Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink

Raedwald or Saebert?

• Message 1.Ìý

  Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Monday, 15th February 2010

  I listened this morning to the radio 4 programme, 'Voices who dug up the past' on Sutton Hoo. Mike Parker Pearson gave his view that the king buried in mound 1 was the East Saxon Saebert and not Raedwald as traditionally thought. Now this is not an field I know much about, although I have a lot of respect for Mike P P and his ideas, but I know there are real experts on these boards and I'd love them to put forward their cases for one or the other identification.
  I anticipate a lively debate!
  
  regards
  
  Ferval

  Link to this forum: Raedwald or Saebert?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 15th February 2010

  Didn't hear the programme so don't know the reasoning for this suggestion. But Sutton Hoo is in Suffolk (and thus the East Anglia kingdom) whereas Sæberht was a ruler of Essex - would have thought it odd that Sæberht be buried in a neighbouring territory and not his own.
  
  Also, isn't the Prittlewell site a prime candidate for Sæberht's burial?

  Link to this forum: Raedwald or Saebert?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Monday, 15th February 2010

  Hi Stoggler,
  If you have access to the Anglo Saxon Journal, vol 22you can read the paper where he first proposed this, 'Three Men and a Boat' but I'll try to summarise(inadequately). I must emphasise that he does not suggest that there is any definitive proof either way.
  He suggests that the cemetery is on the frontier between the two kingdoms and may have been a boundary marker.
  The tomb contained no Anglian material.
  The dating of the coins may be be wrong because of remelting.
  The ancestral god of Saebert's dynasty was Seaxnet which can be translated as 'blade need' and may explain the whetstone sceptre. He also associated the deer on the sceptre but I'd need to relisten to remind myself of how, maybe to a Frankish connection.
  As I said I'm not familiar with this and as the main point of the programme is to look at differing interpretations of the same material I am looking for opinions. It's really worth listening to online.
  I remember seeing Time Team doing Prittlewell and thinking at the time that they were being somewhat rash in their attribution - now there's a surprise. Must read up more about it, I just love heterodox ideas!
  
  Regards
  
  Ferval

  Link to this forum: Raedwald or Saebert?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 15th February 2010

  Unfortunately Ferval, I'm not an expert either - I'm more interested in the later Anglo-Saxon period.
  
  I saw the Time Team episode too, was an interesting one. I don't think that Sæberht being buried at Prittlewell is based just on Time Team's say so though.
  
  I shall weight with interest to hear from someone who knows the period well
  

  Link to this forum: Raedwald or Saebert?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 15th February 2010

  Hi ferval,
  
  An excellent programme I thought, but it may never be possible to name the occupier of mound 1.
  
  To begin with, an assumption is made that the mound covers an Anglo-Saxon king. If it actually covers an important noble, or a distinguished visitor from abroad then we should never have a name. The quality and quantity of grave goods seems so magnificent that a royal burial is reasonably presumed, but we really have nothing else to compare with.
  
  The Merovingian coins found were not mentioned but presumably give us the best chance of dating the burial. It is a highly specialist field but I believe that the latest coin is early 7th century.
  
  Mike Parker Pearson's theory illustrates that we don't known for certain the dynasty buried at Sutton Hoo. The date would seem to fit either Raedwald or Saebert. Both kings had been baptised which may account for the Christian artefacts like the famous spoons.
  
  I'm not sure that we really know the relationship between the two dynasties either. Did not Raedwald have a son Sigeberht, with an inconveniently East Saxon dynasty name?
  
  The number of archaeological artefacts associated with a named historical individual is tiny; I'm sure you would agree that nothing can take away from the magnificence of the burial or the drama of its discovery.
  
  Kind regards,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: Raedwald or Saebert?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Wednesday, 17th March 2010

  
  I'm not sure that we really know the relationship between the two dynasties either. Did not Raedwald have a son Sigeberht, with an inconveniently East Saxon dynasty name?
  Ìý
  
  Sigeberht is believed to be a East Saxon stepson and was exiled to Gaul during Raedwald's natural son Eorpwald's life time.
  Both Eorpwald and Sigeberht may have ruled both East Anglia and Essex.
  
  The grave at Prittlewell is a Christian burial inside a Pagan burial and pretty much follows Bede's description of Saberht.
  Raedwald was Bretwalda which would explain the richness of Sutton Hoo to Prittlewell.
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Raedwald or Saebert?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Ian (U14403751) on Friday, 2nd April 2010

  It would seem odd to me that a King of the East Saxons would be buried in the East Anglians territory. Also, Sutton Hoo is only a short distance from Rendlesham which was known to be a royal East Anglian residence.
  
  I don't know what the relationship between the two kingdoms was in the early 7th century but I can't bring to mind any battles between them, so they may have had good relations but I still don't see why Saeberht would have been buried in East Anglia.
  
  The problem is we know very little about the early kings in Essex, apart from what Bede wrote about them, as they left no law codes or contemporary written evidence.

  Link to this forum: Raedwald or Saebert?

  Report message7

Back to top