Early Anglo-Saxon Shields 0854312609, 9780854312603

Table of contents :
List of illustrations vi
List of tables vii
Preface ix
I: INTRODUCTION 1
II: TYPOLOGY OF METAL SHIELD FITTINGS 4
Shield bosses by Tania M. Dickinson 4
Shield grips by Heinrich Härke 24
Other fittings by Heinrich Härke 27
III: SHIELD TECHNOLOGY by Heinrich Härke 31
The boss 31
Grip and handle 35
The board 43
IV: THE USE OF THE SHIELD: COMBAT AND DISPLAY by Heinrich Härke 55
The shield in combat 55
Display and symbolism 61
V: THE SHIELD IN THE BURIAL RITE by Heinrich Härke 63
Frequency and chronology of shield burials 63
The deposition of the shield 63
The shield in weapon combinations 67
Correlations of. shield burial: wealth and age 68
Regional variations of the shield burial custom 69
VI: CONCLUSIONS 71
Appendix 1: Sites used in the computer analysis of shield bosses from the Upper Thames region by Tania M. Dickinson 73
Appendix 2: Type list of shield bosses from the Upper Thames region used in the computer analysis by Tania M. Dickinson 74
Appendix 3: Cemeteries with shield burials in the national sample by Heinrich Härke 75
Appendix 4: Shield board fittings (other than studs) in the national sample, with additions by Heinrich Härke 77
Appendix 5: Technical data of shield components from selected cemeteries by Heinrich Härke 79
Appendix 6: Notes on the shield reconstruction by Heinrich Härke 83
Summary, Resume, Zusammenfassung 84
Bibliography 85
Sources 90
Index 91

Citation preview

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS By Tania Dickinson, F.S.A. and Heinrich Harke

BEING VOLUME 110 OF ARCHAEOLOGIA

THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF LONDON 1992

THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF LONDON BURLINGTON HOUSE, PICCADILLY, LONDON W1V OHS FRONT COVER: Detail of the Franks Casket

Photograph: courtesy of the Trustees of the British Musuem British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. © The Society of Antiquaries of London, 1992 ISBN 0-85431-260-9 ISSN 0261-3409

CONTENTS List of illustrations List of tables

vi vii

Preface

ix

I:

1

INTRODUCTION

II: TYPOLOGY OF METAL SHIELD FITTINGS Shield bosses by Tania M. Dickinson Shield grips by Heinrich Harke Other fittings by Heinrich Harke III: SHIELD TECHNOLOGY by Heinrich Harke The boss Grip and handle The board IV: THE USE OF THE SHIELD: COMBAT AND DISPLAY by Heinrich Harke The shield in combat Display and symbolism V: THE SHIELD IN THE BURIAL RITE by Heinrich Harke Frequency and chronology of shield burials The deposition of the shield The shield in weapon combinations Correlations of. shield burial: wealth and age Regional variations of the shield burial custom VI: CONCLUSIONS Appendix 1: Sites used in the computer analysis of shield bosses from the Upper Thames region by Tania M. Dickinson Appendix 2: Type list of shield bosses from the Upper Thames region used in the computer analysis by Tania M. Dickinson Appendix 3: Cemeteries with shield burials in the national sample by Heinrich Harke Appendix 4: Shield board fittings (other than studs) in the national sample, with additions by Heinrich Harke Appendix 5: Technical data of shield components from selected cemeteries by Heinrich Harke Appendix 6: Notes on the shield reconstruction by Heinrich Harke Summary, Resume, Zusammenfassung Bibliography Sources Index

4 4 24 27 31 31 35 43 55 55 61 63 63 63 67 68 69 71 73 74 75 77 79 83 84 85 90 91

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Location of sites in the national sample 2. Location of sites used in the computer analysis of shield bosses from the Upper Thames region 3. Attributes used in analysis of shield bosses 4. Scatter diagram of shield boss clusters produced by Single Linkage at 90 per cent similarity level 5. Scatter diagram of shield boss clusters produced by Average Linkage at 60 per cent similarity level 6. Scatter diagram of shield boss clusters produced by Average Linkage at 65 per cent similarity level and resulting classification groups 7. Group 1.1 shield bosses 8. Group 1.2 shield bosses 9. Group 2 shield bosses 10. Group 3 shield bosses 11. Part of a long shield grip (type Ilia) from Wheatley 12. Group 4 shield bosses v 13. Group 5 shield bosses 14. Groups 6-7 shield bosses 15. Group 8 shield bosses 16. Schematic summary of typological and chronological sequence of shield boss groups in Early Anglo-Saxon England 17. Types of iron shield grips 18. Types of metal board fittings 19. The 'tall straight cone' (Group 7) from Portsdown I, grave 6 showing the seam 20. Possible methods of shield-boss construction 21. Inside view of Group 3 boss from Abingdon I, grave B69 22. Inside view of Group 1.1 boss from Abingdon I, grave B48 23. Iron grip from Pewsey grave 68 with remains of leather strip binding 24. Complex handle constructions 25. Wood remains of a type Al handle construction (lap joint) on the grip from Winterbourne Gunner grave IV 26. Short flat grip (type Ial) from Pewsey grave 47 with a D2 handle construction 27. Finds of shield components and fittings from the Thorsbjerg bog deposit 28. Wooden handle from the Nydam bog deposit 29. Section through the centre of a shield with a lap-joint handle 30. Boss (Group 3) and grip (type Ib) from Orpington grave 37 31. Shield on the Repton stone 32. Shields on the Franks Casket 33. Anglo-Saxon shield on the Bayeux Tapestry 34. Minimum and maximum diameters of shield boards in the national sample 35. Thickness of shield boards in the national sample , 36. Warriors with shields showing board rivets, on two helmet plates from grave XIV at Vendel .• 37. Group 2 boss from Abingdon grave B39 with damage to the wall and selective corrosion at the point of stress 38. Group 1.1 boss from Pewsey grave 47 with a puncture of the flange 39. Group 1.1 boss from Pewsey grave 22 with apex repair 40. Flange of Group 1.2 boss from Berinsfield grave 69 with an iron strip riveted against the underside 41. X-ray of boss from Berinsfield grave 69 42. Group 1.1 boss from Winterbourne Gunner grave I with a second set of empty rivet holes

2 3 5 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 17 18 20 21 22 23 25 28 32 33 34 34 36 37 38 38 39 38 41 42 43 44 45 47 48 56 57 57 58 58 59 59

43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

Grip from Pewsey grave 94 with remains of Pcarrying strap Chronology of the Anglo-Saxon shield burial rite Positions of shield bosses in 245 Anglo-Saxon burials David Brown with his shield replica Reconstruction of an Early Anglo-Saxon shield

60 64 65 71 72

LIST OF TABLES 1. Coding system for multivariate analysis of Upper Thames region shield bosses 2. Regional distribution of 251 classifiable shield bosses in the national sample (including unstratified bosses) 3. Comparison of boss-type frequencies in the Upper Thames region and the national sample 4. Frequencies of shield grip types in the national sample 5. Associations of shield grip types and shield boss groups in the national sample 6. Regional distribution of 174 classifiable shield grips 7. Associations of shield board fittings and shield boss groups 8. Regional distribution of shield board fittings 9. Frequencies of boss apex types 10. Weight of boss types 11. Published wood identifications from shield components 12. Probable diameters of shield boards (including published cases outside the sample) 13. Shield board wood in the national sample 14. Density and strength of timbers used for shields 15. Examples of long shield board rivets 16. Frequencies and locations of damage and repairs on 102 shield bosses from 18 burial sites 17. Positions of shields in Anglo-Saxon graves 18. The shield in weapon combinations (undisturbed burials only) 19. Shield frequencies by age groups 20. Regional variations in shield frequencies

6 10 10 26 26 26 29 30 34 34 40 46 48 49 53 57 66 67 68 70

PREFACE While this volume is based on research carried out individually for our doctoral theses (submitted to the University of Oxford in 1976 and the University of Gottingen in 1987 respectively), preparation of the text between 1987 and 1990 has been very much a collaborative venture. Individual authorship is indicated in the contents list, but throughout we have exercised mutual editing, criticism, advice and encouragement to, we believe, our common benefit. Responsibility for coordinating production of the final text and illustrations has rested with TMD. We wish to acknowledge the vital contribution made by those excavators and colleagues who generously gave access to unpublished data: B. Adams, St Albans; K. Annable, Devizes; A. Cook, London; S. Hawkes, Oxford; S. Hirst, London; F. Jenkins, Canterbury; M. U. and W. T. Jones, Mucking; G. C. Knowles, Scunthorpe; D. Miles, Oxford; S. Palmer, Bromley; N. Reynolds, Edinburgh; P. J. Tester, Bexley; A. Warhurst, Manchester; L. Webster, London; and S. West, Bury St Edmunds. The museum staff who tirelessly produced the requested objects for inspection, as well as unsolicited but muchneeded refreshments, are too numerous to list individually, but we remember them gratefully. TMD owes a great debt of gratitude to Mr Martin Read, who did the computing for her analyses at the Computing Centre, University College, Cardiff, and to Miss Sabina Thompson, who produced the inked versions for figures 7—14 and \5b-c. HH thanks J. E. Perry and E. Stansfeld for kindly providing copies of their unpublished dissertations and giving permission to quote from them. The discussion of shield technology benefited immensely from talks with, and information from, D. Brown, Oxford, J. Pilcher, Belfast, G. Rapp, Oxford, and C. Salter, Oxford. M. DICKINSON, Department of Archaeology, University of York HEINRICH H A R K E , Department of Archaeology, University of Reading

TANIA

I. INTRODUCTION rchaeologists have shown uneven interest in the three principal forms of weapon used in Early Anglo-Saxon England (fifth to seventh centuries). Swords, the rarest, have appeared disproportionately interesting, no doubt because of their greater decoration and elite associations, though most analyses have been devoted to particular examples. Spearheads, the most common form, have been justly treated now on a comprehensive basis (Swanton 1973 and 1974). But with the notable exception of Vera Evison's pioneering paper (1963), which concentrated on the late 'sugar-loaf type, there has been a dearth of published interest in shields.

A

Further typological studies, particularly of the comprehensive corpus. Rather it utilizes data and earlier, fifth- and sixth-century bosses, are lack- analyses prepared by the authors for different proing. The decoration of the shield has been dis- jects: on the one hand, a computer-based classificussed in an article which was mainly based on cation of 104 shield bosses from the Upper finds from one nineteenth-century excavation Thames region [2] (TMD; Appendices 1 and 2) (Kennett 1974). The most widely quoted paper and, on the other hand, a technical and social on shield technology has been a brief appendix analysis of 702 weapon burials from 47 cemto an excavation report (Leeds and Shortt 1953, eteries, providing a national sample of 317 burials 55-7), though its interpretations have recently with shields from 43 sites [1] (HH; Appendix 3). been reconsidered (Harke 1981; Harke and Salter Only limited use is made here of written and 1984). The most detailed analysis of a shield from pictorial sources because it is considered that the post-Roman England relates to the exceptional systematic evaluation of this evidence requires a Sutton Hoo find, which may not even be Anglo- separate study and special expertise, which the Saxon (Bruce-Mitford 1978, 1-137), whereas a authors cannot claim. technical study of twenty-five Early Saxon shield bosses has remained unpublished (Stansfeld A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY 1979), and the most recent (albeit brief) summary The Anglo-Saxon shield consisted of an iron boss of Anglo-Saxon shield technology (Brown 1980) and a metal grip on a wooden board. Other comhas been all but ignored by archaeologists. Apart ponents, such as further board fittings or a leather from site-specific discussions in recent cemetery cover, were optional. Over the decades, all these reports, there has been no general analysis at all components, as well as their individual parts, of the shield in the burial rite. Yet nearly one have been given various terms in the literature, quarter of the males buried in Anglo-Saxon inhu- without any standardized terminology emerging. mations went to their grave accompanied by a It is not intended here to suggest one, but in order shield. to prevent misunderstandings, it must be stated If understanding of Anglo-Saxon weaponry, which terms will be used (emphasized), and what and of the role of weapons in society and ritual, alternative terms have been applied by others (in is to be advanced, then such a quantity of data brackets). can no longer be overlooked. This volume is an The boss (umbo) is made up of the Jlange (rim, attempt to fill the lacuna by providing, for the brim), the wall (collar, waist), the cone (dome) first time since Pfannkuche's (1908) survey, a and the apex (neck, spike). The grip (brace) is of summary of the present state of knowledge on the metal, usually iron; it may be a short or a long Early Anglo-Saxon shield, especially during the grip (stringer, strut), and its middle section may main period of deposition, the fifth and sixth cen- btjlat (strap grip) orflanged (with upturned sides). turies. It will provide a typological framework, The handle (grip) is the wooden construction and/ and will address the issues of dating and distri- or leather or textile binding which facilitated the bution, technology and function, and the place of holding of the metal grip. The wooden board could the shield in Anglo-Saxon burial ritual. Unlike be either,/fa/ or convex (curved, hollow), and it was Swanton's work, however, it is not based on a of plank construction (solid wood, single-layer wood,

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

/. Location of sites in the national sample (box: area covered by [2]; see below for key; for further details see Appendix 3)

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Abingdon I Alfriston Andover Bargates Bekesbourne II Bergh Apton Berinsfield Bidford-on-Avon Brighthampton Broadstairs I Broadway Hill Charlton Plantation Collingbourne Ducis Droxford Empingham II

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Finglesham Fonaby Ford Harnham Hill Holborough Holywell Row Leighton Buzzard III Little Eriswell Long Wittenham I Lyminge Mucking I Mucking II Nassington Orpington Petersfinger

31 Pewsey 32 Portsdown I 33 Sarre 34 Sewerby 35 Snell's Corner 36 Spong Hill 37 Stretton-on-Fosse II 38 Swaffham 39 Wakerley I 40 Westgarth Gardens 41 Winterbourne Gunner 42 Worlaby 43 Worthy Park

INTRODUCTION

10 miles.

0

Land over 125m O.D.

