1 On the Enigmatic Nature of Things in Anglo-Saxon Art 1 Benjamin C. Tilghman One of the more vexing problems facing scholars of Anglo-Saxon art is the simple fact that we often do not know precisely what it is that we are dealing with. I am speaking not so much of the questions of dating and localization that hamper the study of medieval art. Rather, it is that we cannot even say for certain what many of our most famous objects even are, or were intended to be. The Franks Casket (Figure 1), for example, has been identified as a treasure chest or a book shrine, and was used in the later Middle Ages as a reliquary, but all we can say with any certainty is that it is a box that likely originally had a latch. 2 Most scholars believe that the noncommittally-named Alfred Jewel (Figure 7) was originally part of a reading instrument known as an æstel, but this claim can only be regarded as a likely possibility. 3 And excellent arguments have been advanced that the Ruthwell Cross (Figure 8) began life as an obelisk and perhaps should only be referred to as a “monument.” 4 Even though we allow ourselves to consider each of these objects as particular kinds of things, they remain to us deeply enigmatic. To call an Anglo-Saxon object “enigmatic” is a very specific kind of description, since riddles or ænigmata, in Old English and in Latin, are one of