I. Introduction

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 Ararest, 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 technical study of twenty-five Early Saxon shield bosses has remained unpublished (Stansfeld A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY 1979), and the most recent (albeit brief) summary The Anglo-Saxon shield consisted of an iron boss of Anglo-Saxon shield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,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.234, on 28 Sep 2021 at 20:30:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261340900028125 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

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 Abingdon I 11 Eynsham I 21 Oxford IV 2 Basset Down 12 Fairford 22 Ready Token 3 Berinsfield 13 Frilford I 23 Sutton Courtenay II 4 Bishopstone I 14 Kingsey 24 Uffington I 5 Brighthampton 15 Long Wittenham I 25 Wallingford 6 Burford 16 Lowbury Hill 26 Wan borough II 7 Cassington I 17 Milton North Field 27 Wheatley 8 Cassington II 18 Minster Lovell 28 Winchendon II 9 Cirencester I 19 Oddington 29 Yarnton 10 Dorches ter-on-Thames 20 Oxford II

composite i.e. made up of several planks) or lami- regional meaning, 'Saxon' relating to Essex, nated (plywood, composite'i.e. made up of several Sussex, Wessex and the Upper Thames region, layers). Apart from various decorative mounts, 'Anglian' to the West and East Midlands, East the board was occasionally fitted with metal edge Anglia and the North (the last being the regions bindings (rim fittings). north of the Wash). All sites are located with Finally, some geographical and chronological reference to their modern administrative county: terms require a brief explanation. 'Early Saxon' for sites in the two samples, this information is used as a chronological term throughout, refer- appears in Appendices 1 and 3, while for other sites ring to the fifth to seventh centuries in all areas the county reference is given in the text at the of Anglo-Saxon settlement in England. By con- first mention only. trast, the terms 'Saxon' and 'Anglian' have a