probably not worthwhile. Plotting of the air photograph evidence is a priority, followed, if appropriate by groundtruthing. Content of the hoard Kevin Leahy The composition of the hoard is summarised at Table 1 (Figure 5). It is strangely unbalanced, consisting mainly of war-gear, particularly sword hilt fittings, stripped from their iron blades prior to deposition. It was found that 60.1 per cent, of the objects (by weight) could be described as military, 28.4 per cent are, at present, unidentified and may be civilian and 11.5 per cent were fragments too small for classification. It is, however, possible that many of the fragments came from a helmet and some of the unidentified objects may be found to have a martial function. No coins or, with the exception of two small buckles, dress accessories, have been so far recognised. The catalogue contains 92 pommel caps or pommel cap fragments (73 gold, 14 silver and 5 copper alloy) (Figure 6). Of these, 51 were decorated with filigree, 18 with cloisonné and 13 bear incised decoration. Two are plain, and some are heavily worn, indicating different histories of use. There are 73 collars from sword hilts and 141 plates from the upper and lower guards of hilts. Ten sword ‘pyramids’ with gold and garnet settings were found and two gold and garnet sword ‘buttons’ (Figure 7). Most of the fittings came from two-edged swords but some represent single-edged seaxes. The most distinctive helmet parts are a silver gilt cheek-piece decorated with bands of Style II animals (no. 453) (Figure 8), and what appears to be a mount from a helmet crest (no. 678). Cast crest and face mounts as seen on the Sutton Hoo, Vendel and Valsgärde helmets 211 Research Kevin Leahy et al. Table 1. Provisional summary of contents (November 2010). Description of type No. 764 786 685 1 1 2 41 1 1 3 1 1 21 8 51 1 1 5 2 2 1 2 4 4 1 7 6 4 1 9 4 6 4 2 2 3 3 18 38 695 676 718 1000 438 820 130 16 654 270 148 1184 78 784 1424 373 1 388 296 1062 131 663 273 969 356 971 789 Description of type Filigree panel, anchor, Au Filigree panel, arched, Au Filigree panel, cross, Au Filigree panel, crescentic, Au Filigree panel, gabled, Au Filigree panel, ellipsoid, Au Filigree panel, insert, Au Filigree panel, oval Filigree panel, rectangular, large, Au Filigree panel, rectangular, small, Au Filigree panel, spurred, Au Filigree panel, trapezoid Filigree panel, U shaped, Au Filigree panel, triangular, Au Filigree panel, zoomorphic, Au Filigree strip, Au Filigree strip, L sectioned, Au Filigree strip, angled, Au Fragment, Ae Fragment, Ag Fragments, denticulate, Ag Fragment, grooved, Ae Fragment, grooved, Ag Fragment, raised decoration, Ag Fragment, riveted, Ag Fragment, sheet metal, Ae Fragment, sheet metal, Ag Fragment, sheet metal, Ag gilt Fragment, sheet metal, Au Fragment, shield-shaped, Ag Fragment, strip, channelled, Ag Glass pellet, blue Helmet cheek-piece, Ag, niello, gilt Hilt button, cloisonné, Au Hilt collar, cloisonné, Au Hilt collar, filigree, Au Example∗ No. 865 2 9 1 1 1 3 21 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 9 64 2 1 15 75 1 1 1 2 1 11 148 27 26 1 1 3 1 2 21 48 920 807 30 876 556 959 1052 782 1238 560 878 297 796 8 464 504 453 675 380 278 The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard 212 Bead, stone Brooch, Ag1 Buckle and plate, Au C-sectioned edging, Ag2 Cabochon, glass Cabochon, loose stone Cabochon garnet, panel, trapezoid Cabochon garnet, panel, triangular Cabochon garnet, panel, curved Cloisonné foil, Au Cloisonné fragment Cloisonné, loose stone Cloisonné plate, cross, Au Cloisonné plate, cone, Au Cloisonné plate, eagle, Au Cloisonné plate, fin shaped, Au Cloisonné plate, lentoid, Au Cloisonné plate, narrow, Au Cloisonné plate, rectangular, small, Au Cloisonné plate, shield, small, Au Cloisonné plate, triangular, small, Au Cloisonné plate, tongue shaped Au Cloisonné strip, Au Cloisonné strip, angled, Au Cloisonné strip, angled end, Au Cloisonné strip, oval, Au Cloisonné strip, narrow, Au Cloisonné strip, recessed, Au Cloisonné strip, slotted, Au Cloisonné strip, spurred, Au Cloisonné strip, square ended, Au Cloisonné strip, stepped end, Au Cloisonné strip, triple faced, Au Cross, Christian Filigree covered wire, Au Filigree fragment, Au Example∗ Table 1. (Continued) Description of type 1 2 3 No. 304 563 567 395 4 1 1 42 18 28 16 1 5 8 1 1 19 3 20 3 1 36 12 22 15 6 1 2 12 5 5 14 4 2 3 6 1 9 10 672 567 374 378 372 497 392 690 66 1281 9 1248 652 577 467 1559 713 Description of type Niello, strip, stepped, Ag Niello, strip, triangles, Ag Plain panel, Ae Plain panel, Au Plain strip, Ae Plain strip, Ag Plain strip, Au Plain strip, L sectioned, Ag Pommel cap, cloisonné, Au Pommel cap, cloisonné and filigree, Au Pommel cap, filigree, Au Pommel cap, incised Pommel cap, plain, Ag Pommel ring mount, Ag Pressblech foil, Ag Pyramid, cabochon, Au Pyramid, cloisonné, geometric, Au Pyramid, cloisonné, zoomorphic, Au Raised sheet, Ag Reeded strip, Ag Reeded strip, Au Setting, cabochon, glass, Au Setting, cabochon, garnet, Au Setting, empty, Au Shard, plain Ag Snake, Au Strip, channelled, Ae Unidentified Wire, Ae Wire, Ag Wire, Au Wire, beaded, Ae Wire, beaded, Ag Wire fitting, L shaped, slotted, Au3 Wire ring, Au Example∗ No. 1036 1168 516 5 21 1 2 3 22 11 8 18 2 51 13 8 3 98 2 6 2 8 98 12 1 2 3 9 6 1 26 1 5 3 1 24 2 1 452 680 381 711 827 531 302 377 451 776 545 1314 658 700 417 772 589 Probably recent Helmet edging Helmet fitting Research Kevin Leahy et al. 213 Hilt collar, incised, Ae Hilt plate and tray, plain, Au Hilt plate, incised, zoomorphic Hilt plate, plain, Au Hilt plate, plain, Ag Hilt plate, bulla in filigree setting, Au Hilt plate, garnet in filigree setting, Au Hilt plate, incised, zoomorphic Au Hilt plate tray, cloisonné, Au Hilt plate tray, bulla in filigree setting, Au Hilt plate tray, garnet in filigree setting, Au Hilt plate tray, plain, Ae Hilt plate tray, plain, Ag Hilt ring, beaded wire, Ag Hilt ring, beaded wire, Au Hilt ring, filigree wire, Au Hilt ring, plain, Au Hilt rivet cap, dome headed, Au Hilt rivet cap, dome headed, Ag Hilt rivet, plain, Ag Hilt rivet, plain, Au Hilt rivet and washer, plain, Au Hilt shoulder mount, filigree, Au Incised fragment, Ae Incised fragment, Ag Incised fragment, interlace, Ag Incised fragment, zoomorphic Incised interlace strip, Ag Incised interlace strip, Au Incised panel, eagle, Au Incised panel, interlace Ag Incised panel, zoomorphic, Au Lace end, Ae Niello inlaid plate, Ag Niello inlaid strip, Ag Example∗ The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard Figure 5. The Ogley Hay hoard: general. are absent, although the hoard contains fragments of reeded strip and C-sectioned edging of types characteristic of these helmets. Most pieces are short, making reconstruction difficult, but some of the C-shaped edging is angled, suggesting that they came from a helmet. Particularly significant are fragments of Pressblech decorated silver depicting warriors and animals. Foils of this type appear on Vendel helmets where the foil panels were secured using reeded strip. These had, prior to deposition, been stripped from the iron cap that formed the body of the helmet. Of the 28.4 per cent of the hoard that may be non-military only the three Christian crosses can be identified with certainty. These consist of a large processional/altar cross (no. 655) (Figure 9), a pendant cross (no. 303) and the inscribed strip (no. 550) (Figure 10), which may be part of a third cross. There are two other crosses (nos. 820 & 920) but these are perhaps best seen as cross-shaped mounts rather than religious emblems. The non-military finds contain some magnificent plates, strips and fittings decorated with close-set garnets. Most appear to lack any attachment points and their function is, at present, unknown, but, hopefully, these matters will be resolved as work progresses. The material deposited in this hoard comes from a restricted range of objects, mainly of a military nature. This careful selection suggests that the hoard was not merely bullion: the large buckles and accoutrements that would have accompanied fine swords are not present. Feminine dress fittings, which are more common in the archaeological record than sword 214 Research Kevin Leahy et al. Figure 6. Gold and garnet pommel cap (StH 452, 46.4 × 12.8 × 20.2mm high) and hilt fitting with inlaid garnets (StH 449, 31.9 × 17.0 × 22.8mm high). hilts, are also absent. The lack of sword blades is also striking; these were valuable in their