2. Location of sites used in the computer analysis of shield bosses from the Upper Thames region (see below for key; for further details see Appendix 1)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Abingdon I Basset Down Berinsfield Bishopstone I Brighthampton Burford Cassington I Cassington II Cirencester I Dorches ter-on-Thames

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Eynsham I Fairford Frilford I Kingsey Long Wittenham I Lowbury Hill Milton North Field Minster Lovell Oddington Oxford II

composite i.e. made up of several planks) or laminated (plywood, composite'i.e. made up of several layers). Apart from various decorative mounts, the board was occasionally fitted with metal edge bindings (rim fittings). Finally, some geographical and chronological terms require a brief explanation. 'Early Saxon' is used as a chronological term throughout, referring to the fifth to seventh centuries in all areas of Anglo-Saxon settlement in England. By contrast, the terms 'Saxon' and 'Anglian' have a

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Oxford IV Ready Token Sutton Courtenay II Uffington I Wallingford Wan borough II Wheatley Winchendon II Yarnton

regional meaning, 'Saxon' relating to Essex, Sussex, Wessex and the Upper Thames region, 'Anglian' to the West and East Midlands, East Anglia and the North (the last being the regions north of the Wash). All sites are located with reference to their modern administrative county: for sites in the two samples, this information appears in Appendices 1 and 3, while for other sites the county reference is given in the text at the first mention only.

II. TYPOLOGY OF METAL SHIELD FITTINGS By Tania Dickinson and Heinrich Harke SHIELD BOSSES he classification presented here is based on a multivariate analysis of the shield bosses from the Upper Thames region, carried out in 1975 (Dickinson 1976, 274-90,figs.25-9). Intuitive methods had failed to work, just as they had probably failed for previous scholars, because shield bosses seem to lack strikingly obvious diagnostic features. By contrast, the adoption of an explicit and more broadly-based approach not only took advantage of the substantial sample, but also was well suited to the circumstances of the enquiry. Residual doubts, however, meant that the results were not published at the time, though others have found the system both useTul and valid (e.g. Welch 1983, 136-40, where the essentials are summarized; Hirst 1985, 91) and Heinrich Harke (HH) also adopted it as a base for the dating of shield burials in the course of his research. There is little excuse, therefore, for withholding publication further, and it is presented here substantially as it was written then, save for some modifications and additions. The classification was devised as an aid to dating male graves in the context of a cultural-historical study of the Upper Thames cemeteries. Its aim was chronological order, and its principal assumption was that similarity of form reflected a similarity in time and space of production, use and final deposition. It was largely innocent of developments in the theoretical ramifications of artefact classification (e.g. Hill and Evans 1972; but see now especially" Miller 1985), and no doubt both contains and obscures categories which have little or nothing to do with time and space: some of these are explored by HH later in this volume.

T

Data

Of the 117 shield bosses then extant or known used qualitative (or discontinuous) data, which through illustrations from the Upper Thames required the further definition on a nominal or region, 105 were sufficiently well preserved or ordinal scale of a set of attribute states (or multidrawn to be used, though through error one had states): for example, an overhanging carination to be eliminated [2] {Appendices 1 and 2). Because (Attribute 06) could be either present (Attribute the analysis was not planned as part of the orig- State 1) or absent (Attribute State 2). Some of inal research, data had to be derived secondarily these were determined simply by intuition: for from field notes and drawings, which restricted example, in the most complex set, for the type of observations essentially to aspects of profile and apex (Attribute 11), a spike (Attribute State 01), fittings, though the influence here of previous a long tapering piece of iron terminating in a studies (notably Evison 1963 and Swanton 1973) point, was differentiated from a rod (Attribute should not be discounted. Eleven attributes (or State 02), a long but thicker piece of iron with its variables/variates) were defined: they are listed tip hammered flat; in turn this was distinguished with the coding system in table 1 and illustrated from disc-heads (Attribute States 03-18), which on figure 3. Five involved quantitative (or con- include both discs set on a short neck and short tinuous) data, for which direct measurements on squat rods that had been hammered flat. Other a ratio scale could be recorded (e.g. height—Attri- attribute states, for example, the diameter ranges bute 01—measured in millimetres). The other six of flange rivets (Attribute 10) or disc-head apexes

TYPOLOGY OF METAL SHIELD FITTINGS Apex Overhanging carinalion

o

100

200

l l . l l l l l l l l 3. Attributes used in analysis of shield bosses, based on Berinsfield grave 24 (Group 3) (112)

(Attribute 11: Attribute States 03-18), were designated after drawing up frequency diagrams, though the break-points were not justified statistically. Where the relevant part of a boss was missing or damaged, no data could be recorded, and computing procedures were deliberately chosen that could cope with missing data. This problem affected particularly the apex, though broken spikes could frequently be distinguished by their relative length and thinness. A few measurements that could be reconstructed with reasonable confidence were also used, such as for overall diameter or number of flange rivets. Methods

The resulting data base was transformed into a Similarity Matrix calculated using Gower's Coefficient, and then subjected to a suite of GENSTAT V programs (in FORTRAN IV), namely Principal Coordinates Analysis, Single Linkage Cluster Analysis and Average Linkage Cluster Analysis. Results

Principal Coordinates Analysis demonstrates how the chosen attributes contribute to the variability within the sample. Qualitative data emerged as more influential than quantitative. The first coordinate was determined by Attributes 02, 04-07, 09 and 11, with 05 (shape of cone) being the most important, thus endorsing Evison's intuitive distinction between straight and convex cones.

Convex cones, higher and straight-profiled walls, slightly narrower flanges, greater occurrence of copper alloy and/or plated flange rivets and dischead apexes of small diameter were weighted at the positive end, in contrast to straight cones, lower and concave-profiled walls (with concomitant overhanging carination), slightly wider flanges and disc-head apexes of larger diameter at the negative end. The second coordinate was characterized by Attributes 02-03, 05-06, 08 and 11: smaller diameters, higher walls, convex cones, no overhanging carination, four flange rivets and spikes at the apex congregated at the positive end, whereas larger diameters, lower walls, straight and concave cones, five flange rivets, a greater occurrence of copper alloy and/or plated flange rivets and small disc-head apexes were concentrated at the negative. The third coordinate involved Attributes 03, 05, 10 and 11: large diameters, straight cones and flange rivets of large diameter were weighted at the positive end, against small diameters, concave cones, flange rivets of narrow-to-medium diameter and rod apexes at the negative. The two methods of cluster analysis produced a considerable degree of agreement on the identification of clusters, especially the largest, but a priori there were also differences. The statistically optimum number of clusters was generated by Single Linkage at the 90 per cent similarity level, giving six clusters and twelve unclustered bosses. Typically for this method, each of the latter was linked by 'chaining' to its nearest neighbour,

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS Table 1. Coding system for multivariate analysis of Upper Thames region shield bosses Attribute Attribute Number

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

10 11

Attribute State

Height (mm) Wall height (mm) Diameter (mm) Flange width (mm) Shape of cone 1 =Straight profile 2=Convex 3=Concave Overhanging 1=Present carination 2=Absent Shape of wall l=Straight profile 2=Concave Number of flange rivets Rivet metal l=Iron unplated 2=Iron plated with white metal (silver or tin) 3=Copper alloy unplated 4=Copper alloy plated with white metal (silver or tin) Flange rivet l=5-10mm diameter 2=ll-20mm 3=21-26mm Apex type 01=Spike (i.e. long tapering piece of iron terminating in a point) 02=Rod (i.e. long projection with end hammered flat) 03-18=Disc-head

which in many cases was part of a cluster that could reasonably have accommodated the unclustered boss too. Average Linkage avoids this problem, but in this case the statistically optimum number of clusters—four clusters and one unclustered boss—was produced at the 60 per cent similarity level. The tendency of Single Linkage to include bosses in clusters regardless sometimes (in the archaeologist's eyes) of marked visual difference from the main body of the cluster was, surprisingly, even more acute with the Average Linkage. However, at the superior 65 per cent similarity level, which produced seven clusters and one unclustered boss, the problem disappeared, and therefore it is on this that the classification rests. Inevitably, some anomalies remain and these are discussed as appropriate. The clustering can be appreciated visually by comparing the scattergrams on illustrations 4-6, where the clusters generated by the three modes of Cluster

Attribute Attribute Number

11 Apex type (cont.)

Attribute State

03=Iron unplated (diam.: 10-17mm) 04=Iron unplated (diam.: 18-25mm) 05=Iron unplated (diam.: 26-39mm) 06=Iron unplated (diam.: 40-60mm) 07=Iron plated (diam.: 10-17mm) 08=Iron plated (diam.: 18-25mm) 09=Iron plated (diam.: 26-39mm) 10=Iron plated (diam.: 40-60mm) 11 =Cu alloy unplated (diam.: 10-17mm) 12=Cu alloy unplated (diam.: 18-25mm) 13=Cu alloy unplated (diam.: 26-39mm) 14=Cu alloy unplated (diam.: 40-50mm) 15=Cu alloy plated (diam.: 10-17mm) 16=Cu alloy plated (diam.: 18-25mm) 17=Cu alloy plated (diam.: 26-39mm) 18=Cu alloy plated (diam.: 40-60mm) 19=Minute nail-like rod

Analysis are plotted against the first two coordinates generated by Principal Coordinates Analysis. THE CLASSIFICATION It should be remembered that the classification is presented according to the numerical order generated by Cluster Analysis and not the relative size or chronological sequence of the groups. To facilitate understanding, the overall typological sequence, as it can now be perceived, is resumed at the end (see p. 22) and is illustrated in figure 16; a full list of group members appears in Appendix 2.

It should also be borne in mind that details of group definition relate to the specific Upper Thames region sample, and might be altered were the sample population different. However, HH's sample of 317 shield bosses, 251 of which were available for classification, provides important

to

c

•

o o

86

Q 84

o

Q 97 92

Q 70

53

12

31 17

.85

28

58

15 99

2 5 - 5 4

50 •

"88

21

98

26 42 20 M 59

69

B2

101

90 23 64

87

sO 91

16

•

18

61

62 77

49

_!05

Q 56

5

Q 94

Coordinate 2

2

13

95

Cluster 1

Cluster 8

Cluster 2

Cluster 10

A

Unclustered

On

Cluster 4 Cluster 7

•

•

Q

4. Scatter diagram of shield boss clusters produced by Single Linkage at 90 per cent similarity level (n.b. cluster numbers correspond to the sequence as generated by the computer program) '

TO C

A 86

o o o

Q

84

Q 97 92

A 70

12

A 31

s

A 15

a A 99

28

58 A

50* A

D

88

21

A i

26 42 20 A 59

A 69

104

82

1*.

90 DA 64

D

91

3A

A A 10

A 87 .

41A A 46

16

.71

A 18

62

A 49 105

Q 56

AA 5 2

Q 94

Coordinate 2

55

95

Cluster 1 Cluster 2

A

Cluster 3

•

Cluster 5

Q

Unclustered ( 4 )

a

5. Scatter diagram of shield boss clusters produced by Average Linkage at 60 per cent similarity level

c •5 o o

86

O

* 84

Q 97

92 12

70

Q 28

• 15

73

99 A 21 14

A 23 AC 64

A 91

• 18

•

62

DD

5

D

4 3A A A,0 16

41 • A46 A 71 61 A

JL Q 56

• 87

A 49

Tt>5

Coordinate 2

2

94

Cluster 1 : Group 1.1

•

Cluster 6 : Group 5 A

Cluster 2 : Group 1.2

O.

Unclustered (7) : Group 6 Ct

Cluster 3 : Group 2

a

Cluster 8 : Group 7

Cluster 4 : Group 3

•

Cluster 8 : Group 8 Q

Cluster 5 : Group 4

A

*

6". Scatter diagram of shield boss clusters produced by Average Linkage at 65 per cent similarity level and resulting classification groups

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

10

complementary evidence of national and regional patterns (table 2). It includes fifty-three bosses (21 per cent) from the Upper Thames, though drawn from only four (8-5 per cent) of the cemeteries, namely Abingdon I, Berinsfield, Brighthampton and Long Wittenham I. One or two anomalies apart, these seem to be a representative subsample of the Upper Thames corpus (table 3); further, while 10 to 15 per cent of the bosses in HH's sample were transitional within the specified criteria, few were totally unclassifiable.

and 1.2 [8]. Group 1 in general is characterized by the following features: low height (65-9lmm), moderate wall height (14-25mm), large diameter (148-81mm), moderate to large flange width (20-40mm), straight or concave cone, overhanging carination, concave wall, tendency to four rather than five flange rivets and a tendency to broad, plain iron disc-headed apexes. The key difference between the two subgroups is that Group 1.1 has a straight cone, while all but one of Group 1.2 have concave cones. In addition, Group 1.2 includes three of the four bosses with rod apexes and is smaller in diameter (129-67mm). Group 1.2 is thus related to Group 4 (see p. 17). Three grip types have been found in association (cf. pp. 24-6 and tables 4-5): in Group 1.1 six have short flat grips (Harkfc type la), four with straight ends [e.g. 7 b] and two with oval [e.g. 7 a], and four have short flanged grips with straight ends (Harke type Ib) [e.g. 7c j]\ in Group 1.2 there are two examples of the first and one of the

Group 1

The first cluster generated by Single Linkage [4] concurred, but for two bosses, with that from Average Linkage at the 60 per cent similarity level [5], and can be seen occupying a distinct area of the scattergrams. However, at the 65 per cent level [6] the Average Linkage method distinguished two clusters, which have been used therefore to subdivide what would have been otherwise an exceptionally large group into Groups 1.1 [7]

Table 2. Regional distribution of 251 classifiable shield bosses in the national sample (including unstratified bosses) Shield boss group

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Other Types Total

Kent

Essex

3

6

2

2

Sussex

16 _ 3+1 _ -

10 — _ 1

3 1 4 1 _ 4 _ -

24+1

21

13

2 _

Wessex

27+6 2+2

52+11

8+2 5+1 _ 2 6

2

Regions Upper West Thames Midlands

18+4 6 14+1 71 2 _ -

4+1 5 4 5 1 1 _ -

48+5

20+1

East Midlands

5 — 4 1 _ — 1 -

11

East Anglia

North

10+1

2

6 13

2

1 _ 4

_ 0+1

2 2 38+1

4+1

x+y: number of stratified bosses from burials + number of unstratified bosses from cemeteries in the sample Table 3. Comparisonof boss-type frequencies in the Upper Thames region and the national sample Group

1

2 3 4 5 6 7

Other Types Total

Upper Thames (TAW corpus)

