Editing Sutton Hoo (section)

== Excavations ==

=== Before 1938 ===
[[File:1860-11-24 - The Ipswich Journal - Sutton Hoo notice.png|thumb|A notice in the 24 November 1860 edition of ''The Ipswich Journal'']]

In medieval times the westerly end of the mound was dug away and a boundary ditch was laid out. Therefore, when looters dug into the apparent centre during the sixteenth century, they missed the real centre: nor could they have foreseen that the deposit lay very deep in the belly of a buried ship, well below the level of the land surface.{{sfn|Carver|1998|p=147}}

In the 16th century, a pit, dated by bottle shards left at the bottom, was dug into Mound 1, narrowly missing the burial.{{sfn|Carver|1998|p=147}} The area was explored extensively during the 19th century, when a small viewing platform was constructed,{{sfn|Carver|1998|pp=148–153}} but no useful records were made. In 1860 it was reported that nearly two [[bushel]]s of iron screw bolts, presumably ship rivets, had been found at the recent opening of a mound and that it was hoped to open others.{{sfn|The Ipswich Journal|1860}}{{sfn|Hoppitt|1985}}

=== Basil Brown and Charles Phillips: 1938–1939 ===
{{further|Edith Pretty|Basil Brown}}

In 1910, a mansion, [[Tranmer House]], was built a short distance from the mounds. In 1926 the Tranmer estate was purchased by Colonel Frank Pretty, a retired military officer who had recently married. In 1934, Pretty died, leaving a widow, [[Edith Pretty]], and young son, Robert Dempster Pretty.<ref>Carver, ''Sutton Hoo'', pp. 3–4, 153.</ref> Following her bereavement, Edith became interested in [[Spiritualism (religious movement)|Spiritualism]], a popular religious movement that purported to enable the living to communicate with the dead.

In 1937, Pretty decided to organise an excavation of the mounds.{{sfn|Carver|1998|p=4}} Through the [[Ipswich Museum]], she obtained the services of [[Basil Brown]], a self-taught Suffolk archaeologist who had taken up full-time investigations of Roman sites for the museum.<ref>ODNB, Basil John Wait Brown. Brown's diaries of the 1938 and 1939 excavations are published in Bruce-Mitford 1974, 141–169.</ref> In June 1938, Pretty took him to the site, offered him accommodation and a wage of 30 shillings a week, and suggested that he start digging at Mound&nbsp;1.{{sfn|Carver|1998|pp=4–5}}

Because it had been disturbed by earlier grave diggers, Brown, in consultation with the Ipswich Museum, decided instead to open three smaller mounds (2, 3 and 4). These only revealed fragmented artefacts, as the mounds had been robbed of valuable items.{{sfnm|Bruce-Mitford|1975|1pp=100–131|Markham|2002|2pp=12–14}} In Mound&nbsp;2 he found iron ship-rivets and a disturbed chamber burial that contained unusual fragments of metal and glass artefacts. At first, it was undecided as to whether they were Early Anglo-Saxon or [[Viking Age|Viking]] objects.{{sfn|Bruce-Mitford|1975|pp=100–136}} The Ipswich Museum then became involved with the excavations;{{sfn|Carver|1998|p=7}} the finds became part of the museum's collection.

In May&nbsp;1939, Brown began work on Mound&nbsp;1, helped by Pretty's gardener John (Jack) Jacobs, her gamekeeper William Spooner, and another estate worker Bert Fuller.{{sfn|Evans|1986}} (Jacobs lived with his wife and their three children at Sutton Hoo House.) They drove a trench from the east end and on the third day discovered an iron rivet which Brown identified as a ship's rivet.{{efn|John Jacobs described what he and Basil Brown found in a short recorded commentary which can be heard on the aural history earpieces at Sutton Hoo National Trust Exhibition Hall.}} Within hours others were found still in position. The colossal size of the find became apparent. After several weeks of patiently removing earth from the ship's hull, they reached the burial chamber.<ref>Descriptions of the excavation are given as follows: Bruce-Mitford 1975, 156–222; Carver ''Sutton Hoo'', pp. 9–11; Markham 2002. (Markham's published narrative is based on unpublished correspondence of Basil Brown and others held by the British Museum, the Ipswich Museum, and the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service.)</ref>