own right and had an importance independent of the hilts. While the number of pieces in the hoard is large it must be recognised that in excess of 45.4 per cent of them weighed less than 1.0g (and the whole consignment could fit in a shoe box). The silver objects tended to be more fragmentary than the gold, as they had been embrittled by excessive cold working. In spite of the damage suffered by many of the objects there does not seem to have been any systematic attempt to spoil them: items appear to have been bent to fit into a small space but were not deliberately broken. Few pieces show evidence of plough damage and it is likely that the hoard entered the topsoil recently, when the field was last ploughed, eight months before the discovery. Cloisonné garnet inlay was employed on 141 pieces in addition to which 57 loose cut garnets were found. Both the damaged garnet work and the loose stones are likely to be informative revealing details hidden on complete objects. Filigree was used on 371 objects and fragments and, again, damage is likely to be important from a technological point of view. The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard makes a massive addition to the corpus of early medieval European fine metalwork, and we now have a formidable array of techniques that can be used in the non-destructive analysis of the material: the scanning electron microscope, digital imaging and computer based technology. I would like to see the database as the point of departure for research on the hoard, growing organically as new images and data are added. One of the successes of the announcement of the find was the large number of images which were immediately made available online. I would like to see this access and openness continue throughout the process of recording and analysis. The inscription Elisabeth Okasha The inscribed strip (Figure 10) is made of gold alloy and is now folded over in half on itself. When straight it would have measured 179mm in length, 15.8mm in width and 2.1mm 215 The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard Figure 7. Cloisoneé sword pyramids (top left: StH 462, 22.4 × 21.4 × 13.6mm high; top right: StH 451, 23.5mm in diameter × 2.8mm high); sword button (bottom left: StH 675, 14.2mm in diameter × 16.6mm high); and glass setting (bottom right: StH 545, 27.0mm in diameter × 8.7mm high). in thickness. There are holes and a pin on the strip, used for fastening it on to some larger object, presumably one associated with battle. On the outer side of the strip is Text 1, which is set in two lines and is probably primary. The decorated gem setting at the beginning of the text, and the incised animal head at the end, indicate that the text is complete. The letters are formed by incisions that were then filled with niello. On the inner side of the strip is Text 2, also in two lines, set upside down with respect to Text 1. The letters are incised but are not filled with niello. Text 2 requires cleaning before it can be fully read, but it appears to be a copy of the same text, although with further letters added at the end. The letters in Text 2 are less uniform in size than those in Text 1 and the 216 Research Kevin Leahy et al. Figure 8. Helmet cheek piece (StH 453, 88.2 × 74.9 × 2.0mm thick) and helmet crest with horse-shaped terminal (StH 678, 47.8 × 10.0 × 10.1mm high). text is less carefully set out. It seems likely that Text 2 represents a practice attempt on the part of the engraver. This text would have been invisible when the strip was fastened on to another object. Text 1, when transliterated, divided into words, with abbreviations expanded and likely letters assumed, reads: [s]urge domine disepentur inimici tui et [f]ugent qui oderunt te a facie tua. There are two deliberate dots in the text, one each around the word dne for domine. These could represent inconsistent use of dots to indicate word separation (relatively common in Anglo-Saxon inscribed texts) and/or could be used to highlight the nomen sacrum. The deliberate space in the text, preceding the letter q, may indicate word separation or may have been an attempt to better fit the remaining letters into the space available. Text 2, the text on the inner side, reads: surge domine [di. . .] et fugi[u . . .]i ode[r]unt te a fac[ie t. . .] por[t. . .]