47 (45%) 8 (8%) 26 (25%) 14 (13-5%) 3 (3%) 1 (1%) 2 (2%) 3 (3%) 104(100%)

Upper Thames (HH subsample)

National Sample (HH)

22 (42%) 6(11%) 15 (28%) 7 (13%) 1 (2%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

90 (36%) 26(10%) 78(31%) 21 (8%) 2 (1%) 20 (8%) 9 (4%) 5 (2%)

53 (100%)

251 (100%)

TYPOLOGY OF METAL SHIELD FITTINGS

100 • • I

11

200

mm

7. Group 1.1 shield bosses: a. Abingdon I, grave B4; b. Berinsfeld grave 6; c. Cassinglon II, grave 2; d. Eynsham I, grave 1; e. Wallingford grave 22; f. Yarnton grave 1 (113)

last type. Three shield bosses were associated with iron discs from the shield board. Associated grave goods are noticeably homogeneous in date. Spearheads of essentially Swanton's types HI and H2, current in the Upper Thames region mainly from the late fifth to the mid-sixth century, occurred with eleven bosses from Group 1.1 and two from Group 1.2, being especially favoured at Long Wittenham I; spear-

heads of his types J, Kl, K2 and L, datable between about AD 450 and 550, were found with a further five bosses from Group 1.1 and two from Group 1.2 (see Dickinson 1976, 291-327 for emendation and adaptation of Swanton's classification and chronology). This correlation of shield boss and spearhead types is corroborated to some extent by other finds. The early fifth-century tubular endplate for

12

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

a belt, from Berinsfield grave 6 (Bohme 1986, 492-5; White 1988, 53-4, fig. 34.4), is too fragmentary to be permissible as primary dating evidence, but the fifth-century kidney-shaped buckle loop possibly found in Frilford I, grave 104 and a seax, probably of early sixth-century date, from Eynsham I, grave 1 are significant. So too may be the scabbard fittings from the sword found with the Burford boss: although not closely datable, its long broad U-shaped chape, a local form, is probably mid-fifth to mid-sixth century (Menghin 1974, 439-41), but its cast bronze scabbard mouth with notched horizontal ridges of socalled 'Linton Heath' type (Kennett 1969; 1971, 10-15) might stretch the dating later, especially if the example from Dover II, grave 96b, Kent, and Evison's dating of it to c. AD 625-50, is admissible as a parallel (Evison 1987, 23; cf. Dickinson 1976, 260-6). The only other evidence from the region of a later date comes from Yarnton grave 1; while the Swanton type C2 spearhead could predate the later sixth century (though most do not), the seax is a seventh-century type (Dickinson 1976, 270), though admittedly different from the other small narrow seaxes found in the Upper Thames region. The boss [7J] also exhibits a hint of curvature to its cone, so it might have been miscoded, and should more properly fall into Group 3. That Group 1 bosses were still in use at this date in the Upper Thames region might be argued, however, on the grounds that there are otherwise too few later sixth-century types represented. Another argument for continued deposition of Group 1 bosses throughout the sixth century depends on the dating of the two chamber graves at Spong Hill. Grave 31, which contained a Group 1 shield boss, postdated the primary grave 40, which contained a Group 3 boss (Hills, Penn and Rickett 1984, 14). The dating of Group 3 bosses (see p. 15) would imply that grave 31 was probably not dug before the middle or later sixth century. However, Bohme (1986, 512, 524, Abb. 36) proposes, on the basis of a mid-fifthcentury dating of its sword type, that grave 40 belongs before AD 500, which could raise the date of grave 31 substantially. But, while the scabbard mouth from the grave 40 sword indeed dates stylistically to the mid-fifth century, there is no guarantee that the rest of the sword does: the comparable sword from Brighthampton grave 31 seems to have been a composite piece and old at burial (Dickinson 1976, 257-63; Hawkes 1986,

79). The other grave goods, and especially the shield boss, which Bohme did not consider, are likely in this case to supply a more accurate date of deposition. None the less, the predominance of datable associations with earlier connections is well founded and gains added weight from typological relationships, on the one hand, between Group 1.2 and Group 4 (see p. 17) and, on the other hand, between two members of Group 1.2, Berinsfield grave 69 and Fairford grave 13 [8], and Bohme's 'Liebenau' type (cf. Bohme 1974, Taf. 21.14; see p. 19), of which they may be small versions.

100

• I

200

I mm

8. Group 1.2 shield bosses: a. Berinsfield grave 69; b. Fairford grave 13 (1/3)

Group 1 represents the most popular form of Early Anglo-Saxon shield boss, accounting for 45 per cent of the Upper Thames region corpus (32 per cent in Group 1.1 and 13 per cent in Group 1.2) and 36 per cent of the national sample (tables 2 and 3). The particularly strong preference for it in the Upper Thames is matched further south

13

TYPOLOGY OF METAL SHIELD FITTINGS

mm

9. Group 2 shield bosses: a. Abingdon I, grave B39; b. Berinsfield grave 29; c. Long Wittenham I, grave 45; d. Long Wittenham I, grave 180a (113) in Wessex, in contrast to other southern areas, notably Kent, Essex and, to a lesser extent, Sussex. Group 2 [9]

While Average Linkage at 60 per cent included these bosses in its second large cluster, which also involved Group 3, and. Single Linkage at 90 per cent did likewise but for two bosses, Average Linkage at 65 per cent separated them out as its third cluster. This seems a good resolution of the observable evidence, for the bosses in question share elements with both Group 1 and Group 3, though visually they seem much closer to the former. They differ from Group 1 neither in size nor shape, except they all have straight not concave walls and, where extant, five rivets on the flange (both these attribute states being especially significant in discriminating the second from the first cluster in the Single Linkage and Average Linkage at 60 per cent methods). . Only the boss from Abingdon I, grave B39 [9a] had an associated grip, which was short, flanged and had straight ends (Harke type Ib). It also had an iron shield-board disc; six such discs were found with the boss from Cassington I, grave 4, and three of copper alloy with that from Long

Wittenham I, grave 45 [9c]. Since bosses of Group 2 represent typologically an intermediate stage between Groups 1 and 3, it is not surprising that their datable associations also indicate an overlapping period of use. Cassington I, grave 4 contained an inlaid spear-socket of the type associated with Swanton's H, J and L series spearheads, which might indicate a date prior to the mid-sixth century, but the E3 spearhead in Long Wittenham I, grave 180a should be late sixth century at the earliest. The evidence from the Upper Thames region suggests Swanton's chronological and social interpretations of spearheads of his types El and Fl are not acceptable (Swanton 1973, 79 and 91), so the two in Abingdon I, grave B39 cannot supply a precise date (cf. Dickinson 1976, 301, 306-7). Group 2 is a small group regionally and nationally (table 3), accounting for 8 per cent of the Upper Thames corpus (though 11 per cent of HH's subsample) and 10 per cent of the national sample. It appears to be less common south of the Thames than in Anglian districts, being notably popular in East Anglia and the West Midlands, though not in the East Midlands, perhaps because of the overall small sample from there (table 2). Because Group 2 bosses tend to occur in shield-

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

14

100

I

200

I

mm

10. Group 3 shield bosses: a. Abingdon I, grave 69; b. Berinsfield grave 110; c. Cassington I, grave 1; d. Long JVittenham I, grave 25; e. Long Wittenham I, grave 126; f. Uffington I, grave 4 (1/3)

only graves in these Anglian areas, further insular 2.1). Certainly, if the use of a straight wall and information on their dating is not forthcoming. five flange rivets on Group 2 bosses is a result of They compare, however, with Type I bosses influence from Group 3 bosses, then Group 2 recently defined by Hiibener (1989) on the basis should belong to the full sixth century (see p. 15). of an analysis of 514 bosses drawn from the Rhine- Alternatively, if these adaptations are an indepenland and areas further east within Germany; he dent and intermediate response to the same techwould see this as one extreme of a 'norm' rep- . nological demands which led to Group 3 (see pp. resented also by his Types II and III (equivalent 31-5), then the suggested dating would still be to Group 3). On the basis of associations with sixth century, perhaps centred on its first half. seaxes, he proposes a main period of use for Types I-III from the beginning of the sixth century to Group 3 [10] the mid-seventh century (ibid., 90-2 and Abb. Group 3 is composed of those bosses discrimi-

TYPOLOGY OF METAL SHIELD FITTINGS nated as cluster 4 by Average Linkage at the 65 per cent similarity level. These bosses are slightly narrower and taller than bosses in Groups 1 and 2 (height: 73-93mm; wall height: 16-30mm; diameter: 140-74mm; flange width: 17-28mm), though most retain the overhanging carination. All have convex cones, straight walls and five flange rivets of medium to large diameter; nearly all have an apex that is small, iron and discheaded (fourteen are 10-17mm in diameter, five 18-25mm and three 26-39mm). Plated and/or copper alloy flange rivets are proportionately more frequent (two with plated iron, four with copper alloy and two with plated copper alloy). Only three of the Group 3 bosses examined at the time of the original research had associated grips: two were clearly of Harke's type Ial, and the other probably was [e.g. \0c, J]. Six bosses were associated with discs from the shield board, four with ones of iron, and two with ones of plated copper alloy. Taken with the higher incidence of non-ferrous flange rivets on the bosses, Group 3 bosses emerge, in the Upper Thames region, as the most elaborate type. This is not borne out, however, by HH's national sample, in which no significant differences between boss type and type of shield-board studs were noted. The discrepancy may be attributed to differences in the respective samples and recording. The local evidence for dating points to Group 3 starting in the sixth century and continuing in use into the seventh century. Characteristically early spearhead forms, such as Swan ton's types B2, I, J, K and L, are .not present in association. However, there are two cases of association with the later fifth-/earlier sixth-century type HI (Berinsfield grave 53 and Long Wittenham I, grave 56) and one with the longer lived, but in the main fifth- to early sixth-century, type H2. That the grave in the last case, Long Wittenham I, grave 26, dates before the middle of the sixth century is confirmed by the presence in it of three vessels: a bronze-bound bucket ornamented with repousse dots, annulet stamps and Vandykes decorated with fronds like palm trees (which relates it to the late fifth- and early sixth-century buckets from North Gaul discussed by Evison 1965, 22-3), a much patched Late Roman dish and a sheet bronze cauldron of either Vestland or Gotland type. A later dating is indicated, however, by the association in five graves of spearheads of Swanton's types Cl, C2 and transitional types C/ El and C/E2, which are not certainly known

15

before the sixth century and are most common in the seventh. A similar dating applies to the type F2 spearhead found in Berinsfield grave 110 and the A2 angon in Abingdon I, grave B69, though the latter was partnered by another angon of fifthcentury type (Al). The chronology of Group 3 is amply supported by evidence from elsewhere because, whereas Group 3 accounts for only one-quarter of the Upper Thames region corpus, it is the predominant type in Kent, and the leading type in Essex, Sussex and East Anglia, including at the national level almost as many bosses as Group 1 (tables 2 and 3). The earliest most securely dated example (unless Bohme is correct in his dating of Spong Hill grave 40, see p. 12) comes from the founderburial, grave 204, at Finglesham: the most closely datable item in the grave was an inlaid iron buckle belonging to the 'Flonheim-Gialtlingen Horizon' (c. AD 500), but its condition implies a date of deposition nearer c. AD 525-30 (Hawkes and Pollard 1981, 330-1). Interestingly, this grave also included a spearhead of Swanton's type Kl (Swanton 1973, 209). Likewise, the Group 3 boss in Worthy Park grave 49 was associated with a spearhead of Swanton's type J, an early Continental form of narrow seax and a bucket with a peculiarly 'Wessex' type of escutcheon (Swanton 1973, fig. 85), for which typological links and datable associations suggest a currency from the late fifth century to the middle years of the sixth century (Evison 1965, 22-3; Dickinson 1976, 368-9, to which may now be added an example from Pewsey grave 56 with a pair of Upper Thames region Group 6.1 cast saucer brooches, Dickinson 1976, 73-4). However, as Hawkes has observed (Millard, Jarman and Hawkes 1969, 17), dating evidence for most other bosses of Group 3 points to a later period, the middle and late sixth century onwards. She cites, for example, grave 3 at Strood I, Kent, with its well known but reused 'Christian' drinking cup mount and heavy shield-ontongue buckle, and Finglesham grave G2 with a similar buckle. Among the recently published shield bosses from Dover II there are three clear examples of Group 3 from graves 93 and 98, assigned to Phase 3 (c. AD 575-625), and grave 96a, assigned to Phase 4 (c. AD 625-50; Evison 1987, especially 31-2, table III). Associations with spearheads characteristic of the late sixth century and especially the seventh century, such as at Bidford-on-Avon grave 69 [16A] with a type

16

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

E2, Petersfinger grave 7 with a type C2 (Leeds and Shortt 1953, fig. 8) and Prittlewell grave 25, Essex, with a type E3 (Swanton 1973, fig. 70) imply that outside Kent Group 3 bosses survived for some time into the seventh century. The predominance of Group 3 bosses in Kent would seem to be another consequence of the strong Merovingian influence that is observable from the start of the sixth century on Kentish material culture (Hawkes 1982, 72). Comparable shield bosses are characteristic of Continental Reihengraber cemeteries. Although convex-cone bosses occur first in the rich graves of the socalled 'Gold-Hilted Sword Horizon' (c. AD 480-520), such as Planig and Flonheim grave 1 in Rheinhessen (Kessler 1940, 6, Abb. 2.9; Ament 1970, 127-8) and Lavoye grave 319, Meuse (Chenet 1935, fig. 9c), they remained popular right through the sixth century and even beyond, and the closest parallels to Group 3 are not to be found before the end of Bohner's Stufe II, that is about AD 525. Individual examples may be cited from Krefeld-Gellep graves 1782, 1812, 2046, 2468, 2528, 2588, 2593 and 2581 (Pirling 1974, 147; 1979, 110), corresponding generally to Bohner's types Al and A2 for the Trier district (Bohner 1958, 175-6) and to Hinz's types A2 to A4 for Eick in the Lower Rhine (Hinz 1969, 28-31), and from the prince's grave under Cologne Cathedral (Doppelfeld 1964, Abb. 9). Further parallels are to be found with types 7 and 14 at Schretzheim (Koch 1977, 37, Abb. 8B) and types a and d at Marktoberdorf (Christlein 1966, Abb. 13) in the Alamannic area of Germany, while it is also regarded as typical of the midsixth century to first half of seventh century in Central Germany (Schmidt 1961, 154, Abb. 600Finally, reference has already been made under Group 2 to Hiibener's (1989) reclassification of bosses from the eastern Merovingian world and its neighbouring kingdoms and to the fact that Group 3 is clearly cognate with his Types II and III (ibid., 90, Abb. 2, II and III), for which he proposes a dating from the sixth century to midseventh century. A consequence of basing the classification on a regional sample is that it may overlook developments peculiar to other areas, as is very much the case here with the markedly Kentish and Merovingian context for Group 3. In the late sixth century and early seventh century, in Kent and its neighbouring counties, bosses of Group 3 gave way to narrower and lighter 'low curved cones'

