Herbert Maryon

Herbert Maryon

With his reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet, ca. 1951. The image to Maryon's left depicts the helmet from Vendel 14; that on his right shows plate 1 from Greta Arwidsson's (sv) 1942 work on Valsgärde 6, and depicts the helmet from said grave.
Born (1874-03-09)9 March 1874
London, United Kingdom
Died 14 July 1965(1965-07-14) (aged 91)
Edinburgh
Nationality English
Occupation Sculptor, metalsmith, conservator-restorer
Relatives John, Edith, George, Mildred, Violet (siblings)
Signature

Herbert James Maryon, OBE, FSA, FIIC (9 March 1874 – 14 July 1965) was a British sculptor, goldsmith, and authority on ancient metalwork. He served as director of the Keswick School of Industrial Art, a teacher of sculpture at Reading University, and Master of Sculpture at Durham University. From 1944 to 1962 he was a Technical Attaché at the British Museum, where his conservation work on the Sutton Hoo ship burial led to his appointment as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

Personal life

Herbert Maryon was the third of six children born to John Simeon Maryon and Louisa Maryon (née Church). He was preceded in his vocation as a sculptor by his older sister, Edith. After receiving his general education at The Lower School of John Lyon, he studied from 1896 to 1900 at the Polytechnic (probably Regent Street[2]), The Slade, Saint Martin's School of Art, and, under the tutelage of Alexander Fisher,[17] the Central School of Arts and Crafts.[2][18]

A daughter, Kathleen Rotha Maryon,[19] was born to his first wife Annie Elizabeth Maryon (née Stones),[6] to whom he was married from July 1903 until her death on 8 February 1908. A second Marriage, to Muriel Dore Wood[6] in September 1920, led to the births of son John and daughter Margaret.[20] Herbert Maryon lived for the majority of his life in London, before dying in his 92nd year at a nursing home in Edinburgh.[10][11]

British Museum, 1944–62

On 11 November 1944 Maryon was recruited out of retirement by the Trustees of the British Museum to serve as a Technical Attaché.[21] Maryon had expressed an interest in the Sutton Hoo ship-burial as early as 1941, writing a prescient letter about the preservation of the ship impression to the museum's Keeper of British and Medieval Antiquities;[22][note 1] by his hiring in 1944, he may have thus already been familiar to some of his new colleagues. His role was to conserve and reconstruct artifacts from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial,[32][33] specifically "the real headaches - notably the crushed shield, helmet and drinking horns."[34] Composed in large part of iron, wood and horn, these items had decayed in the 1,300 years since their burial and left only fragments behind; the helmet, for one, had corroded and then smashed into more than 500 pieces.[35] "[M]inute work requiring acute observation and great patience," these efforts occupied several years of Maryon's career.[5] In 1949 Maryon was admitted as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries,[36][37] and in 1956 his Sutton Hoo work "brought him his O.B.E."[5][13] Maryon continued restoration work at the British Museum, including on a Roman helmet found in Homs, before retiring—for a second time—at the age of 87.[7][8][1][4][38]