[[File:SHIP MED.jpg|thumb|A so-called 'ghostly' image of the buried ship was revealed during excavations in 1939. The 'ghost' effect was the result of sand discoloured by the organic matter which had rotted away. Still from a film made by H. J. Phillips, brother of Charles Phillips.]]
The following month, [[Charles Phillips (archaeologist)|Charles Phillips]] of [[Cambridge University]] heard rumours of a ship discovery. He was taken to Sutton Hoo by Mr Maynard, the Ipswich Museum curator, and was staggered by what he saw. Within a short time, following discussions with the Ipswich Museum, the British Museum, the [[Science Museum, London|Science Museum]], and [[Office of Works]], Phillips had taken over responsibility for the excavation of the burial chamber.{{sfn|Carver|1998|p=12}}

Initially, Phillips and the British Museum instructed Brown to cease excavating until they could get their team assembled, but he continued working, something which may have saved the site from being looted by treasure hunters.{{sfn|Carver|1998|p=12}} Phillips's team included [[W.F. Grimes]] and [[O. G. S. Crawford|O.G.S. Crawford]] of the [[Ordnance Survey]], Peggy Piggott (later known as [[Margaret Guido]]) and [[Stuart Piggott]], and other friends and colleagues.<ref>See Charles Phillips's diary of the excavation (Carver ''Sutton Hoo'', pp. 11–20)</ref> Extensive photography of the ship excavation was made by [[Mercie Lack]] and Barbara Wagstaff.

The need for secrecy and various vested interests led to a confrontation between Phillips and the Ipswich Museum. In 1935–1936 Phillips and his friend [[Grahame Clark]] had taken control of [[The Prehistoric Society]]. Maynard, then turned his attention to developing Brown's work for the museum. Phillips, who disliked the museum's honorary president, Reid Moir, F.R.S., had now reappeared, and he deliberately excluded Moir and Maynard from the new discovery at Sutton Hoo.{{sfnm|Clark|1985|Phillips|1987|2pp=70–80|Plunkett|1998|3pp=182, 189|Markham|2002|4pp=8–9, 31–35}} After Ipswich Museum prematurely announced the discovery, reporters attempted to access the site, so Pretty paid for two policemen to guard the site 24 hours a day.<ref>Carver, ''Sutton Hoo'', p. 18.</ref>

The finds, having been packed and removed to London, were brought back for a [[treasure trove]] inquest held that autumn at Sutton village hall, where it was decided that since the treasure was buried without the intention to recover it, it was the property of Pretty as the landowner.{{sfn|Bruce-Mitford|1975|pp=718–731}} Pretty decided to bequeath the treasure as a gift to the nation, so that the meaning and excitement of her discovery could be shared by everyone.{{sfn|Markham|2002|pp=50–54}}

When [[Second World War|World War II]] broke out in September 1939, the grave-goods were put in storage. Sutton Hoo was used as a training ground for military vehicles.{{sfn|Carver|1998|pp=25–26}} Phillips and colleagues produced important publications in 1940 including a dedicated issue of ''[[Antiquity (journal)|Antiquity]]''.<ref>Phillips 1940;{{cite journal |last=Crawford |first=O.G.S. |title=Editorial Notes |journal=Antiquity |date=1940 |volume=14 |issue=53 |pages=1–5 |doi=10.1017/S0003598X00014733 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

=== Rupert Bruce-Mitford: 1965–1971 ===

After the war ended in 1945, the Sutton Hoo artefacts were removed from storage. A team, led by [[Rupert Bruce-Mitford]], from the British Museum's Department of British and Medieval Antiquities, determined their nature and helped to reconstruct and replicate the sceptre and helmet.{{sfn|Carver|1998|pp=26–31}} They also oversaw the conservation of the artefacts, to protect them and enable them to be viewed by the public.{{sfn|Carver|1998|p=32}}

