I’ve not really mentioned the Staffordshire Hoard here on the Brownhills Blog. It’s not that I’m not interested in it – it’s a fascinating, huge discovery – it just seems to me that so much has been broadcast, written and said about this intriguing collection of ancient loot that I couldn’t possibly have anything to add. I’ve watched with some amusement the territorial chicanery and doublespeak emanating from the local, and not-so-local towns vying to host the treasure, from Lichfield’s early stake – which was based largely on the fact that anywhere else was simply too too common to exhibit such a wonderful assembly of bling – to Stoke on Trent’s frankly opportunistic but oddly influential smash and grab raid. The fundraising commenced, while wrangling and temporary displays rumbled on through the winter. The BBC obviously had a wobble and called it the Brownhills Hoard for a time, but like the Cinderella town that we are, Brownhills went largely unheralded in the affair. The fact is, the semi-buried gold found a local treasure hunter in the ancient parent parish of Ogley Hay at Warrenhouse, mere yards over the county boundary. Brownhills remains a largely bemused observer in a media circus that seems destined to rumble on inexorably for some years to come.
Brownhills: undiscovered by what was found.
I mention the subject now only because there’s something going on at the periphery of all the discussion about the hoard that’s beginning to really, really annoy me. As I understand the matter, one of the things that’s most perplexing about the find is the location where it was discovered. We don’t have a huge historical record here. There have been no other finds even remotely like it locally, and there’s very little knowledge of this area during the period when the treasure would have been abandoned. Upon this matter, there have been thousands of good-natured pub debates, internet forum chats and lofty, learned exchanges. The fact is, that as of now, we know very little about these artefacts, and that’s part of their mystique. I’m sure that when the academics, historians and assorted beard strokers have pondered over them at length, so they will open up a new vista on our historical record, but right now, they are history’s mystery.
The lack of hard factual information was always going to encourage wild speculation, which generally has been good natured and entertaining. After all, amateur enthusiasts have as much right to speculate about our collective history as any stripy-jumpered corduroy-clad professor. It’s just that, well, there’s an edge developing to some of it that, to not put too fin a point on it, is doing my head in. I first started to notice this phenomena in the comment sections of The Lichfield Blog. Take the example below, from the item ‘Staffordshire Hoard site near Lichfield to be investigated again‘…
From the comment section of the Lichfield Blog post 'Staffordshire Hoard site near Lichfield to be investigated again'
After receiving a little light ribbing from Freddy, Jean posted again next day:
From the comment section of the Lichfield Blog post 'Website reveals Anglo-Saxon treasures found by Burntwood man'
I’m fully aware that there is going to be all manner of wild speculation, but there’s just something about that exchange that really troubles me. I can’t quite put my finger on it – although we can dismiss it as the work of an eccentric, there’s real conviction there and a self belief that I find quite alarming. Further, a remarkable letter recently appeared in the Walsall Chronicle, sister freesheet to the Express & Star.
From the Walsall Chronicle letters page, 22nd April 2010.
I’m certainly no historian, and definitely have no knowledge of the hoard, but here we go again – there’s that blindly confident statement-of-fact that no true historian would dare tenure. There’s an absolute, utter self conviction that I find by turns surprising and slightly unsettling. In all my time, the one thing I’ve really learned about people who genuinely know their subject is that they rarely state their their beliefs as absolute fact. There’s some remarkable statements in that letter, seemingly pulled out of the air at random. But why?
I spotted a further example of a more indignant form of historical revisionism on the website of the Walsall Advertiser. In response to a letter arguing the case for the hoard to stay local, reader ‘slote’ opined the following:
From the 'Walsall Advertiser' website - This is Walsall Online - 16th April 2010.
The fact is, that although there are indeed historical remnants in the area – Castlefort and the like – the rest is pure conjecture. The rumours about the Royal being buried on Grove Hill were around 50 years ago, and there’s nothing more than folklore to say that anything was ever found there. Burial mounds, barrows and tumuli dot the British landscape, and at the time of the (relatively late) construction of Brownhills, they like most antiquity, wasn’t of anything other than peripheral interest. Had bones been found, they would most likely have been discarded. The only record I’m aware of of confirmed burial mounds was actually near Catshill Junction, round about where Waine House stood, and would certainly have been obliterated in the construction of the canal or town gasworks, just as Knave’s Castle and Castlefort itself were largely erased by housing development. History of that kind just wasn’t important. The earth mounds that gave Brownhills it’s name were caused by bottlepits, not burials. Further, the hoard was a long way from Shire Oak Hill; there’s the considerable mass of Springhill between the two.
I don’t have any problem at all with healthy debate about the hoard, it’s an intriguing mystery that will delight and entertain for many years to come – but there seems to be a desire to bend or even invent history to fill in the blanks we just don’t know. I fear that the history of the area – sparse as it is – may well become corrupted in the process of trying to rationalise the find and it’s placement. What does worry me is the blind statement of conjecture as fact, by people who in some cases would make better novelists than historians.