(Evison 1963, 39-41; Group 6, see p. 20). In fact, a substantial number of bosses from outside the Upper Thames region appear to be transitional between the two forms, and this is also the case for one example from the Upper Thames sample, the boss from Berinsfield grave 110 [106]. Average Linkage Cluster Analysis at the 65 per cent level included it in Group 3, yet diameter apart (149mm, which is at the lower end of the range) its features accord better with those of'low cones', and, indeed, HH has so classified it in his tables. But in general he has found no grounds for further subdivision of the groups. Other subgroups and developments might also emerge were a comparable computer-assisted analysis to be done on a Kentish sample: for example, among the bosses from Dover II which Evison groups together with the Group 3 bosses cited above are two, from graves G or D and 91 (both her Phase 3; Evison 1987, figs. 3.8 and 41.1a), which are significantly taller, at 107mm and c. 102mm respectively, though otherwise retaining Group 3 attributes. They are therefore more substantial all round and invite some comparison with the boss from Sutton Hoo mound 1, Suffolk (Bruce-Mitford 1978, 48-55, fig. 19). But while the general profile and height (100mm) of the Sutton Hoo boss compares with Group 3, its very wide flange (40mm) and therefore overall diameter (215mm), as well as its decorative elements, separate it from the usual run of insular shield bosses and preclude its description by this classificatory system. That it is East Scandinavian is highly probable (ibid., 92); only a wider study could integrate the typological developments outlined here for England with those taking place on the Continent and in Scandinavia. Another feature of shields with Group 3 bosses which the Upper Thames sample fails to reflect is the strong correlation in Kent, and less so in Essex, with long, mostly flanged, grips (Harke's type III; tables 4-5). This is also, of course, the favoured grip type on the Continent for convexcone bosses. There are just two examples of a long grip from the Upper Thames region, both sadly unassociated with a boss: one comes from Cassington I, grave 3 (Leeds and Riley 1942, fig. 16a), the other was reconstructed from unassociated fragments from Wheatley, Oxfordshire, one of which was originally published as a tanged spearhead [11] (Leeds 1917, fig. If; Ashmolean Museum 1883.21b). It is remarkable therefore that the spread of Group 3 bosses outside Kent

TYPOLOGY OF METAL SHIELD FITTINGS

100

0 I

I

I

I

I

I

I

17

200

I

mm

11. Part of a long shield grip (type Ilia) from Wheatley, unassociated (1/2)

was not associated with an equivalent spread of the long shield grip; the latter thus conforms to the regional monopoly on culture characteristic of Kent (cf. Hawkes 1982, 72) while the former does not. Group 4 [12]

Group 4 includes a series of highly distinctive bosses as well as some apparently less similar bosses. The group was identified as a separate cluster by Average Linkage at the 75 per cent similarity level, but at the 60 per cent level became submerged in the second cluster. Single Linkage at the 90 per cent level identified some of the bosses as its eighth cluster. The bosses are notable for their relative height and narrowness, and especially for their medium to high wall heights .(height: 82-119mm; wall height: 20-35mm; diameter: 125-56mm; flange width: 15-2 lmm). The cones are concave or straight, except for one anomalous boss with a convex cone [12c]; the majority lack an overhanging carination and all have straight walls. They have four flange rivets of medium diameter and usually of iron. Most of the bosses are also distinguished by having a spike at the apex, though one has a rod, and two have a disc-head [12^-A] which makes them look more akin to bosses of Group 5. The five extant grips are all of Harke's type Ial, short and flat with expanded terminals [e.g. 12a, c-e], a preference which is borne out by the national sample (table 5). Four of the bosses were associated with shield-board discs. The internal dating evidence suggests a fairly early period for Group 4. The boss from Fairford grave 2 [12*] was associated with two spearheads, a fifth-century Swanton type B2 and a type H2,

which though longer lived, tends in the Upper Thames region to predate the middle of the sixth century. In addition, one of possibly three sheet bronze applied discs that originally ornamented the shield board was decorated with a four-point star: while Evison (1978, 262-3, pi. LIV.i) would place this firmly in the fifth century, this author would concur with Welch (in Cunliffe 1976, 206-11) that dating cannot be so exact, for many of the applied saucer brooches with related patterns were buried through the sixth century. Type H2 spearheads occurred also with the bosses from Abingdon I, grave B25 and Brighthampton grave 13a, and the transitional type Hl/2, of similar date-range, in Long Wittenham I, grave 138; type Kl spearheads of c. AD 450-550 were found in Long Wittenham I, grave 42 and Oxford II, grave 1. Swanton would date the type H3 spearhead found in Abingdon I, grave B33 to the late fifth century and sixth century generally (Swanton 1973, 111-14), but examples in the Upper Thames region, though rare, may be early in the series (Dickinson 1976, 311-12). Although these associations indicate an early date for Group 4, it cannot have been exclusively fifth century: Brighthampton grave 13a, in particular, must be a later burial, for it was secondary to a grave containing a small-long brooch with profile imitative of a great square-headed brooch and must be sixth century (Dickinson 1976, 178). Group 4 is a small group, representing 13-5 per cent of the Upper Thames region sample but even less of the national sample, for it too was a regional speciality (tables 2 and 3). Parallels, especially for the variety with a straight high wall, are scarce, but are most frequent in the neighbouring areas of Wessex and the West Midlands.

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

18

0

100

I , • . , I • , • • I

200

I mm

12. Group 4 shield bosses: a. Abingdon I, grave B25; b. Berinsfield grave 1; c. Brighthampton grave 6; d. Brighthampton grave 13a; e. Fairford grave 2; f. Long Wittenham I, grave 138; g. Fairford unassodated (AM 1942.248); h. Oxford II, grave 1 (1/3)

TYPOLOGY OF METAL SHIELD FITTINGS Swanton illustrates one from Toddington I, Bedfordshire, found with a spearhead of his type K2, and cites another from Stretton-on-Fosse II, grave 38 found with a spearhead of his type L (Swanton 1973, 137, fig. 87d). A type Kl spearhead was found in Worthy Park grave 87, but the boss is rather borderline in form. Although these associations present a picture similar to that from the Upper Thames region, there, are two grave groups which are plainly later in date: Nassington grave 25 included a cut-down spearhead of type F2 (Leeds and Atkinson 1944, 108, figs. 4-5), while Bidford-on-Avon grave 210 contained a spearhead of type E3 or possibly H3. Unfortunately, the other examples of Group 4 known to the authors lack associations: a boss with a dischead apex from Sleaford, Lincolnshire (British Museum 83,4-1,529), and two from Chessell Down, Isle of Wight (Arnold 1982, 70, fig. 31.124 and 126; Arnold was misled by their height into proposing a late sixth-century date) may be mentioned because they fall outside the main distribution area as indicated by our searches. An early date for bosses of Group 4 may also be argued on typological grounds, for they belong within the tradition of conical shield bosses with rod or spike apexes which can be traced in Germanic lands from the pre-Roman Iron Age onwards (Jahn 1916, 173). The majority of such bosses have low walls and their height comes from their cone and spike, but Zieling's recent and comprehensive analysis shows that higher walls are a feature of the Early Roman Iron Age and the beginning of the Late Roman Iron Age (Zieling 1989, especially 383, cf. Tabelle 1 and Abb. 24). Indeed, it is within this period that the closest parallels to Group 4 occur (Zieling's spike-apex Types E2 and F2, the latter concentrated along and east of the Elbe, ibid., 80-3, 88-90). The apparent disappearance of these types (and most others) from Germania in the later third and fourth centuries might seem, however, to invalidate the argument. Yet when shield bosses start being buried in graves between the Loire and Elbe in the later fourth and fifth centuries, the two characteristic types belong plainly in the same general Germanic tradition. Bohme's 'RhenenVermand' type is the taller, has a low straight wall, steep cone terminating in a squat spike and usually four flange rivets (height: 110-75mm; diameter: 150-200mm); his 'Liebenau' type has a low concave wall, steep cone terminating in a long spike and five flat flange rivets (height:

19

100-40mm; diameter: 150-60mm; Bohme 1974, 112-13). The latter is found only on the right bank of the Rhine, and some are quite squat in profile (e.g. Helle grave 1, Bohme 1974, Taf. 21.14). Similar forms are found in Central Germany during the fifth century (Schmidt 1961, 154, Abb. 59a). Three examples of Bohme's 'RhenenVermand' type have been identified in England. Two come from the fort at Richborough, Kent, one from a likely late fourth-/early fifth-century cemetery, the other from the fill of the inner ditch [16a] (Hawkes and Dunning 1961, 17-18, fig. 5b and d). The third comes from Mucking II, grave 272, which may date from the first half of the fifth century (included by HH under 'Other Types'; Evison 1981, 140, fig. 7). In addition, the Group 4 shield boss from Long Wittenham I, grave 138 [12/and 16b], with its relatively low wall and tall cone, may be compared directly with Bohme's 'Liebenau1 type, and so should be fifth-century. If the lack of immediately preceding Continental prototypes for the high-walled profile of most Group 4 bosses, as well as the occasional use of a disc-head apex, implies that the group is essentially an insular development, its Germanic ancestry should not be doubted. The history of shield bosses in Germania exhibits other cases of typological demise and then revival, and the apparent 'renaissance' here of an Early Roman Iron Age type might equally be explained by fluctuations in burial practice masking the intervening forms and by the constraints which such a basic tradition would impose on the potential range of formal variation; this would seem more plausible than that the revival was a conscious appeal to ancient forms (cf. Zieling 1989, 391-4). Typological links between Group 4 and Group 1.2 (see p. 10), on the one hand, and parallels with the lower versions of Bohme's 'Liebenau' type, which he would date into the second half of the fifth century, on the other hand, also suggest how this same tradition gave rise to the standard low Anglo-Saxon shield boss form described under Group 1.1. Group 4 clearly persisted beside Group 1 during the early sixth century and may possibly have lasted into the late sixth century. Group 5 [13] Group 5 is a minor group of just three bosses, which were isolated by Average Linkage at the 65 per cent level as its sixth cluster. They differ from Group 4 bosses only in their wide flanges, and hence greater diameter, and in their very

20

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS satisfactory. The bosses are related only by their convex cones, relatively narrow diameters and very small iron disc-heads at the apex; otherwise they are conspicuously dissimilar. However, the cluster did include two classic examples of the 'sugar-loaf form, and the one unclustered boss is a good example of Evison's 'low curved cone' . form. Groups 6 and 7 are therefore an integration of the Upper Thames material with the classification proposed by Evison (1963), while Group 8 accommodates the remaining miscellaneous bosses inevitable in any such exercise. Group 6 [14]

100 • I

200

mm

13. Group 5 shield bosses: a. Cirencester I, grave 1; b. Long WitUnham I, grave 67 (113)

broad disc-heads at the apex (height: 80-110mm; wall height: 23-30mm; diameter: 155-68mm; flange width: 25-3 lmm; in all cases the number of flange rivets is unknown). Typologically, this group might have emerged during the late fifth century, and while datable associations cannot confirm this precisely, they do not contradict a general late fifth-/sixth-century period of use: a Swanton type H3 spearhead and a sword with a 'Linton Heath' type scabbard mouth (see p. 12) accompanied the boss in Long Wittenham I, grave 67, and a small pottery bowl with bossed and stamped decoration was associated with Cirencester I, grave 1 (Myres 1977, Corpus No. 2372, 41-3, fig. 258). Group 5 is barely detectable in the national sample, where only one example from outside the Upper Thames region, from Bidford-on-Avon grave 53, was identified. Welch lists four instances from Sussex, but in all cases the bosses have concave walls and their dimensions are borderline with those of Group 1 (Welch 1983, 138-9). Groups 6-8

The last cluster produced by Average Linkage at the 65 per cent similarity level is the least

Evison defined her 'low curved cone' (Evison 1963, 40, fig. Id) as being c. 3in (c. 76mm) high, c. 4-5-5in (c. 114—27mm) in diameter, and with or without a carination. More recently, with reference to Dover II, she has given measurements of not more than 150mm in diameter and less than 80mm in height, and noted the presence of knobheaded rivets on the narrow flange, and the association of short flat grips (Evison 1987, 31-2). She also distinguished a 'low straight cone' (Evison 1963, fig. lc) with slightly larger dimensions (height: c. 3-5in (c. 89mm); diameter: 4*5-5*5in (114-40mm)) and a small disc-head or, more commonly, rod apex, but she regarded the two subtypes as broadly equivalent, for one of each occurred in the Taplow barrow, Buckinghamshire. This key grave in her chronology (which was based on the old, c. AD 650, date for Sutton Hoo mound 1, and therefore requires some adjustment) would now be dated to the first quarter of the seventh century. Group 6 'low cones' would thus seem to have been developed from Group 3 bosses during the late sixth and early seventh century, but may then have continued to be used well into the seventh century (Hawkes and Hogarth 1974, 77). Spearheads of late sixth- to seventh-century type are characteristically associated with 'low cone' bosses. The single example of Group 6 identified from the Upper Thames region (though see p. 16) comes from Berinsfield grave 52 [14a], where it was associated with a spearhead of Swanton's type E3 and a knife with straight back and downward-curving point. HH's national sample shows that though Group 6 is small, comprising 8 per cent of the total and coming fifth in order of popularity, it is clearly more frequent, as might be anticipated, in south-eastern districts (tables 2 and 3).