The Sutton Hoo helmet

Fragments of the Sutton Hoo helmet

From 1946 to 1947,[39] Maryon undertook the first restoration of the fragmented Sutton Hoo helmet, then "the only known example of a decorated Anglo-Saxon helmet."[40][note 2] Maryon's work was "generally acclaimed," and both academically and culturally influential.[40] It stayed on display for over 20 years,[40][44] with photographs[45][46][47] making their way television programmes,[48] newspapers, and "every book on Anglo-Saxon art and archaeology";[40] in 1951 a young Larry Burrows was dispatched to the British Museum by Life, which subsequently published a full page photograph of the helmet alongside a photo of Maryon.[49][50] Over the "fifteen years since Maryon's time conservation techniques and scientific possibilities . . . advanced dramatically,"[51] however, while "greater knowledge about Saxon and Vendel helmets became available"[52] and limitations of Maryon's reconstruction—notably its diminished size, gaps in afforded protection, and lack of a moveable neck guard—became apparent;[40][note 3] so too were more helmet fragments discovered during the 1965–69 re-excavation of Sutton Hoo.[55][26][56][57][58][59] In 1970 it was "taken to pieces for re-examination," and after eighteen months a second restoration completed.[60] Nevertheless, "[m]uch of Maryon's work is valid. The general character of the helmet was made plain."[44] Just as minor errors in the second reconstruction were discovered while forging the 1973 Royal Armouries replica,[61][62][note 4] "[i]t was only because there was a first restoration that could be constructively criticized, that there was the impetus and improved ideas available for a second restoration."[52] In executing a first reconstruction that was "physically reversible" and retained evidence through the "limited . . . cleaning of the mineralized iron fragments,"[64] Maryon's true contribution to the Sutton Hoo helmet was in creating a credible first rendering that allowed for the critical examination leading to the second, current, reconstruction. As Rupert Bruce-Mitford, then Assistant Keeper of the Department of British Antiquities at the British Museum,[65][66][67] wrote in 1947, "[a]rchaeology is indebted in Mr. Maryon for re-creating the helmet out of hundreds of crumbly fragments, most of which were unintelligible without prolonged and careful study."[68]

The helmet from Valsgärde 6, one of the few published exemplar helmets at the time of Maryon's reconstruction.[69]

Though "[o]ne of the most important objects found"[41] in "the richest find ever made on British soil,"[70] the fragmentary state of the Sutton Hoo helmet caused it to go at first unnoticed. "No photographs had been taken of [the fragments] during excavation as their importance had not been realized at the time."[71] The excavation diary of Charles Phillips merely mentioned that on 28 July 1939 "crushed remains of an iron helmet were found four feet east of the shield boss on the north side of the central deposit";[72][73] whereas photographs of the shield in situ allowed "Dr Plenderleith to pick out from among the fragments of bronze and iron those pieces which made up the shield-grip,"[74] no such contextual evidence survived for the helmet. Stalled for six years by World War II, when it reached Maryon's workbench in 1945 the "task of restoration was thus reduced to a jigsaw puzzle without any sort of picture on the lid of the box,"[41] and, "as it proved, a great many of the pieces missing."[60] Maryon was left to base his reconstruction "exclusively on the information provided by the surviving fragments, guided by archaeological knowledge of other helmets."[60]

Maryon's "[w]ork on the helmet was full-time and continuous and took six months."[68] Much like with the second reconstruction, efforts began with a "process of familiarisation"[75] with the various fragments;[71] each piece was traced and detailed on a "piece of stiff card," until after "a long while" reconstruction could commence.[71] For this, Maryon formed "a head of normal size" from plaster, then "padded the head out above the brows to allow for the thickness of the lining which a metal helmet would naturally require."[76] The fragments of the skull cap were then initially stuck to the head with plasticine, or, if thicker, placed into spaces cut into the head. Finally, "strong white plaster" was used to permanently affix the fragments, and, mixed with brown umber, fill in the gaps between pieces.[76] Meanwhile, the fragments of the cheek guards, neck guard, and visor were placed onto shaped, plaster-covered wire mesh, then affixed with more plaster and joined to the cap.[77] The reconstruction finished, Maryon published a paper detailing the helmet in a 1947 issue of Antiquity.[78]

Along with giving shape to the first decorated helmet found from the Anglo-Saxon period, Maryon's reconstruction correctly identified both the five designs depicted on its exterior, and the helmet's method of construction. The helmet was made of sheet iron, then "covered with sheets of very thin tinned bronze, stamped with patterns, and arranged in panels."[71] The patterns were formed from dies carved in relief, while the panels were "framed by lengths of moulding . . . swaged from strips of tin," themselves "fixed in place by bronze rivets," and gilded.[79] Meanwhile, "the free edges of the helmet were protected by a U-shaped channel of gilt bronze, clamped on, and held in position by narrow gilt bronze ties, riveted on."[71]

