It now turns out that a lot (they say 'one third') of the 4000 bits of the Staffordshire Hoard comprise non-ferrous fittings stripped from a helmet, apparently the same one. At least that's what they say. The hoard's conservators have reconstructed what they think it looked like and two replicas have been made to the pattern they provided and it is being proudly displayed to the press. This is a primitive and ill-proportioned effort. Even though it is very shiny, I really think it looks highly impractical to use as a helmet. Huge areas of the face and neck are unprotected. The cheekpieces are very small, not very functional their small area means that they would be unable to spread the force of a blow to them from the side smashing the side of the wearer's face, and in addition, their inwardly projecting thick edges would do the wearer a lot of damage if there was a blow to them. The gap between it and the neckguard is a huge weakness (in the photo here this is hidden by pulling the soft fluffy fur collar up high), and where do the wearer's ears go? There is no sign of the manner that the helmet was kept on (like a chinstrap) and the modern reconstruction has no attempt to make any internal webbing to separate the wearer's head from the bare metal. So it is not clear how the photos of the man wearing it were taken, the crown is very high. Let us hope the detailed evidence for reconstructing each of the components in this way and not any other is properly presented pretty soon before we get used to the way it looks. This reminds me of the difference between the now-discredited first reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet and the way it now is envisaged.
but it's pretty magnificent isn't it? Sooo shiny!
ReplyDelete