TYPOLOGY OF METAL SHIELD FITTINGS

o I

100

200

mm

14. Groups 6-7 shield bosses: Group 6: a. Berinsfield grave 52; Group 7: b. Milton North Field unassociated (113) Group 7 [14] Evison argued that the 'low cone' form of shield boss evolved into the type which she designated a 'tall straight cone' (1963, fig. le). With or without a slight carination, or even no wall at all, these bosses ranged in height between 4in and 6in (102-53mm) and in diameter between 5in and 6in (127-58mm). This development would now be placed in the second quarter of the seventh century: the boss from Coombe Bissett, Wiltshire, is transitional in form and was associated with a garnet-inlaid pyramidal sword stud, while the fully developed form in Alton grave 16, Hampshire, was accompanied by a repaired triangular buckle decorated with garnets and filigree (Evison 1963, figs. 19-20). The emergence of the true, curved 'sugar-loaf form (ibid., fig. If), with heights reaching over 200mm, may still be placed in the second half of the seventh century. As Evison observed, material associated with such bosses is remarkably homogeneous in character,

21

and items like the gold ornament from the 'Surrey-side-of-Thames' find are typical of these decades (Evison 1963, fig. 31; cf. Hawkes, Merrick and Metcalf 1966). Of the two Group 7 bosses included in the Upper Thames region analysis, that from the Lowbury Hill barrow comes from a classic late seventh-century assemblage [16;] (Evison 1963, 62), while the other, from Milton North Field [14A], though unassociated, comes from a site which has produced two late composite disc brooches (Avent 1975, 55, 60-5, pis. 73-4), a broad seax and a long narrow seax with twohanded grip (cf. Evison 1961, 228-9; Hawkes 1973, 189). To these can be added a lost shield boss from another late barrow burial, mound 3 at East Ilsley I, Berkshire (Evison 1963, 61,fig.34c) and a recent find of a 'tall straight cone' from grave 93 at Lechlade, Gloucestershire (publication in progress by the Oxford Archaeological Unit). HH's national sample included only nine Group 7 bosses, the majority from Wessex. This is an accident of sampling, for 'sugar-loaf bosses certainly occur more widely, especially in Kent and eastern counties, and in the eighth century the form was adopted, probably through independent development, on the Continent, especially in the north-west (Evison 1963; Hubener 1989, 90, Abb. 3, Types VIII and IX). In England, they would seem to occur wherever later seventhcentury burials are recognizable: these are common, of course, in barrows in southern Wessex (cf. Shephard 1979). Group 8 [15]

The three remaining bosses from the Upper Thames region analysis are all fragmentary, and absent data may partly account for their position in the clustering. The boss from Wheatley grave 15 [15a] appears to have had a relatively high wall, shallow convex dome and a small stud at the apex; it may more properly belong to Group 3 [cf. 10] and its apex stud might even suggest parallels with Hubener's Type IV, a rare variant of his Types I-III distinguished by a biconical apex (Hubener 1989, 90, Abb. 2.IV). Certainly a dating after the mid-sixth century is likely in view of the heavy shield-on-tongue buckle with which it was buried. The other two bosses also have convex cones, but very low walls, so that their proportions are closest to Group 1.1. The boss from Kingsey [156]

22

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

flange rivets and a short flat grip with expanded terminals of Harke's type Ial; it was found with a spearhead of Swanton's type H3 or, more probably, E3, which would again point to the late sixth or seventh century (Hills and Wade-Martins 1976, 21-2, fig. 10, where the boss is dated, probably wrongly, to the early sixth century). The same dating definitely applies to the boss from Dover II, grave 56, found with a buckle with shield-on-tongue and triangular plate and a type E3 spearhead, and placed in Phase 3 (c. AD 575-625) by Evison (1987, 31, fig. 31). In fact, these bosses without apexes correspond to forms better evidenced on the Continent, where they have been assigned to types G and D in the Trier district (Bohner 1958, 175-6), types B and Cl at Eick (Hinz 1969, 30), the seventh century in Central Germany (Schmidt 1961, 154, Abb. 60k), and are dated to late in Bohner's Stufe III and to Stufe IV. The proportions of wall-height to cone.-height vary considerably on the Continental examples, for example at Krefeld-Gellep (Pirling 1979, 110), and indeed Hubener (1989, 90-2, 200 100 I mm Abb. 2, Va and Vb, Abb. 3, VI and VII) distinguished four such types spanning the sixth and 15. Group 8 shield bosses: a. Wheatley grave 15 (height and seventh centuries. Further analysis might discern more precise subtypes to which the English diameter not known—reconstruction uncertain); b. Kingsey examples could be related. It is unclear, therefore, unassociated; c. Wanborough unassociated (113) whether the latter are imports from the Continent or copies manufactured locally. Within the Enghas a squat hammered-flat top stud, but the boss lish corpus, however, they do constitute a distinct from Wanborough II [15c] apparently lacks any type, and therefore Group 8 is illustrated in figure feature at its apex, though it is not clear whether 16 by one of them, although this Group also this is original or due to erosion. However, taller, includes other, rather diverse, bosses and HH smooth-topped and convex-coned bosses are has thus used Group 8 as a repository for all known from a few other Anglo-Saxon contexts. miscellaneous ('other') boss-types. Four are included in HH's national sample (tabulated by him under 'Other Types', tables 2-3, 5 SUMMARY and 7). Two come from Bargates, Christchurch, The classification has been discussed in the order graves 5 and 23 Qarvis 1983, 115, 123, figs. 63.5 in which it was generated by the computer. Since and 67.1), though both have the proportions of this has left the chronological sequence disjointed, 'low straight cones'; the boss in grave 23 was it is necessary to recap [16]. associated with a spearhead of Swanton's type The earliest shield bosses recognized from C2/3, which conforms with the generally late assumed Germanic or Anglo-Saxon contexts in sixth- and seventh-century dating of this cem- England correspond to Bohme's 'Rhenen-Veretery. Another comes from Bergh Apton gave 19 mand' type of the late fourth and early fifth cen[16*] (Green and Rogerson 1978, fig. 76), where turies. Examples have been cited from Richborit was found with a sword, a large iron-bound ough and Mucking II, grave 272; they belong bucket (an item found often in rich male graves to the first phase of equipped warrior graves in of the late sixth century and early seventh southern Britain. At some point in the fifth century), and a seax-shaped knife, which is also century, either this boss type and its related 'Lielikely to be late sixth-century or later. The last is benau' type, directly, or the Germanic Iron Age from Swaflham grave 18 and had three flat plated tradition of which they are representatives,

TYPOLOGY OF METAL SHIELD FITTINGS

500 I

400 I

600 I

23

700 I

Rhenen-Vermand type

Group 4 Ccf. Liebenau type)

Group 5

Group 1.1

Group 2

Group 3

0

100

200 mm Group 8

16. Schematic summary of typological and chronological sequence of shield boss groups in Early Anglo-Saxon England: a. Richborough inner ditch (after Hawkes and Dunning 1961, fig. 5d); b. Long Wittenham I, grave 138; c. Abingdon I, grave B33; d. Sutton Courtenay II, unassociated; e. Berinsfield grave 69; f. Cassington II, grave 2; g. Abingdon I, grave B39; h. Bidford-on-Avon grave 69; i. Taplow (after Evison 1963, fig. 12d); j . Lowbury Hill (after Evison 1963, fig. 26g); k. Bergh Aptori grave 19 (after Green and Rogerson 1978, fig. 76Fi; n.b. this boss has been chosen for illustration because iU represents a distinctive subtype within an otherwise rather miscellaneous group) (approx. 118)

24

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

indirectly, inspire the manufacture of the first insular form of shield boss, Group 4, which is a tall narrow boss with spike apex, four flange rivets and a short flat grip. During the later fifth century various modifications were made that gave rise to the most popular form of all, Group 1.1, a low broad boss with overhanging carination, concave wall and disc-head apex; bosses of both Group 1.2 and Group 5 may be intermediary or parallel developments. These forms were produced until at least the middle of the sixth century and probably for some time afterwards. During the first half of the sixth century a new type, Group 3, with convex cone, straight wall and five flange rivets, inspired by fashions on the Continent, was introduced most probably via Kent. It persisted throughout the rest of the century and beyond. The technological and military imperatives which led to the development of Group 3 may also have been responsible, at about the same time, for the partial modification of existing insular forms, giving rise to Group 2 with straight wall, five flange rivets but a straight cone. At the end of the century, the Group 3 form seems to have been modified to produce the smaller, lighter 'low cone' form of Group 6, while continuing overseas connections may have been responsible for the introduction of a rare type, without an apex, represented by some members of Group 8, as well as, of course, such exotic pieces as the shield from Sutton Hoo mound 1. During the middle decades of the seventh century, the Group 6 boss was in turn made larger, giving rise to the classic 'sugar-loaf boss, Group 7, of the second

half of the seventh century. Shield bosses not only changed in form through time, but were also subject to strong regional preferences. The earliest insular form, Group 4, appears to be a product of the early-settled Upper Thames region itself, probably spreading from there to southern Wessex and the West Midlands. Arguably, it was there too that bosses of Group 1 were first developed, for these were by far the most popular form in the Upper Thames region and southern Wessex. Alternatively, this numerical predominance reflects not innovation but retardation in technological expertise, the type simply being used for longer there than elsewhere (cf. p. 35). By contrast, Group 3, with its Continental background, is the most common type in Kent, Essex and East Anglia. But whereas a fair number of Group 1 also occurs in Essex and East Anglia, and the latter is further marked by the relative preponderance of Group 2, which may be the Anglians' own adaptation of Group 3, Kent made use of few other types. The classification and resulting outline of typological development offered here has been based on a particular computer-based analysis. Changes or modifications might be made were different methods, attributes or sample chosen. However, the general application of the system to England and the remarkable similarity of it to that proposed for Central Germany by Schmidt (1961, 154—5) suggests that real and essential differences among Anglo-Saxon shield bosses have been identified.

SHIELD GRIPS Iron shield grips are much easier to classify than bosses because the criteria needed for classification are fewer, and there is much less transition from one 'ideal' type to another. Using overall length of the grip and presence or absence of flanges at the handle section for main criteria, a simple typological scheme can be drawn up [17]:

II. medium length grip (overall length 200-50mm) a. flat b. flanged III. long grip (overall length c. 300-400mm) a. flat b. flanged.

I. short grip (overall length c. 110-60mm) a. flat 1. with expanded terminals 2. straight sided (strap-like) b. flanged

The short flat grip (la), really only a strip of iron hammered flat and pierced by two rivet holes, is the most frequent type in all English regions throughout the Early Saxon period: 55 per cent in a national sample of just under 200 grips from

c.

Ia2

c

c

Mb

100 I

I

I

200

• I

17. Types of iron shield grip: Ial: JVinterbourne Gunner grave IV; Ia2: Holborough grave 8; Ib: Pewsey grave 8; Ha: Stretton-on-Fosse grave 88; lib: Orpington grave 38; Ilia: Lyminge II, grave 31; IHb: Finglesham grave G2 (1/3)

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

26

The short grip with iron flanges (Ib) which are hammered round a wooden handle is equally widespread (table 6), but chronologically more restricted: it is found in conjunction with bosses of Groups 1, 2 and 3 (table 5). This is the same date range as that of long flanged grips, although the latter have a more limited distribution (see p. 27). Grips of medium length (II) look like short grips with short extensions. These extensions do not have rivet holes, and it is this feature as well as the difference in length which distinguishes them from long grips. This type is the rarest in England: the sample contains only three cases, Table 4. Frequencies of shield grip types in the national sample two with flanges (lib) from Orpington graves 7 and 38 (Tester 1968, fig. 11.38b) and one flat Type Description Number % specimen (Ha) from Stretton-on-Fosse II, grave I short (details unknown) 14 7-1 88. This small number makes it difficult to assess 109 55-1 la short flat their chronological position* but the types of boss Ib short flanged 36 18-2 with which they are associated indicate a date 1 0-5 I la medium length flat range very similar to that of long grips. 1-0 lib medium length flanged 2 Long grips have a flat (Ilia) or, more usually, 2-0 4 III long (details unknown) a flanged (Illb) central section terminated by 4 2-0 Ilia long flat rivet holes. From this grip section, a narrow iron 11-1 22 I lib long flanged strip or bar extends on either side. The terminals, type unknown 6 3-0 usually circular, club-shaped or bifurcated, of 198 100 Total of sample these extensions are also riveted to the board, and these outer rivets often have disc heads on the Table 5. Associations of shield grip types and shield boss groups front of the board. The zoomorphic terminals of in the national sample the Sutton Hoo grip are without parallel in EngTotal land (Bruce-Mitford 1978, 75-8). Some long grips Grip types Shield boss groups Other 1 2[ 3 4 5 6 7 are slightly curved, indicating possibly a convex types board. This curvature is, therefore, of technical la 35 13 25 9 1 12 7 4 106 rather than typological significance (see p. 43), Ib 17 4 13 34 and it is not always easily distinguishable from 1 1 I la the effects of earth pressure. 1 1 lib 2 The large majority of long grips have been 3 4 Ilia 1 found with bosses of Dickinson's Group 3, but 20 Illb 3 1 16 some occur with Group 1 and 2 bosses (table 5). Total 9 1 7 4 167 58 18 58 12 40 cemeteries (table 4). The subtype 1 with expanded terminals could be further subdivided using the shapes of the terminals (straight-ended, convex, bifurcated or club-shaped), but that would only create a large number of small subgroups apparently without chronological or other relevance. Expanded terminals are frequent from the fifth to seventh centuries with all types of boss, whereas the strap-like grip (subtype 2) becomes common only in the late sixth and seventh centuries, when it is associated with bosses of Dickinson's Groups 6 and 7 (e.g. at Holborough grave 8; Evison 1956, fig. 17.1b).

Table 6. Regional distribution of 174 classifiable shield grips Grip types

Kent

Essex

Sussex

Wessex

la Ib

8 2

4 5

10 1

40 6

Ha lib

2

Ilia Illb Total

Regions Upper West Thames Midlands

19 3

7 2

East Midlands

East Anglia

4 2

14 14

1

1 11 24

1 4 16

13

51

22

10

28

North

3 1

TYPOLOGY OF METAL SHIELD FITTINGS They never occur with early (Group 4) or late (Group 6 and 7) bosses, so their date range clearly centres on the sixth century, but may well start in the late fifth century and continue into the early seventh century. Long grips also show an interesting distribution: in the national sample they are absent from Anglian regions, and are found only in Kent and the Saxon territories (table 6). In some cemeteries of Kent and Essex,

27

they are the predominant type of grip. Their seeming absence from the Upper Thames area must be due to sampling factors because Dickinson recorded two cases from that region (see p. 16). All shield grips were made of iron, with one exception: the short flat grip in Orpington grave 25 was a bronze strap with expanded terminals (Tester 1968, 138).