Publications

A paper read by Maryon in December 1953 likely influenced Salvador Dalí's 1954 rendering of the Colossus. Dalí's work incorporates Maryon's proposal of 1) a tripod structure balanced by hanging drapery, 2) a pose in which Helios shades his eyes, and most significantly 3) a statue composed of many hammered bronze plates.[80]

Maryon published two books: Metalwork and Enamelling, still in publication in its fifth edition,[81] and Modern Sculpture. He was additionally the author of chapters in volumes one and two of Charles Singer's A History of Technology series, and of some thirty archaeological and technical papers.[4][6][82][83] Several of Maryon's earlier papers described his restorations of the shield and helmet from the Sutton Hoo burial;[84][78] nearly a decade later, a paper on the Colossus of Rhodes received international attention for suggesting that the statue was hollow, and aside the harbor rather than astride it.[note 5] Made of hammered bronze plates less than a sixteenth of an inch thick, he suggested, it would have been supported there by a hanging piece of drapery acting as a third point of support.[118][80] If "great ideas," neither "proved to be truly convincing";[80] in 1957, D. E. L. Haynes, then the Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities at the British Museum,[119][120] suggested that Maryon's theory of hammered bronze plates relied on an errant translation of a primary source.[121][note 6] Maryon's view was nevertheless influential, likely shaping Salvador Dalí's 1954 surrealist imagining of the statue. "Not only the pose, but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression."[80]

Notes

  1. ↑ Maryon's letter was addressed to T. D. Kendrick, who would become Director of the museum in 1950.[23][24][25] Dated 6 January 1941, it read:
    "There is a question about the Sutton Hoo ship which has been rather on my mind. There exist many photographs of the ship, taken from many angles, and they provide much information as to its structure and general appearance. But has anything been done to preserve the actual form of the vessel--full size?
    The Viking ships in their museum in Scandinavia are most impressive, for they are surviving representatives of the actual vessels which played so great a part in the early history of Western Europe. The Sutton Hoo ship is our only representative in this class. I believe that all the timbers have perished, but the form remains--traced in the earth.
    That form could be preserved in a plaster cast. I have given some thought to the making of large casts for I have done figures up to 18 feet in height. The work could be done in the following manner: a light steel girder would be constructed, running the full length of the ship, but build in quite short sections. This would not rise above the level of the gunwale at any point but would follow the general curve of the central section of the vessel. It would extend right down to the keel, and would support all the lateral frames. The outer skin, which would preserve the actual external form of the vessel, would be of the usual canvas and plaster work. It would be cast in sections, each perhaps extending along five feet of the length and from keel to gunwale on one side. All sections would be assembled by bolting the frames together. Any roughness of surface due to accidental irregularities in the existing earth matrix could be removed. If it were desired to illustrate the inner structure of the vessel also, I think that that might be shown by constructing a wooden model on a reduced scale.
    Such a cast as that suggested above would be a very important document for the history of the time and it would provide a valuable introduction to Sutton Hoo's splendid array of furnishings."[22]
