1952/06/01 by R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford, John Allan · 2 citations
Arts and Humanities · Earth and Planetary Sciences · #Archaeological Research and Protection #Archaeology and Historical Studies #Classics #Historical and Archaeological Studies #History #Law #Political science #Sociology
paper · doi:10.1017/s0003598x00023619
published in Antiquity 26(102), 76-82 (Cambridge University Press)
openalex publication_date 1952/06/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/08
Dr Gordon Ward says that my paper ‘Sutton Hoo-Recent Theories’ is described by me as ‘embodying the official views about Sutton Hoo’ and ‘thus claims very particular authority’. What I said in fact was (op. cit., p. 1) that, since opposite opinions had recently been expressed on certain critical aspects of the find (Pagan or Christian ? Grave or Cenotaph ? English or Swedish ?),’ it is desirable that an official assessment of the issues should be offered to students, even though it cannot be regarded as final’. Anyone who can get into print can say what he likes about Sutton Hoo. Those officially engaged on the study and definition of the material naturally bear a greater responsibility for their utterances. They should also be acquainted with the facts, which not all commentators have been. By ‘official assessment’ I meant no more than that, as a sympathetic reader must at once have seen.