OTHER FITTINGS figs. 12.4 and 13.5), but the number of such cases is rather small for chronological generalizations. Bronze studs are usually tinned. The silver capped iron discs tentatively ascribed to Kempston grave 52, Bedfordshire, by Kennett (1974, 57) may or may not be from a shield. a. circular studs and discs; iron, less often bronze Small iron fittings of lozenge shape are less (tinned); diameter mostly 20-40mm, rarely up common; they are dated from the late fifth to the to 80mm; usually flat, in seventh century some- late sixth or early seventh century, and appear times slightly domed (convex) to have a southern distribution. Cases of single b. lozenge-shaped fittings; iron; length mostly lozenges (which may be associated, however, with circular studs) concentrate in Wessex where, curi22-54mm, occasionally up to about 140mm ously, only one such fitting has been recovered c. figural appliques in the shape of fish or other animals; usually bronze, gilt and/or silvered; from any one cemetery (Appendix 4). Another length usually 44-112mm, in exceptional cases shield board fitting of this kind from Riseley, Kent, was wrongly identified as a 'brooch' (Cumup to 250mm and over. d. non-figural mounts, mostly of geometric shape,berland 1938, 22). Cases of several lozenges from often with animal-style decoration; gilt bronze, one shield have been found in Kent (Holborough silver-gilt, gold foil, or silver-plated iron; sizes grave 8: Evison 1956, fig. 7.1c) and Essex (Mucking I, grave 248: M. U. and W. T. Jones, pers. vary widely e. iron bands, arranged ..radially around the shield comm.). Chronologically and typologically, lozenge fittings may be the precursors offish-shaped boss f. a variety of bronze or iron plates and strips, includ- appliques: the large concave-sided lozenges with straight ends from Bidford-on-Avon graves 33 ing strap holders g. U-sectioned edge bindings ('rim fittings'); mostly [18.4] and 212 and the fittings from Dover II, grave 93 (Evison 1987, text fig. 5) could well bronze. represent the typological links. However, the only Iron studs are by far the most frequent type of partly overlapping distributions of the two board fitting in all English regions. Their pos- respective groups, and the possible function of itions in situ suggest that in most cases they were lozenges as repair strips (see p. 52) do not support arranged in two pairs on either side of the boss this speculation. Metal fittings from the front (rarely the back) of the wooden shield board are more likely to have served decorative than functional purposes (see p. 52). They fall into several broad groups [18] {Appendix 4):

on the front (enemy side) of the board. At Dover II, grave 71 (Evison 1987, 235, fig. 38), the two disc heads of each pair are joined to form a single figure-of-eight applique. Studs and discs are found in association with all boss types (table 7). Convex or domed studs seem to occur mainly with late boss types of Group 6 (Holborough grave 7; Evison 1956, fig. 15.3c) and Group 7 (Snell's Corner graves S.14 and S.20; Knocker 1956,

Figural and zoomorphic appliques take the form of fish, beaked quadrupeds, birds and dragons. Their forms, Continental parallels and possible interpretations have been discussed in some detail by Kennett (1974), Hills (1977), Bruce-Mitford (1978, 55-65, 91-9) and Evison (1987, 32-4). In addition to the shield appliques with known grave associations (see Appendix 4), there are a number of problematic or unassociated

a 4

.' •

10

T UU

e

U

11

I

.,

I-" 11...;. in

JtT^1

12 100

I

I

I

I

J

mm

18. Types of metal board fittings (for bibliographical references, see Appendices 3 and 4): Group a: 1. Berinsfield grave 24 (bronze); 2. Snell's Corner grave S20 (iron); Group b: 3. Worthy Park grave 22 (iron); 4. Bidford-on-Avon grave 33 (iron); Group c: 5. Spong Hill inhumation 31 (gilt bronze); 6. Bergh Apton grave 26 (silver-gilt bronze); Group d: 7. Westgarth Gardens grave 41 (silver-gilt bronze); Group e: 8. Thetford (iron); Group f: 9. Orpington grave 26 (bronze); 10. Pewsey grave 34 (iron); 11. Finglesham grave G2 (iron); Group g: 12. Pewsey grave 34 (bronze)

TYPOLOGY OF METAL SHIELD FITTINGS

29

Table 7. Associations of shield board fittings and shield boss groups Type of fitting

1

3

4

10 1

31 2

1 2

2

1 4

1

No fittings reported

44

11

37

10

Total

78

24

75

20

Studs, discs Lozenges Radial bands Figural appliques Other types

27 4

2

Shield boss groups 5 6

8 1

10 1

7 5

Other types

Type unknown

4

23 1 1

2 2

Total 118 9 1 3 9

7

4

1

61

177

18

9

5

86

317

to the shield boss, and suggested by Evison (1987, 32) to have belonged to the shield, had only leather traces underneath and clearly lacked a rivet (Green and Rogerson 1978, 22, fig. 80D), so that it may be a belt fitting which just happened to be deposited close to the shield. The crossshaped appliques from Westgarth Gardens were found under the boss in grave 41 and must, therefore, have been fitted to the back of the shield (West 1988, 30). Radial iron bands, or strips, have been reported from two sites, only one of which is included in the national sample: Sarre (grave 3; Brent 1866, 165-6) and Thetford, Norfolk (Evison 1963, fig. 3). Both cases are relatively late: the Sarre burial is from the later sixth century (to judge from the associated buckle and axe), and the Thetford shield has a 'sugar-loaf shield boss ('tall curved cone') of the seventh century. Other types of iron or bronze strip are too few and too diverse to support any typological exercise {Appendix 4), but they may be roughly divided into two subgroups. The first group, itself heterogeneous, is made up of iron or bronze plates, square fittings and strips, including one case of a shield which had a second grip mounted on the Non-figural gilt or silvered mounts make up front of the board. The second subgroup is defined another group of high quality, decorative shield functionally rather than typologically: metal fittings {Appendix 4). Their shapes are mostly geo- strips with a central 'kink' or a central raised metric and vary from circular studs and small section may be strap holders, such as the two bosses to cross-shaped or hexagonal appliques, iron strips from Finglesham grave G2 (Chadwick and they may carry additional zoomorphic decor- 1958, fig. 14e). ation. The common feature is their precious The last group of board fittings are U-sectioned material: gilt bronze, silver-gilt or gold foil, less iron or bronze strips and clips which are likely to often silver-plated iron. A unique specimen is the have been edge bindings of the wooden board gilt bronze 'ring' from the Sutton Hoo shield (see p. 51). The best documented case of such a (Bruce-Mitford 1978, 45-6, 129-37). The bronze binding is, again, from Sutton Hoo (Bruce-Mitrosette found in Bergh Apton grave 26 together ford 1978, 29-36), whereas neither the associwith the two zoomorphic shield appliques close ations nor function of three 'shield rims' identified cases, some of which may have been belt fittings: Ashwell (Hertfordshire), Thames foreshore at Barnes (London), Kenninghall (Norfolk), Shelford (Kent), Warren Hill (Suffolk; for these five cases, cf. Kennett 1974, 60-2; Evison 1987, 32-4) and Worlaby (Humberside; Knowles 1965, fig. 6.2). All figural appliques with known associations are datable to the sixth and early seventh centuries. In contrast to the southern, mostly southwestern, distribution of lozenge fittings, figural appliques appear to be a predominantly eastern and south-eastern phenomenon. Their distribution, therefore, covers the areas with the closest ties to Scandinavia and the Continent where also the best parallels for this type of shield fitting are to be found (Bruce-Mitford 1978, 91-9). The fact that all known English specimens are made of, or include in their design, precious metals (mostly gold or gilt bronze) indicates their high status. Their material value is highlighted by the find, in a female burial at Barton Court Farm, of a fishshaped gilt-bronze applique reused as a brooch (Miles 1986, 18, 48, fig. 32). The frequent fishshaped appliques may also have a Christian meaning (Evison 1987, 33-4).

30

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

Table 8. Regional distribution of shield board fittings Type of fitting

Regions Upper West Thames Midlands

East Midlands

East Anglia

18

17

North

Kent

Essex

Sussex

Wessex

19 1 1

8 1

6

25 5

2

2

Shields without fittings

40

11

8

25

38

13

18

23

1

Total

63

22

14

56

56

21

37

44

4

Studs, discs Lozenges Radial bands Figural appliques Other types

18

2

1

by Kennett (1974, 57, 59-60) at Kempston are certain. Overall, metal board fittings occur with 44 per cent of all shields. In the national sample, there are no significant differences in this frequency between the various boss groups (table 7). However, correlations between certain board fittings and boss groups may occur at local or regional level; Dickinson found that in the Upper Thames area studs in general and copper alloy studs in particular were associated most frequently with bosses of Group 3. Some apparent correlations between boss groups and types of fitting can be explained by overlapping distributions: for example, simple lozenge fittings are mostly from

5

2 2

1

Wessex where Group 1 bosses dominate. At the regional level (ignoring regional samples of insufficient size), Wessex has the highest proportion of board fittings (55 per cent), and Kent (36 per cent) and the Upper Thames area (32 per cent) the lowest (table 8). The differences from cemetery to cemetery are sometimes much more marked. Burials with the more frequent types of board fitting (studs, discs and lozenges) are not wealthier than graves with plain shields, but the owners of shields with figural appliques were buried with a noticeably larger number of objects (average of 7-5 finds per burial, compared with an average of 4-4 finds per burial for all shield burials).

III. SHIELD TECHNOLOGY By Heinrich Harke he following discussion takes account of recent work, published and unpublished, but is largely based on personal inspection of the remains of some 150 shields from Early Saxon burials (Appendix 5). Comparative evidence includes the well studied Sutton Hoo shield, essentially a Scandinavian shield in an Anglo-Saxon context (Bruce-Mitford 1978, 91), the Swedish parallels from Vendel Period burials at Valsgarde (seventh/eighth century AD), and the well preserved shield remains from Roman Iron Age bog deposits in the Continental homelands of the Anglo-Saxons (mostly third/fourth century AD).

T

THE BOSS The primary function of the boss is to protect the hand holding the shield grip. All Anglo-Saxon bosses found so far are circular (the exceedingly rare cases of oval bosses may be the result of compression in the grave; cf. Arwidsson 1942, 40) and are made of iron. The latter fact may simply reflect conditions of survival, because there is evidence for wooden and wickerwork bosses from the pre-Roman Iron Age and from bog deposits of the Roman Iron Age on the Continent (Engelhardt 1863, pi. 8.15; Rosenberg 1937, fig. 28). But even in bogs, the vast majority of bosses found are of iron; wooden and wickerwork bosses may have been inner supports for iron bosses (Engelhardt 1866, 50); and bosses from Continental post-Roman cemeteries with excellent preservation of wooden artefacts are, without exception, iron. A Slav site in eastern Germany has yielded the only wooden shield boss recovered from postRoman contexts in Central and Western Europe (Schuldt 1985). There is a small number of cases where shields without iron bosses have been suggested or claimed in England. Finglesham grave G2 produced two 'shield-type rivets', but no boss, leading the excavators (Whiting and Stebbing 1929, 24) and others (e.g. Chadwick 1958, 30) to suggest a light shield without iron boss. However, a shield board stud has been found in a female burial at another Kentish site, Dover II (Evison 1987, 34), underlining the possibility of secondary use and significance of such fittings. A similar problem may be posed by the iron shield grip without associated boss in grave 55 at Harnham Hill (Akerman 1855a, 264). At Mucking, where

shield stains around iron bosses could be observed in several graves, large annular stains in two graves (682 and 766; Jones and Jones 1975, fig. 58) were not associated with a boss. These have occasionally been quoted as examples of light shields without iron fittings, although the excavators themselves thought this to be unlikely (ibid., 185), and the dimensions of the stains argue against such an interpretation. In discussing the manufacture of the iron boss, it is necessary to differentiate between the earlier carinated bosses (Dickinson Groups 1-6) and the later 'tall cones' (Dickinson Group 7, Evison types e and f)- Detailed metallurgical studies have yet to be undertaken on the late bosses. But when studying the 'sugar-loaf forms of the seventh century, Evison observed that at least one 'tall curved cone' was constructed of iron sheet segments between iron ribs (Farthingdown, Surrey; Evison 1963, 47, fig. 30a), much in the way Spangenhelme were built. Many of the 'tall straight cones', e.g. Portsdown grave 6, [19] show clear seams running straight down from apex to flange, indicating manufacture by folding a sheet of iron (ibid., 44).

By way of contrast, the carinated bosses of the fifth to early seventh centuries lack such seams or weld lines. This has been interpreted in two different ways. Stansfeld, in her unpublished investigation of twenty-five shield bosses in Devizes Museum (Wiltshire), concluded that carinated bosses were made in two parts, a lower one consisting of flange and wall, and an upper one consisting of cone and apex; these two parts were joined at the carination by welding or

32

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS A. integral apex with solid rod or disc B. integral apex with simple point or short hollow rod C. inserted apex (rod, button or disc).