    Such an operation was not carried out at the time, due largely to time constraints imposed by World War II—impending during the original 1939 excavation, and in full swing by the time of Maryon's letter.[26][27] When an impression was, however, taken during the 1965–69 excavations of Sutton Hoo,[28][29][30][31] much the same methods that Maryon proposed were adopted.[27]
  2. ↑ Two points bear clarification. First, the modifier "decorated" refers to the fact that an undecorated Anglo-Saxon helmet, the Benty Grange Helmet, was discovered in Derbyshire in 1848. This helmet was "of a different type, lacking the elaborate decoration of the Sutton Hoo example and with its cap constructed largely from plates of horn."[41] Second, many, including Maryon,[42][43] believe that the Sutton Hoo helmet is of Swedish, rather than Anglo-Saxon, origin.[41] It is unclear whether Williams, by terming it an "Anglo-Saxon helmet," is here expressing the contrary view that the helmet was instead manufactured in Great Britain, or simply referring to its place of later use and discovery.
  3. ↑ Rupert Bruce-Mitford suggested that Maryon's reconstruction "was soon criticized, though not in print, by Swedish scholars and others."[41] At least one scholar, however, did publish "minor criticism of some of the details of the reconstruction."[53] In a 1948 article by Sune Lindqvist (sv)—translated into English by Bruce-Mitford himself—the Swedish professor wrote that "[t]he reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet . . . needs revision in certain respects." Nonetheless, his only specific criticism was that the face-mask was "set somewhat awry in the reconstruction."[54]
  4. ↑ The errors in the second reconstruction were comparatively minor,[60] relating not to the positioning of the individual fragments, but to the positioning of the reconstructed pieces.[61] "The chief of these related to the neck-guard. The profile view of the reconstruction shows that the projecting corner of the cheek-piece and the neck-guard, which adjoin, are not at the same level. This has been corrected in the Tower replica, as it became apparent that the neck-guard must have fitted inside the cap. This off-setting in the line of cap and neck-guard lifts the latter slightly and allows it to ride up, bringing the corners to the same level. This provides the smooth curves at the top of the openings to accommodate the lift of the shoulder or arm."[63]
  5. ↑ AP stories: .[85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108] Non-AP stories: .[109][110][111][112][113][114][115] These newspapers reference an account read to the Society of Antiquaries of London on 3 December 1953.[116] Maryon published the paper, entitled The Colossus of Rhodes, in The Journal of Hellenic Studies in 1956.[117]
  6. ↑ Maryon used J. C. Orelli's translation of Philo of Byzantium, which Haynes argued "is frequently misleading."[122] Using Rudolf Hercher's translation, Haynes suggested that "Έπιχωνεύειν is a key word for the whole of Philo's description. An unfortunate slip in the translation used by Maryon confuses it with ἐπιχωννύειν 'to fill up' and so destroys the sense of the passage. Έπιχωνεύειν means 'to cast upon' the part already cast, and that implies casting in situ. It is contrasted with ἐπιθεῖναι 'to place upon', which would imply that the casting was done at a distance. Since in 'casting upon' the molten metal which was to form the new part would presumably have come into direct contact with the existing part, fusion (i.e. 'casting on' in the technical sense) would probably have resulted."[122]