There was gold in them thar hills...
There is another type of fantasy surrounding the treasure that I find equally disturbing. I know I’m not going to be popular for saying this, but I’m afraid that some of those who believe that Brownhills – or, by extension, Walsall – can house the hoard are as deluded as those who propagate these curious histories. There have been many opinions expressed, from very worthy and community spirited people, who seem to think that we could somehow build a museum, staff it and just wait for the tourists and cash to come rolling in. An example that particularly caught my eye was a letter sent to several outlets by local community activist Doug Birch, which generated the comment above. In it, Doug opines that we should somehow display the hoard in Brownhills, and with it would come untold riches like a workable railway and restored canal. Now I’d love to share in this vision of a Saxon powered rebirth, I really would, but we have neither the money, the skill or the facilities to entertain the crowds that would surely flock to the attraction. The only way such a project could practically be funded would be to charge a huge entry fee – which could well alienate those who have already donated handsomely to the fund to keep the hoard as public commonwealth. Should we attract hordes to the hoard, they would surely have to drive, as public transport here is largely unworkable from any major route centre. The consequent increase in traffic and resultant gridlock would doubtlessly please the town residents, whose transport package involving a proposed bypass – slated to cut through the field where the discovery was made – has been abandoned by a penniless, inept council. When the intrepid treasure hunters have had their fill, where then? We have no decent shops, few decent bars and we are ill-equipped to deal with any kind of daytripper influx. In short, they’d come, visit the museum, and drive off. Just as they do for the miner – anyone with a camera about their person soon learns not to stand around in Brownhills for too long, the urge for free treasure runs deep among the yoot.
Walsall Council has neither the expertise, nor the cash, to do the Saxon gold justice. There’s a world of difference between art – as in the rightly prized Garman Ryan collection, and the kind of priceless relics we’re dealing with here. The security alone would be a major undertaking, let alone the cost of staff and materials to interpret the exhibits. I’d also feel some disquiet about trusting our financially embarrassed burghers with such valuable artefacts, perpetually worried that they may be swapped for a patch of land in Harden, or sold subject to PFI in a doomed Fujitsu deal. This placed me in the alien position of actually agreeing with Walsall Council leader Mike Bird – a state of affairs that resulted in having to take several showers, the dirty feeling still not quite having deserted me.
The only real solution is, I’m very much afraid, Birmingham. The city’s Museum and Art Gallery has vast experience with this kind of exhibition. There would be easy access for the public, and for academics with three universities in close proximity. Moreover, there is plenty for visitors to actually do in Birmingham.
Unfortunately, like those believing in spurious histories, I fear the delusions will continue for some time to come.
RSS - Posts
Bang on the money. Many of these so called “amteur historians” aren’t historians at all they’ve got an idea they’d like to be true and they bang on as though it is and pick a single shred of evidence to hang the whole theory on.
Worse still some of them are trying to imprint on history a set of facts to justify a view of the present. I followed a link from here recently to a brilliant piece of amateur history – The site of the guy who makes a well reasoned and thought out case for the Lyne lake. I’m not sure I agree with him or not but at least he’s made his case, presented the evidence, shown how he’s drawn his conclusions and left me to draw my own – Right or wrong it’s a cracking piece of work.
Bob, I share your amusement and disquiet but I do think these nutters are entertaining.
Going off on a tangent, didn’t your old maps show the site of discovery of some roman coins not many miles away?
Terry Jones (the ex-Python) says he thinks the treasure was spoil from a robbery, hidden to be collected later.
I know what happened: the old cartographers made a mistake, they weren’t roman coins at all, but part of the hoard which fell through a hole in the trousers of a time travelling jewel thief.
To sum up your views …Walsall, and Brownhills in particular, shouldn’t benefit from this find.
If the people of Sutton Hoo had taken the same line with their find, most of which is housed in the British Museum, their local businesses won’t be benefiting from the 200,000 people who go to their vistor centre each year.
There is a confederacy of the self intrested and dunces to airbrush Walsall and Brownhills out of this find.
The self interested are Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent councils who see the benefit of tourism and want it for themselves, and the dunces are Walsall council’s leaders who in their stupidty, couldn’t care less about the find or the people of Brownhills.
Oh dear.
No, I think Brownhills should benefit if at all possible. However, this is not just a local but national treasure and needs to be done justice to. I’ve seen lots of airy talk about hosting it locally, but no plan, no costing and no clue where the cash would come from.
I’m not happy with the competence of either Walsall Council or those in the community who propose grand schemes while the fabric of the town continues to decay beneath them. In short, too many people are not seeing a local or national asset, but a sordid cash cow.
When someone comes up with a plan, that isn’t just a Stonehenge cash extraction machine I’ll be right behind it, if that makes me a dunce, then so be it.
Practicality, ease of access and presentation are the key.
Best wishes
Bob
Well I didn’t assume that you were a dunce and if you got that impression my apologies.