An inserted apex is easily recognized from the iron blob on the inside of the cone [22]. In an attempt to determine the reason for this construction, Salter sampled the cones of two bosses, one of Group 1.1 with integral apex, the other of Group 2 with inserted apex. In the latter he found that the iron of the apex was clearly different from that of the boss itself, and he concluded that this suggested a later insertion of the apex, probably as a repair (Harke and Salter 1984, 64). He agreed with Stansfeld (1979, 20) that the onepiece construction of the boss (or, at any rate, the 19. The 'tall straight cone' (Group 7) from Portsdown I, grave boss cone) resulted in great stress in the apex region, and that splitting or tearing might be 6 showing the seam (no scale; max. diam.: 148mm; height: expected there during either manufacture or use. 127mm) An experiment by the blacksmith Hector Cole brazing (Stansfeld 1979, 25-6). She based this (Swindon) to produce a boss in this way fully view on the existence of a dark line round the confirmed this prediction (C. Salter, pers. carination on radiographs of sharply carinated comm.). Apart from constructional stress, a latbosses (mainly Dickinson Groups 1 and 2). How- eral blow against the boss might easily lead to ever, Salter was unable to find any evidence for severe damage of the apex. Repairs at this point welding or brazing in his metallurgical study of have been identified on bosses which are similar two iron bosses in the Ashmolean Museum to the English Group 3 at Rhenen, Netherlands (Oxford), or in his re-examination of a third boss (new apex riveted to the top of the cone; J. Ypey, taken from Stansfeld's own sample (Harke and pers. comm.) and near Bergen, Norway (bronze Salter 1984, 60-1). He suggested that the dark apex riveted to iron cone; B. Myhre, pers. line on radiographs may be the result of selective comm.). corrosion along the carination, and concluded In the inspected sample, one in five bosses had that a carinated boss was made in one piece by an inserted apex. This proportion varies markedly splitting a single rod or billet of iron [20]. with boss type (table 9): from under 10 per cent Salter's laboratory studies demonstrate that in the early Group 4, rising to almost 40 per cent large-grained soft iron with a low carbon content in the slightly later Group 1, but then falling to had been used for the bosses, and that no attempt just over 20 per cent in Group 2, and reaching nil had been made at hardening the structure (ibid.). in Group 3. The sample for other types is too The inspection of shattered bosses showed that small for reliable statistics, but it should be noted the thickness of the metal varies. The flange of a that the inserted apex reappears in the late Group 1 boss is usually thin (between 1-0 and Groups 6 and 7. 20mm), whilst the wall (around 2-5mm) and the It cannot be ruled out that differential use of cone (mostly 2-3-2-8mm, but occasionally up to the various boss types may have played a role, 3-7mm) are markedly thicker. In bosses of Groups but the above sequence could very well reflect 3 and 6, the metal is noticeably thinner, particu- progress in shield technology and expertise in larly in the cone, where the metal is only working with iron. In the transition from Group l-3-2-0mm thick. 4 to the larger and more sharply carinated Group 1 boss (later fifth to earlier sixth century), manuThe apex, be it a rod, button or disc, can be facturing problems were encountered resulting in either integral with the cone [21] or inserted separately into the top of the cone [22]. Stansfeld frequent damage to the apex. These problems (1979, 22-3) has subdivided the integral cones may have been gradually tackled in the production of Group 2 bosses, and were solved with further and arrived at the following distinctions:

SHIELD TECHNOLOGY

Two Piece Method

Single Piece

w

u billet

i

33

sheet

i weld \

cone

I wall

tube

1 wall & flange

1 !

finished boss

20. Possible methods of shield boss construction (after Salter)

34

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

the development of the convex ('mammiform') cone of Group 3 (mid-sixth to early seventh century). The following trend towards increasingly higher bosses, culminating in the 'sugarloaf forms of the seventh century, led to new problems in apex construction, and some bosses (like 'tall straight cones' made by folding a single sheet of iron) might even have required the separate insertion of an apex. Some support for this interpretation in terms of technological impro%rement may be found in the differential weight characteristics of the various boss types (table 10). The narrow Group 4 bosses are rather light, but the following Group 1 (and the contemporaneous Group 5, for which there is only one measurement) has the highest average weight of all Early Saxon boss types. After Group 1, there is a steady decrease in average weight, slight at first to Group 2, but marked to Group 3 and again to Group 6. The increased height of Group 7 ('sugar-loaf') bosses ultimately reversed this trend. Although these measurements may not be the original weights of the bosses, care was 21. Inside view of Group 3 boss from Abingdon I, grave B69 taken to exclude badly damaged or corroded with an integral apex (approx. 112) bosses from this analysis, so the results should, at least, give a correct idea of the relative weight of boss types. Table 9. Frequencies of boss apex types Boss group

Sample inspected

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

55 18 41 14 1 5 2

Total sample

Cases of integral apex

34 14 41 13 — 4 1

136

107

Cases of inserted apex

21 4 _ 1 1 1 1 29

Table 10. Weight of boss types Boss group

Sample

Average weight (in grams)

Standard deviation

1

47 12 30 13 1 4 2

392 373 322 306 378 262 305

±106 ±119 ± 69 ± 58 ± 63 ± 47

109

334

± 98

2 3 4 5 6 7

22. Inside view of Group 1.1 boss from Abingdon I, grave B48 showing the iron blob of an inserted apex (indicated by the Total sample arrow) (approx. 112)

_

SHIELD TECHNOLOGY The overall impression is, then, one ofan increasing expertise in iron working and in the construction of effective shield bosses. This is particularly reflected in the progress from the thick-walled, heavy, but damage-prone Group 1 boss, via the intermediate Group 2, to the. much lighter, thinwalled, but more skilfully made and resistant boss of Group 3. At the same time, the regional differences may reflect a differential expertise in iron technology. Kent, in particular, stands out in the sample by having no Group 1 or 2 bosses with inserted apex (in Wessex and the Upper Thames area this proportion is close to 40 per cent, in East Anglia just over 20 per cent), and by producing the earliest cases and largest numbers of the technologically more advanced Group 3 bosses. By way of contrast, Hiibener (1989, 94) sees the Continental boss development, and particular variations in internal height, as mainly reflecting changes in the grip position as a consequence of changing fighting practices, but he does it without taking account of technological and other factors, like the sizes of shield boards (see pp. 43-7). The iron shield boss is attached to the wooden board by means of four, or later five, more or less evenly spaced rivets through the boss flange and board. Fewer rivets are rare (three rivets on a boss from Mucking; Jones and Jones 1975, 179), but more are not infrequent on late bosses (e.g. the 'sugar-loaf boss from Farthingdown had twelve in six pairs; Evison 1963, fig. 30a). These flange rivets are mostly iron, less often bronze. Their upper heads on the boss flange carry broad discs (diameter typically around 15-20mm), which are quite frequently decorated (silvered, tinned). The lower ends of the rivet shanks on the inside of the board are sometimes hammered flat over an iron or bronze washer, sometimes simply bent sharply at right-angles with or without a washer. The observation that the boss flange is usually angled (or 'downturned', as it is sometimes described) has led to some discussion of potential explanations. This angle varies from boss to boss;

35

it is mostly between 5 and 12 degrees, but it can be as small as nil (e.g. Westgarth Gardens grave 25; West 1988, fig. 66.25:A1) and as big as 35 degrees (e.g. Holborough grave 8; Evison 1956, fig. 17.1a), without a clear typological, chronological or regional pattern. Some authors have suggested that the angle indicates a convex shield board (Lethbridge 1931, 86; Evison 1956, 96). Others, however, argued against this (Kennett 1974, 58; Bruce-Mitford 1978, 26-7), some of them observing that bosses with angled flanges were, in some cases, associated with long straight grips which could only have come from a flat board (Chadwick 1958, 29). The most likely function of the flange angle was to provide the boss with a better grip on the board (Wilson 1960, 116-17), or to provide some tension for the rivets so that the boss would not rattle loose under lateral stress (Harke and Salter 1984, 57). The angled flange on a flat board creates a problem because it could leave a wedge-shaped gap (depending on the degree of tension exerted, as suggested above). However, wood remains on boss rivets usually cover the entire length of the shank, and wood remains on the underside of the flange normally extend over most of its width. Bruce-Mitford (1978, 26-7) therefore speculated that the gap may have been filled by a wedgeshaped wooden ring. Alternatively, the centre of the board may have been shaped to accommodate the boss flange. But the latter is difficult because of the thin board (below, p. 47) and there is no evidence for the former. Wedge-shaped extensions of the wooden handle, as have been found in the Nydam bog deposit (Engelhardt 1865, 21; 1866, 49), could have taken up some of the space (see p. 38). The interior of the boss may have been padded against injury to the hand. Remains of leather padding were found inside an Alamannic boss from Niederstotzingen (Paulsen 1967, 123-4), and traces of organic material can sometimes be observed on the inside of Anglo-Saxon bosses.

GRIP AND HANDLE The function of the grip and handle is to enable the shield to be held and used. The grip, in its simplest form, has the appearance of a strip of iron, usually between 1-5 and 2-4mm thick and pierced by rivet holes at the terminals. Its con-

struction has, not surprisingly, excited little curiosity. The only published metallurgical analysis concluded that the grip from Bargates grave 29 was made from a piece of iron folded over and hammered flat (Jarvis 1983, 127). More elaborate

36

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

grips had flanges made in one piece with the rest of the grip and designed to be bent round a wooden handle. Technical details of flanged grips have not yet been produced. The only bronze grip from a shield burial was found at Orpington grave 25 (Tester 1968, fig. 11). Whilst the Anglo-Saxon evidence suggests that virtually all shields had iron grips, the absence of a metal grip from a shield burial might imply a grip made entirely of organic materials. A flat bone plate shaped like a short grip was found in the Vimose bog (Engelhardt 1869, pi. 5.17); some of the short wooden handles from the Nydam bog seem designed to be used without an iron grip (cf. Engelhardt 1865, 21); and the long grips on the shields from the Viking ship burial at Gokstad were made of wood (Nicolaysen 1882, 62, pi. VIII fig. 7). Handle constructions in connection with an iron grip may be subdivided into two basic groups:

23. Iron grip from Pewsey grave 68 with remains of leather strip binding (approx. 213)

and Fonaby (grave 24; Cook 1981, fig. 8). A unique case of grip binding is preserved on the grip fragment from Wakerley I, grave 56, which shows remains of twisted "strings (1.2mm thick; Adams and Jackson 1988-9, microfiche D5, fig. 55). Complex handles (Group II) are more frequent I. simple handles: leather or textile wrapping than simple ones and often easier to identify, round an iron grip, often enclosing additional because they leave traces of wood on the front of padding the grip, on the inside of the boss, which could II. complex handles: wooden constructions sup- not have come from a coffin or other wooden plementing an iron grip, usually with grave furniture. Examination of these remains has additional leather or textile wrapping round revealed the existence of at least seven types of complex handle construction in the sample [24] handle and grip. (cf. Harke 1981, 142-4): Simple handles (Group I) consist mostly of long leather strips wound round the central part of the A. true lap joints of handle and board grip and round a layer of leather padding on the 1. handle fitted from the front of the board front (boss and board side) of the grip. Remains [25] of such binding have been preserved on a large 2. handle fitted from the back of the board number of iron grips (e.g. Lakenheath, Suffolk: B. 'false' lap joint Kennett 1974, fig. 7; Fonaby unstratified: Cook rebated handle set proud on to the front of 1981, fig. 28; leather padding: Abingdon I, grave the board B4—not illustrated in Leeds and Harden 1936). C. flush insert into the board opening Although these examples seem to be reasonably 1. handle on a flat grip clear cases of simple handles, incomplete preser2. handle held by a flanged grip vation means that they cannot always be easily D. handle and board made out of one piece distinguished from strip binding supplementing a 1. grip flanges bent round the handle wooden construction [23]. The same problem is 2. flat grip riveted against the handle [26]. posed by traces of textile wrapping, and care must also be taken to distinguish between the wrapping Among the sixty cases where wood remains of the grip and traces of garments or blankets in allowed a classification of the handle construction, cases where the shield had lain on the body. True types Al and C2, with around 30 per cent each, textile wrapping round shield grips appears to be are the most frequent, followed by Cl (with 15 rare, which is not surprising because it is less per cent). The two D types are each under 10 per suitable for this purpose than leather. But a cent, whilst the constructionally worst solutions, number of cases have been claimed at Dover II A2 and B, are the rarest, with only two cases (graves 39 and 98; Evison 1987, 35, fig. 47.3b) (3 per cent) each. Chronologically the least

SHIELD TECHNOLOGY

37

a

i

T

i

0 •: '*' 1 L

1

1 t , VtV |

,

;

:•::''....-, ."..w" 1 i i

i

I

\

\SV\SQ I

•

24. Complex handle constructions (schematic, not to scale): a. shield board; b. wooden handle; c. iron grip; d. rivet; e. washer; f. shield boss; g. leather

38

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

shield in Cologne Cathedral appears to have had a C2 handle (Doppelfeld 1964, Abb. 9) and the Swedish shields of Valsgarde graves 6 and 8 were fitted with Dl handles (Arwidsson 1942, 37; 1954, 53). These last from Scandinavian status burials are significant for two reasons: the same Dl construction has also been identified at Sutton Hoo (Bruce-Mitford 1978, 24-5); and in the sample evaluated here (which excludes Sutton Hoo), D handles are associated with higher than average burial wealth, highlighting their more difficult (but not necessarily more durable) construction. 25. Wood remains of a type Al handle construction (lap joint) The handle itself was probably not just a simple on the grip from Winterboume Gunner grave IV: 1. board; 2. wooden bar, but curved forward to fill the hand handle; 3. extension of handle tofitinto the rebate cut into the and to afford a more comfortable hold. This can board plank; 4. grip rivet; 5. iron grip (approx. Ill) be deduced from the shape of the iron grip flanges where present, and it can be seen in complete handles preserved from Thorsbjerg [27], Nydam [28] and Vimose (Engelhardt 1863, pi. 8.5; 1865, 21; 1869, pi. 5.15-16, 18; Raddatz 1987, Taf. 17). The wood for the handle was sometimes different from that of the board; willow or poplar were used most often, followed by lime and alder or birch (table 11). All these are easily carved, but lime may have been restricted to southern England at this period (see p. 48).