References

  1. 1 2 Easby, Jr. 1966.
  2. 1 2 3 Mapping Sculpture 2011a.
  3. ↑ Mapping Sculpture 2011b.
  4. 1 2 3 Schweppe 1965b.
  5. 1 2 3 Bruce-Mitford 1965.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Who Was Who 2014.
  7. 1 2 Huey 1962a, p. 1.
  8. 1 2 Huey 1962b, p. 2.
  9. ↑ Daily Telegraph 1965a.
  10. 1 2 Daily Telegraph 1965b.
  11. 1 2 Brandon Sun 1965.
  12. ↑ Ottawa Journal 1965.
  13. 1 2 London Gazette 1956.
  14. ↑ Bruce 2001.
  15. ↑ Crouch & Barnes
  16. ↑ The Times 1932.
  17. ↑ Bruce 2001, p. 54.
  18. ↑ Institution of Mechanical Engineers 1918.
  19. ↑ Lancashire Parish Clerks.
  20. ↑ Winnipeg Free Press 2005.
  21. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 228.
  22. 1 2 Bruce-Mitford 1975, pp. 228–229.
  23. ↑ Sorensen.
  24. ↑ The Times 1979.
  25. ↑ British Museum.
  26. 1 2 Bruce-Mitford 1974a, p. 170.
  27. 1 2 Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 229.
  28. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1968.
  29. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1974a, pp. 170–174.
  30. ↑ Van Geersdaele 1969.
  31. ↑ Van Geersdaele 1970.
  32. ↑ Financial Times 1971.
  33. ↑ The Times 1973.
  34. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1989.
  35. ↑ Williams 1992, p. 77.
  36. ↑ Proceedings 1949a.
  37. ↑ Proceedings 1949b.
  38. ↑ Schweppe 1965a.
  39. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 146.
  40. 1 2 3 4 5 Williams 1992, p. 74.
  41. 1 2 3 4 5 Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 120.
  42. ↑ Maryon 1946, p. 28.
  43. ↑ The Times 1946.
  44. 1 2 Bruce-Mitford 1972, p. 121.
  45. ↑ Green 1963.
  46. ↑ Grohskopf 1970.
  47. ↑ Wilson 1960.
  48. ↑ Marzinzik 2007, pp. 16–17.
  49. ↑ Life 1951.
  50. ↑ Gerwardus 2011.
  51. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1970, p. viii.
  52. 1 2 Caple 2000, p. 133.
  53. ↑ Green 1963, p. 69.
  54. ↑ Lindqvist 1948, p. 136.
  55. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1968, p. 36.
  56. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 279.
  57. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 332.
  58. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 335.
  59. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 156.
  60. 1 2 3 4 Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 140.
  61. 1 2 Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 181.
  62. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1974b, p. 285.
  63. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 181 (references omitted).
  64. ↑ Caple 2000, p. 134.
  65. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1947, p. 3.
  66. ↑ Biddle 2015.
  67. ↑ The Times 1994.
  68. 1 2 Bruce-Mitford 1947, p. 24.
  69. ↑ Arwidsson 1942, p. Taf. 1.
  70. ↑ Williams 1992, p. 73.
  71. 1 2 3 4 5 Maryon 1947, p. 137.
  72. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1975, p. 742.
  73. ↑ Bruce-Mitford 1978, p. 138.
  74. ↑ Maryon 1946, p. 21.
  75. ↑ Williams 1992, p. 78.
  76. 1 2 Maryon 1947, p. 144.
  77. ↑ Williams 1992, pp. 74–75.
  78. 1 2 Maryon 1947.
  79. ↑ Maryon 1947, p. 138.
  80. 1 2 3 4 de Callataÿ 2006, p. 54.
  81. ↑ Dover Publications.
  82. ↑ Studies in Conservation 1960a.
  83. ↑ Studies in Conservation 1960b.
  84. ↑ Maryon 1946.
  85. ↑ Austin Statesman 1953.
  86. ↑ Corpus Christi Caller 1953.
  87. ↑ Fresno Bee 1953.
  88. ↑ Lubbock Journal 1953.
  89. ↑ Macon Chronicle Herald 1953.
  90. ↑ Mason Globe-Gazette 1953.
  91. ↑ Moberly Monitor-Index 1953.
  92. ↑ Plain Speaker 1953.
  93. ↑ Spokane Chronicle 1954.
  94. ↑ Tucson Citizen 1953.
  95. ↑ Vernon Record 1953.
  96. ↑ Chicago Tribune 1953.
  97. ↑ Abilene Reporter-News 1953.
  98. ↑ Council Bluffs Nonpareil 1953a.
  99. ↑ Indiana Gazette 1953a.
  100. ↑ Indiana Gazette 1953b.
  101. ↑ San Bernardino Sun 1953.
  102. ↑ Washington Post 1953.
  103. ↑ Council Bluffs Nonpareil 1953b.
  104. ↑ Odessa American 1953.
  105. ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel 1953.
  106. ↑ Sedalia Democrat 1953.
  107. ↑ Progress-Index 1953.
  108. ↑ Eagle 1953.
  109. ↑ Kansas City Times 1953.
  110. ↑ Tucson Citizen 1954.
  111. ↑ Anderson Herald 1954.
  112. ↑ Alton Telegraph 1954.
  113. ↑ Chautauqua Farmer 1954.
  114. ↑ Greeley Tribune 1954.
  115. ↑ Scarre 1991.
  116. ↑ Proceedings 1954.
  117. ↑ Maryon 1956.
  118. ↑ Maryon 1956, p. 72.
  119. ↑ Williams 1994.
  120. ↑ Monuments Men Foundation.
  121. ↑ Haynes 1957.
  122. 1 2 Haynes 1957, p. 311.

Bibliography

Books by Maryon

Articles by Maryon

Secondary sources

Colossus articles


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/3/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.