But your argument is one used by the likes of Adrain Andrew to kill off any chance of a real debate on how Brownhills could benefit by saying ‘come up with the plans then we will talk.’ He can do that because he and Mike Bird through various council officers hold the key to the expertise and knowledge required for such plans.
Mike and Adrain are refusing to share that expertise and then set a bar to the debate they requires just that level of expertise.
So how do the people of Brownhills and Walsall have a say?
You’re very defensive about this. I’m certainly not killing off debate – if I had that intention, I’d never have written the piece. Having a contrary opinion is not, as some think, an attempt to silence opposition, but part of the patchwork of debate.
Like it or not, this scheme would cost a huge amount of money in a borough thats broke, is closing leisure centres and schools, and cannot fix roads properly. Brownhills has been run into the ground. How we arrived here is not the issue, but how we pay for your proposal. The whole point is that Walsall, contrary to your assertion, has no expertise or skill in this area (and frankly, I wouldn’t trust them to) and has no cash. The proponents of holding the hoard here are asked how would it be funded because it is a valid question, but always seems to draw rancour. Probably because it’s a very real obstacle.
Charging the people a large entry fee would seem to be opportunistic, grasping and downright rude considering that appeals are still ongoing to buy it. This idea that bad old Birmingham – with existing tourist facilities, expertise and academic clout is robbing poor little Walsall would be more credible if we had any history to back it up: we don’t. All we have is a field full of horses in a grimy, post industrial environment. By your own admission, most of the Sutton Hoard is in the British Museum, and the area where it was found is considerably more pleasant from a tourist aspect.
You’re having your say, but it’s not unreasonable to expect you to back up your assertions with reasonable plans.
Best wishes
Bob
The Sutton Hoo finds are in lots of different places, including a visitor centre at the site. It’s a different case altogether though, there really is no comparison. Much has been made on the media that more gold was found at Brownhills than at Sutton Hoo but that means nothing outside of some vulgar bling driven view of the finds. Sutton Hoo was a preserved burial that shed a huge amount of light on the periods social structures and religous practices. The Brownhills hoard is some loot in a pit. If that’s your bag then get down to the jewelry quarter.
Also the finds at Sutton Hoo weren’t treasure trove but were gifted to the nation by the owner so no money needed to be rasied to buy it.
The hoard is not simply “loot in a pit” Sutton Hoo is a burial yes (though it contained no traceable body) we have lots of them, although obviously nothing as complete or rich,
The hoard is something never seen before, get this idea of “swag bag” hidden in a hole out of our collective minds please. It is not that.
From now on, the hoard IS it’s own context.
The items have been deliberately selected, and mis-treated, from my time working with the hoard it is obvious a great deliberation has gone into which pieces put in, and which were not. (A sword has infinately more value in its complete state) The closest parrallels are the great scandanavian weapon bog deposits of Kraghul/Thorsberg/Illerup etc.
Is this an english variant?
This is not some scrambling peasant who has stumbled across a battle field and loaded it all into his $ marked bag, if so, where are the things infinately easier to get off a dead body (buckles/brooches/dress fitings) the Hoard is, in it’s entireity, weapon fittngs.
It is a weapon ritual. As soon as I was shown the location I knew that’s what it was. The saxons tended to put things on tops of hills, next to roman roads that they *wanted* to be seen. There is no other logical or reasoned arguement. And for what it’s worth, I agree with “Jean Dean” on her assumption that it was Edwins’ treasure, he’s the only candidate that fits the time, the place and the pagan arch nemesis who would carry out such a pagan ritual.
Pingback: OFFLOW « Tamworth Time Hikes
Pingback: Sign o’ the times « BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog
Pingback: Interesting proposal for Staffordshire Hoard fans « BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog
Pingback: A golden idea « BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog
Pingback: A shout out to Hoard fans… « BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog
Pingback: After the gold rush « BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog
Pingback: A secret affair? « BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog
Pingback: The mystery of The Lost Stonnall Hoard | BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog
“from Lichfield’s early stake – which was based largely on the fact that anywhere else was simply too too common to exhibit such a wonderful assembly of bling – to Stoke on Trent’s frankly opportunistic but oddly influential smash and grab raid.”
Sounds familiar! Lichfield and Stoke at it again…the Statue of the Captain of the Titanic in Beacon Park…
http://brownhillsbob.com/2013/05/12/that-sinking-feeling-2/
“Even though Hanley did in fact have several memorials to Smith, there may have been more to the Smith Memorial’s decision to put the statue in Lichfield. Although this was never explicitly stated, the type of people who were Smith’s most ardent admireres were also the type of people who would be inclined to turn their noses up at Hanley’s industrial grime and to prefer instead the genteel cathedral city of Lichfield.”
Pingback: The gold hoard to arrive in Brownhills at last… | BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog
Pingback: The wind blew up the Watling Street | BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog
Pingback: Of King and Council | BrownhillsBob's Brownhills Blog