Table Of ContentEARLY
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 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 Harke 24
Other fittings by Heinrich Harke 27
III: SHIELD TECHNOLOGY by Heinrich Harke 31
The boss 31
Grip and handle 35
The board 43
IV: THE USE OF THE SHIELD: COMBAT AND DISPLAY
by Heinrich Harke 55
The shield in combat 55
Display and symbolism 61
V: THE SHIELD IN THE BURIAL RITE by Heinrich Harke 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 Harke 75
Appendix 4: Shield board fittings (other than studs) in the national sample,
with additions by Heinrich Harke 77
Appendix 5: Technical data of shield components from selected cemeteries
by Heinrich Harke 79
Appendix 6: Notes on the shield reconstruction by Heinrich Harke 83
Summary, Resume, Zusammenfassung 84
Bibliography 85
Sources 90
Index 91
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1. Location of sites in the national sample 2
2. Location of sites used in the computer analysis of shield bosses from the
Upper Thames region 3
3. Attributes used in analysis of shield bosses 5
4. Scatter diagram of shield boss clusters produced by Single Linkage at 90 per cent
similarity level 7
5. Scatter diagram of shield boss clusters produced by Average Linkage at 60 per cent
similarity level 8
6. Scatter diagram of shield boss clusters produced by Average Linkage at 65 per cent
similarity level and resulting classification groups 9
7. Group 1.1 shield bosses 11
8. Group 1.2 shield bosses 12
9. Group 2 shield bosses 13
10. Group 3 shield bosses 14
11. Part of a long shield grip (type Ilia) from Wheatley 17
12. Group 4 shield bosses 18
v
13. Group 5 shield bosses 20
14. Groups 6-7 shield bosses 21
15. Group 8 shield bosses 22
16. Schematic summary of typological and chronological sequence of shield boss groups in
Early Anglo-Saxon England 23
17. Types of iron shield grips 25
18. Types of metal board fittings 28
19. The 'tall straight cone' (Group 7) from Portsdown I, grave 6 showing the seam 32
20. Possible methods of shield-boss construction 33
21. Inside view of Group 3 boss from Abingdon I, grave B69 34
22. Inside view of Group 1.1 boss from Abingdon I, grave B48 34
23. Iron grip from Pewsey grave 68 with remains of leather strip binding 36
24. Complex handle constructions 37
25. Wood remains of a type Al handle construction (lap joint) on the grip from
Winterbourne Gunner grave IV 38
26. Short flat grip (type Ial) from Pewsey grave 47 with a D2 handle construction 38
27. Finds of shield components and fittings from the Thorsbjerg bog deposit 39
28. Wooden handle from the Nydam bog deposit 38
29. Section through the centre of a shield with a lap-joint handle 41
30. Boss (Group 3) and grip (type Ib) from Orpington grave 37 42
31. Shield on the Repton stone 43
32. Shields on the Franks Casket 44
33. Anglo-Saxon shield on the Bayeux Tapestry 45
34. Minimum and maximum diameters of shield boards in the national sample 47
35. Thickness of shield boards in the national sample , 48
36. Warriors with shields showing board rivets, on two helmet plates from grave XIV at
Vendel .• 56
37. Group 2 boss from Abingdon grave B39 with damage to the wall and selective corrosion
at the point of stress 57
38. Group 1.1 boss from Pewsey grave 47 with a puncture of the flange 57
39. Group 1.1 boss from Pewsey grave 22 with apex repair 58
40. Flange of Group 1.2 boss from Berinsfield grave 69 with an iron strip riveted against
the underside 58
41. X-ray of boss from Berinsfield grave 69 59
42. Group 1.1 boss from Winterbourne Gunner grave I with a second set of empty rivet holes 59
43. Grip from Pewsey grave 94 with remains of Pcarrying strap 60
44. Chronology of the Anglo-Saxon shield burial rite 64
45. Positions of shield bosses in 245 Anglo-Saxon burials 65
46. David Brown with his shield replica 71
47. Reconstruction of an Early Anglo-Saxon shield 72
LIST OF TABLES
1. Coding system for multivariate analysis of Upper Thames region shield bosses 6
2. Regional distribution of 251 classifiable shield bosses in the national sample
(including unstratified bosses) 10
3. Comparison of boss-type frequencies in the Upper Thames region and the
national sample 10
4. Frequencies of shield grip types in the national sample 26
5. Associations of shield grip types and shield boss groups in the national sample 26
6. Regional distribution of 174 classifiable shield grips 26
7. Associations of shield board fittings and shield boss groups 29
8. Regional distribution of shield board fittings 30
9. Frequencies of boss apex types 34
10. Weight of boss types 34
11. Published wood identifications from shield components 40
12. Probable diameters of shield boards (including published cases outside the sample) 46
13. Shield board wood in the national sample 48
14. Density and strength of timbers used for shields 49
15. Examples of long shield board rivets 53
16. Frequencies and locations of damage and repairs on 102 shield bosses from 18 burial sites 57
17. Positions of shields in Anglo-Saxon graves 66
18. The shield in weapon combinations (undisturbed burials only) 67
19. Shield frequencies by age groups 68
20. Regional variations in shield frequencies 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 through-
out 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, Man-
chester; 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 much-
needed 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 tech-
nology benefited immensely from talks with, and information from, D. Brown, Oxford,
J. Pilcher, Belfast, G. Rapp, Oxford, and C. Salter, Oxford.
TANIA M. DICKINSON, Department of Archaeology, University of York
HEINRICH HARKE, Department of Archaeology, University of Reading
I. INTRODUCTION
A
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.
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 pro-
ing. The decoration of the shield has been dis- jects: on the one hand, a computer-based classifi-
cussed 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 cem-
to 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 com-
has 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 Abingdon I 16 Finglesham 31 Pewsey
2 Alfriston 17 Fonaby 32 Portsdown I
3 Andover 18 Ford 33 Sarre
4 Bargates 19 Harnham Hill 34 Sewerby
5 Bekesbourne II 20 Holborough 35 Snell's Corner
6 Bergh Apton 21 Holywell Row 36 Spong Hill
7 Berinsfield 22 Leighton Buzzard III 37 Stretton-on-Fosse II
8 Bidford-on-Avon 23 Little Eriswell 38 Swaffham
9 Brighthampton 24 Long Wittenham I 39 Wakerley I
10 Broadstairs I 25 Lyminge 40 Westgarth Gardens
11 Broadway Hill 26 Mucking I 41 Winterbourne Gunner
12 Charlton Plantation 27 Mucking II 42 Worlaby
13 Collingbourne Ducis 28 Nassington 43 Worthy Park
14 Droxford 29 Orpington
15 Empingham II 30 Petersfinger