. All, or most, of the lost letters may become legible once the inside of 217 The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard Figure 9. Processional cross (StH 655, 114.3 × 71.2 × 1.3 mm thick as found). 218 Research Kevin Leahy et al. Figure 10. Two views of the inscribed strip showing the inner and outer texts (StH 550, 89.5 × 15.8 × 2.1mm thick as found). the strip is cleaned. Anglo-Saxon inscriptions that contain two copies of the same text are extremely unusual. The inscribed text was probably chosen by a cleric or religious person, then written on a piece of vellum or a wax tablet, ready for engraving by the goldsmith. It is probably a rendering of the well-known Vulgate text, which appears in Numbers 10, 35 as: cumque elevaretur arca dicebat Moses surge Domine et dissipentur inimici tui et fugiant qui oderunt te a facie tua ‘When he had lifted up the ark, Moses said “Rise up, Lord, and may your enemies be dispersed and those who hate you flee from your face”’. Alternatively the text could be from the Vulgate Psalm 67, 2: exsurgat Deus et dissipentur inimici eius et fugiant qui oderunt eum a facie eius, ‘Let God arise and his enemies be dispersed and those who hate him flee from his face’. The inscription is closer to the Numbers text but the Psalm text might have been more familiar to the person who chose the text to be inscribed. Either text would suit an inscription on an object associated with battle. 219 The Staffordshire (Ogley Hay) hoard The script used in both texts is insular majuscule and, as is common with the epigraphic use of this script, includes the occasional capital form. Less usual is the considerable use of large open serifs on some letters in Text 1. No Anglo-Saxon inscribed text can be dated on the basis of the script alone. However a date in the early eighth century seems most likely on the evidence of the insular script, the large open serifs, and parallels with other inscribed texts dating from this period. Acknowledgements Photographs courtesy of Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery. These and images of many of the items listed in Table 1 are available online at: https://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/. References HOOKE, D. 1980–81. Burial features in West Midland charters. Journal of the English Place-Name Society 13: 1–40. – 1983. The landscape of Anglo-Saxon Staffordshire: the charter evidence (Studies in local archaeology 1). Keele: Department of Adult Education, University of Keele. – 2008. Early medieval woodland and the place-name term leah, in O.J. Padel & D.N. Parsons (ed) A commodity of good names. Essays in honour of Margaret Gelling: 365–76. Donington: Shaun Tyas. HOROVITZ, D. 2005. The place-names of Staffordshire. Brewood: David Horovitz. JONES, A.E. 2009. The Staffordshire hoard: archaeological recovery 2009. Unpublished Birmingham Archaeology report 1971. KEYNES, S. 1976. Studies on Anglo-Saxon Royal diplomas (2 volumes). Unpublished Fellowship dissertation, Trinity College, Cambridge. LEAHY, K. & R. BLAND. 2009. The Staffordshire hoard. London: British Museum Press. SAWYER, P.H. 1968. Anglo-Saxon charters: an annotated list and bibliography. London: Royal Historical Society. SRO Staffordshire Record Office BIRRELL, J. 1999. The forests of Cannock and Kinver: select documents 1235–1372 (Collections for a history of Staffordshire 4.18). Stafford: Staffordshire Record Society. BURROWS, B. & A.E. JONES. 2010. The Staffordshire hoard: an archaeological evaluation 2010. Unpublished Birmingham Archaeology report 1971.1. CARVER, M.O.H. 2005. Sutton Hoo, a seventh-century princely burial ground and its context (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 69). London: British Museum Press. CHAMPNESS, C. 2008. ‘Watling Street, Hammerwich’, in A. Powell, P. Booth & A.D. Crockett (ed.) The archaeology of the M6 Toll 2000–2003 (Oxford Wessex Archaeology Monograph 3): 57–59. Oxford: Oxford Wessex Archaeology. DEAN, S., D. HOOKE & R.A. JONES. 2010. The ‘Staffordshire hoard’: the fieldwork. The Antiquaries Journal 90: 139–52. HAWKINS, A. & A. RUMBLE. 1976. Domesday book. 24: Staffordshire. Chichester: Phillimore. 220