From analysing the data collected in 1938–39, Bruce-Mitford concluded that there were still unanswered questions. As a result of his interest in excavating previously unexplored areas of the Sutton Hoo site, a second archaeological investigation was organised. In 1965, a British Museum team began work, continuing until 1971. The ship impression was re-exposed and found to have suffered some damage, not having been back-filled after excavation in 1939.{{sfn|Bruce-Mitford|1975|pp=230–344}}

Nevertheless, it remained sufficiently intact for a [[plaster cast]] to be taken and a [[fiberglass]] shape produced. The decision was then made to destroy the impression in order to excavate underneath. The mound was later restored to its pre-1939 appearance. The team also determined the limits of Mound 5 and investigated evidence of prehistoric activity on the original land-surface.{{sfn|Bruce-Mitford|1975|pp=230–344}} They scientifically analysed and reconstructed some of the finds.

The three volumes of Bruce-Mitford's definitive text, ''The Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial'', were published in 1975, 1978 and 1983.<ref>Four physical volumes; Carver ''Sutton Hoo'', pp. 41, 185</ref>

=== Martin Carver: 1983–1992 ===
[[File:The Sandman - geograph.org.uk - 1000294.jpg|thumb|Recent excavations revealed a figure that had been rolled into a shallow grave]]

In 1978 a committee was formed in order to mount a third and even larger excavation at Sutton Hoo. Backed by the [[Society of Antiquaries of London]], the committee proposed an investigation to be led by [[Philip Rahtz]] from the [[Department of Archaeology at the University of York|University of York]] and Rupert Bruce-Mitford,{{sfn|Carver|1998|p=43}} but the British Museum's reservations led to the committee deciding to collaborate with the [[Ashmolean Museum]]. The committee recognised that much had changed in archaeology since the early 1970s. The [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservatives']] [[privatisation]] policies signalled a decrease in state support for such projects, whilst the emergence of [[post-processualism]] in [[archaeological theory]] moved many archaeologists toward focussing on concepts such as social change.{{sfn|Carver|1998|pp=45–47}}

The Ashmolean's involvement convinced the British Museum and the Society of Antiquaries to help fund the project. In 1982, Martin Carver from the University of York was appointed to run the excavation, with a research design aimed at exploring "the politics, social organisation and ideology" of Sutton Hoo.{{sfn|Carver|1998|pp=45–47}} Despite opposition by those who considered that funds available could be better used for [[rescue archaeology]], in 1983 the project went ahead.

Carver believed in restoring the overgrown site, much of which was riddled with rabbit warrens.{{sfn|Carver|1998|pp=48–49}} After the site was surveyed using new techniques, the topsoil was stripped across an area that included Mounds 2, 5, 6, 7, 17 and 18. A new map of soil patterns and intrusions was produced that showed that the mounds had been sited in relation to prehistoric and Roman enclosure patterns. Anglo-Saxon graves of execution victims were found which were determined to be younger than the primary mounds. Mound 2 was re-explored and afterwards rebuilt. Mound 17, a previously undisturbed burial, was found to contain a young man, his weapons and goods, and a separate grave for a horse. A substantial part of the gravefield was left unexcavated for the benefit of future investigators and as yet unknown scientific methods.{{sfn|Carver|2005}}

=== 21st century ===
In August 2024, archaeologists unearthed more fragments of a 6th-century [[Byzantine]] bucket at Sutton Hoo.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/10/science/sutton-hoo-byzantine-bucket-anglo-saxons/index.html CNN report]</ref> By May 2025 the bucket has been pieced back together and was believed to have been a cremation vessel. The copper alloy bucket was decorated with a hunting scene, and was thought to have been manufactured several decades before the Sutton Hoo ship.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly31wdl4x2o | title=Sutton Hoo Byzantine bucket believed to be cremation vessel }}</ref>