26. Short flat grip (type Ial)from Pewsey grave 47 with a D2 handle construction, showing wood remains with a single grain direction from the board plank around the rivet and across the grip (approx. Ill) Wooden handle from Nydam.

restricted types are Al and Cl, whereas C2, Dl and D2 are associated only with bosses of Groups 1, 2 and 3 (later fifth to early seventh century). It is difficult to find any pattern in the geographical distribution of handle types. Preferences, if any, seem to have been local: e.g. four of the five D2 cases in the sample are from Pewsey. However, most sites have more than one handle type represented; some have up to four. The various types were even more widespread than that: shield boards and handles from Roman Iron Age bog deposits in Denmark and Germany [27, 28] indicate lap-jointed handles (types A and B: Engelhardt 1863, pi. 8.1,4-5; 1865, 21; 1869, pi. 5.18; Raddatz 1987, Taf. 17); two shields from the Alamannic cemetery at Marktoberdorf had Al handles (Christlein 1966, Abb. 14); the boy's

28. Wooden handle from the Nydam bog deposit (Engelhardt 1865, 21) (scale as indicated) The wooden handle was held in place by various methods: by flanges on the grip (handle types C2 and some Al); by grip rivets through the lap joint (handle types A and B); or by leather or textile wrapping, mostly in the form of strip binding, as in simple handles. Such binding was necessary for the Cl handles, but leather strips often supplemented grip and handle even where not needed to bind the two parts together, for example on flanged grips (e.g. Petersfinger grave 21: Leeds and Shortt 1953, fig. 8.63; Mucking II, grave 618: Jones and Jones 1975, fig. 61) or with D2 handles (e.g. Spong Hill inhumation 31: Hills et al. 1984, fig. 87.3). At Morning Thorpe, Norfolk, two short

•

*

»

*

27. /•/««« Akerman 1861, 136). This agrees with the evidence from the Roman Iron Age on the Continent where all shields from bog deposits are circular [27] (Engelhardt 1866, 48; cf. Raddatz 1987, Abb. 21-2, Taf. 84-5), and where Tacitus (Germania, 44) mentions round shields for several tribes. Shields of oval and rectangular shape appear to have been used by Germanic tribes in the pre-Roman Iron Age, but were gradually superseded during the Roman Iron Age by circular shields (Zieling 1989, 353-60). This cannot have been due to Roman influence because the Roman army phased out its small circular shield (the parma) from the first century AD and introduced rectangular curved boards for the legions and oval boards for the

31. Shield on the Repton stone (courtesy of M. Biddle)

auxiliaries (Garbsch 1978, 12; Junkelmann 1989, 41-2); the parma continued in use only with centurions, standard-bearers and trumpeters (cf. Trajan's Column; Cichorius 1896, Taf. XXXV and XXXVIII). A circular shield of larger dimensions was used again by the Late Roman army, but its origins and details are not known, and it may well have been introduced by Germani serving in the Roman army (M. Gechter, pers. comm.). The case for Anglo-Saxon convex boards is less clear cut. Discounting the evidence from angled boss flanges (see p. 35) and from sharply curved bronze clips, which are more likely to be vessel fittings {pace Lethbridge 1931, 18; cf. ibid.,fig.13), the only unambiguous archaeological evidence bearing on this question is the long grips. In the investigated sample, the ratio of straight to curved grips is 5:3, omitting all doubtful examples. Whilst this appears to point to a high proportion of convex boards, it should be noted that this figure relates only to long grips (thirty cases in the sample), which may have been more frequent

44

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

32. Shields on the Franks Casket (courtesy of the British Museum)

on convex boards, and that the curvature of the grips ranges from marked (e.g. Lyminge II, grave 31: Warhurst 1955, fig. 4.8) to very slight (e.g. Droxford grave 12: Aldsworth 1978, fig. 19.12:4), making it difficult to distinguish between true curved grips and grips bent by the earth pressure . in the grave. The Sutton Hoo shield has been reconstructed as being flat over its central area, for about two-thirds of the overall diameter, and curving back only at the edges (Bruce-Mitford 1978, 19-21). The long grip from Lyminge II, grave 31 (Warhurst 1955, fig. 4.8) indicates a board of very similar shape. The existence of both flat and convex shields in the Early Saxon Period may appear surprising, not least because Roman Iron Age bog deposits on the Continent produced only flat shields (Engelhardt 1866, 48). But in Sweden, Vendel Period shields can be convex or flat (Arwidsson 1942, 42), and both types occur together in Alamannic cemeteries (e.g. Niederstotzingen; Paulsen 1967, 123). In England, neither regional nor

chronological preferences are apparent in the distribution of long curved grips, but the later pictorial evidence, and the reference to 'the hollow shield' in the poem on the tenth-century Battle of Maldon may imply that large convex boards had become a regular feature by the Late Saxon Period. Burials provide earlier, and more abundant, evidence for the shape and size of the shield board, but it is often less conclusive: soil stains give an approximate diameter; edge bindings give the actual diameter; the length of the long iron grip gives the minimum diameter; positions of board studs and other fittings also give the minimum diameter; and the position of the boss in relation to the side of the grave pit gives the maximum diameter. In certain cases, a combination of such indicators (e.g. board studs in situ close to the edge of the grave pit) can provide an approximate board diameter to within a few centimetres, as in the case of Ford barrow 2, Wiltshire (Musty 1969, fig. 3). If the shield had been deposited vertically

SHIELD TECHNOLOGY

45

at 0-60m. Small boards are indicated by a number of maximum diameters between 0-34 and 0-42m, whilst large boards may be represented by minimum diameters of 060m or over. This evidence suggests the existence of at least three size groups of early Anglo-Saxon shields: small medium large

33. Anglo-Saxon shield on the Bayeux Tapestry (after Wilson I960, Jig. 30)

(which is rare; see p. 65) and if there was no postdepositional displacement, the distance of the boss from the bottom of the grave pit indicates the actual diameter ofjhe board, because the edge can be assumed to have rested on the grave floor. In a few cases, an arm of the individual buried with a shield was bent in such a way that there can be little doubt that forearm and hand rested on the shield edge. The twenty-three cases of probable board sizes inferred from the various types of evidence range from 0-42 to 0-92m (table 12), and even then include some dubious cases. The 'soil impression' at Sarre has not been documented, and the soil stains at Mucking still await publication in a form that would allow the excavators' claims to be checked. Analysis of minimum and maximum diameters broadens the statistical basis substantially, adding 102 and 112 cases, respectively [34]. In the present sample, most minimum diameters are between 0-35 and 0-45m (sixty-nine cases), and most maximum diameters are between 0-49 and 0-73m (seventy-seven cases) with a clear peak

- 0-34 to 0-42m (about 1 to just under 1 -5ft) - 0-45 to 0-66m (about 1-5 to just over 2ft) - 0-70 to 0-92m (about 2ft 4in to 3ft).

The medium size group, by far the best represented, has two clear peaks around 0-50m and O^Om, respectively, which may signal two separate subgroups. There appears to be some correlation between the age of the individual buried with a shield, and shield size. The youngest person in the sample, Westgarth Gardens grave 50 (juvenile, age 5-6; unpublished skeletal report by G. Putnam), had a shield which cannot have been larger than 0-36m in diameter (West 1988, fig. 44). The largest shields were buried with mature individuals, certainly in the case of Ford barrow 2 (age 40-50; R. Harcourt in Musty 1969, 116), probably also in the case of Sutton Hoo (especially if the buried individual was King Raedwald; Bruce-Mitford 1975, 683-717). However, it should be noted that these latter two cases date from the seventh century when the weapon burial rite became increasingly limited to adults. Indeed, the link between shield size and date is much more obvious. None of the small shields is associated with late boss types of Groups 6 or 7, whilst the largest shields are clearly late: Holborough grave 8, Ford barrow 2 and Sutton Hoo (table 12). The 'tall straight cone' in Portsdown grave 6 (Evison's type e, Dickinson Group 7; Corney et al. 1967, pi. II.A) also had quite a large board, which must have measured at least O^Om or more (cf. ibid., fig. 4). It seems, therefore, that shield boards increased in size towards the end of the Early Saxon Period. Again, however, our perception may be partly distorted by the burial ritual: in the seventh century, the weapon burial rite became less common and was associated increasingly with status burials—the barrows of Ford and Sutton Hoo are cases in point. If shield size also expressed the owner's status, then we are unlikely to find small shields

46

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

Table 12. Probable diameters of shield boards (including published cases outside the sample) Burial

Boss type (group)

Prob. board diam. (m)

Pcwsey 94

1

0-42

Finglesham 22

3

0-45

Bekesbourne II, 6

3

0-46

Sarre 39b

i

0-46

Pewsey 34 Westgarth Gardens 62

4 2

0-49 0-49

Wakerley I, 83

3

0-50

Bergh Apton 12

3

0-52

Lyminge II, 31

3

0-52

Mucking II, 600

1

0-53

West Overton 6b/III Kempston 52

3 1

0-56 0-57

Mucking I, 114 Mucking II, 588 Mucking I, 272

3

0-60 0-60 0-61

•)

(cf. rem.)

Mucking I, 243 Mucking I, 245 Mucking I, 120 Mucking II, 554 Orpington 26 Holborough 8

1 3 3 1 3 6

0-61 0-61 0-62 0-64 0-66 0-66

Ford 2

7

0-90

Sutton Hoo 1

(cf. rem.)

0-92

Evidence

Remarks and publication

position of left arm and hand boss vertical' above grave floor boss vertical above grave floor soil impression

unpublished

edge binding in situ stain (corrected for offcentre position of boss) position of right arm and hand, and grave dimensions ?edge binding in situ boss vertical grave floor stain

above

edge binding in situ curvature of ?edge binding stain stain stain stain stain stain stain ?edge binding in situ boss vertical above grave floor grave dimensions and in situ position of board studs curvature of edge binding

long grip, 450mm long; unpublished long grip, 400mm long; unpublished late .sixth/early seventh cent.; Brent 1866, 165-6 unpublished West 1988, fig. 53 Adams and 1988-9, fig. 83

Jackson

Green and Rogerson 1978, fig. 15 Warhurst 1955, 22 appliques give min. diam. 046m; unpublished Eagles 1986, 106 Kennett 1974, 58 unpublished unpublished Rhenen-Vermand boss; unpublished unpublished unpublished unpublished unpublished Tester 1968, 139, pi. II Evison 1956, 121 Musty 1969, fig. 3 'East Scandinavian' boss; long grip 640mm long; Bruce-Mitford 1978, 16

in seventh-century burials, even though they may W2m in diameter (Engelhardt 1866, 48; cf. Ziehave continued in use. Having said that, it is still ling 1989, 354 n. 719). The Early Roman circular true that there are no early cases (before the mid- shield (see p. 43) has been reconstructed from sixth century) of large boards, or.even of medium- leather remains as having a diameter of about sized boards of above-average size (i.e. over 0-60m 0-50m (van Driel-Murray and de Haas 1989). The waterlogged Alamannic cemetery at Oberin diameter). In comparison with Continental shields, the flacht produced a board with a diameter of O ^ m Anglo-Saxon boards seem small, on average, (Paulsen 1967, 123). Swedish Vendel Period although it is interesting that the tenth-century shields varied from 0-84m (minimum) to l-10m historian Widukind of Corvey (Res gestae Saxonicae, (actual) diameter (Arwidsson 1942, 40-1; 1954, 1.9) refers to the 'small shields' of the Continental 56). And all thirty-two Viking shields from the Saxons. The complete boards from Roman Iron Gokstad ship had a diameter of 0-94m (NicolayAge bog deposits measured between 0-57 and sen 1882, 62). However, smaller Scandinavian

47

SHIELD TECHNOLOGY maximum diameters 0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00 m

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00 m

minimum diameters 34. Minimum and maximum diameters of shield boards in the national sample (102 cases for min. diam., 112 for max. diam.)

shields did exist: a completely preserved circular board from Norway, dating to about AD 1100, measured 0*43m across (ibid., 34). The reconstruction of most Alamannic, Frankish and Lombard shields has to rely on the long shield grips which indicate minimum diameters of about 0-50m (Christlein 1966, 35; Doppelfeld 1964, 17) and probable diameters of 0-60 to 0*70m (Bona 1956, 206) or 0-80 to 0-90m (Paulsen 1967, 123). THICKNESS/TIMBER AND WEIGHT The thickness of the wooden board can be inferred from a number of indicators: the free length of boss rivets, of grip rivets and of board studs. Of these, the first is the most reliable because these rivets run through the board only. Grip rivets may be longer than the board is thick in order to

accommodate the handle construction (see p. 36), and board studs or other appliques may have been fitted on an extra layer of leather or wood, or they may hold leather straps, making their rivet shanks longer. The distribution of 103 values for the thickness of boards gives a very clear picture: 75 per cent fall within the range 6-8mm, with a peak at 7mm and an overall average of 7'5mm [35]. The one 'flier', a value of 16mm from Alfriston grave 42, is based on the excavation report (Griffith and Salzmann 1914, 38) and could not be verified by inspection. The thickness of Anglo-Saxon shields agrees closely with that of Continental shields from the Roman Iron Age to the Viking Period. The above figures relate to the centre of the boards. They may have tapered at the edge, as is

48

EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SHIELDS

0 15 .

century 8-5mm (fourteen cases). It seems, therefore, that shield boards were not only made larger in diameter as time went on, but also thicker. The wood used for shield boards is referred to in heroic poems and other written sources, where the only species named is lime. 'Linden shields', 'linden boards' or just 'lindens' are mentioned in Beowulf (lines 232, 1073, 1244, 2340, 2364), the

(5

Finnsburh Fragment, the Battle of Maldon, the Anglo-

25.

20. CO CO

o

X)

Saxon Chronicle (AD 937, Battle of Brunanburh) 1 10 and the Codex Exoniensis (no. 11). However, a glance at the frequencies of wood species in the sample (table 13) including unpublished cases, 5. and at published wood identifications (table 11) in general, shows that lime was by no means the most popular choice for Early Saxon boards: alder 16 mm 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 and willow (or poplar) were, followed by maple and birch, whilst lime comes last, together with 35. Thickness of shield boards in the national sample (103 ash and oak. It is not easy "to explain this surpriscases) ing discrepancy. The small number of wood identifications available so far may have an effect. shown by U-sectioned edge bindings (Appendix 4): Pfannkuche (1908, 59-60) suggested that 'linden on the shield from Pewsey grave 34 from 7mm (at board' may have been a pre-migration term of the boss) to 5mm (edge), and on the Sutton Hoo Continental Germanic origin for shields. But if we shield from 7mm (at the strap-holder, between are dealing with a change over time, it is much boss and edge) to 6mm (edge binding; Bruce- more likely that the wood species in the sample Mitford 1978, 27, fig. 24). But this taper is reflect the fifth- to seventh-century situation, unlikely to have been even right across the radius whereas the literary sources reflect later, rather of the board, because the length of board rivets than earlier, preferences. This is confirmed by the is, in most cases, very close to that of the boss seventh-century Sutton Hoo board, which was rivets or even longer. Exceptions to this rule are made of lime (Bruce-Mitford 1978, 21). rare: examples are the shields from Broadstairs I, grave 66 and Finglesham grave 22 which had a thickness of 8-5 and 7