Sutton Hoo Mound 1 Shield ( (C) British Museum) Shields were arguably the most crucial and universal tool of the Anglo-Saxon battlefield, and their degraded remains - mainly iron fittings - are fairly frequent finds from early Anglo-Saxon graves. While most shields appear. at least in terms of metal fittings, to have been relatively plain, the famous kingly shield from Sutton Hoo Mound 1 was enormously elaborate and ostentatious, with fierce and glittering golden animal fittings, a bronze rim, and an elaborately decorated shield boss integrating embossed foils and garnets. Between these extremes its fair to assume the visual impact of shields reflected the status of its owner, but what of the shields from the other famous treasure-filled princely burials? Were they similarly impressive?
Detailed examination of the remains of these lesser-known 'princely' shields reveals a number of surprises....
Detailed examination of the remains of these lesser-known 'princely' shields reveals a number of surprises....
Shields from early Anglo-Saxon burials – typically represented only by their iron shield bosses, grips, and more rarely, simple board fittings – appear to have usually been quite utilitarian affairs. Below the opulent splendour of the enormously highly decorated shield from Sutton Hoo Mound 1, there are only a handful of shields with small but elaborate ‘mounts’ – all from otherwise fairly “standard” warrior burials in earlier 6th century burials in cemeteries (Dickinson & Harke, 1992). Previously we have reconstructed the joint-grandest extant example – that of Bidford-on-Avon grave 182, while on the other end of the spectrum, we have produced more typical 6th century examples, shield builds representing late-phase (mid 7th century) isolated warrior burials, Viking-Age shields, and a more speculative royal shield bridging Sutton Hoo and the Staffordshire Hoard. Across this collection we’re able to demonstrate changes both over time, and between “status”, with respect to this most essential item of warrior gear, which, being the largest “display surface” had the greatest potential for visual communication, expression of identity.
The inclusion of a shield in the furnished burial rite has been read as a marker of masculinity and martial status (Dickinson & Harke, 1992). However, as such an essential item of battle-gear, logically the owning of, and/or burial with a basic shield cannot, itself, communicate anything higher than the absolute basic tier of warrior status; communication of higher rank might require greater embellishment of the shield, or other accoutrements. Embellishment of shields from cemetery contexts does appear, if weakly, to correlate with other markers of burial wealth / status, though is confounded by shifts in fashion; animal appliques, for example, are almost exclusively confined to the middle 6th century (Dickinson, 2005).
Approximate layout of the Taplow princely burial (late 6th century CE). (C) Lindsay Kerr of Wulfheodenas. From "Anglo-Saxon Burial Mounds: Princely Burials in the 6th and 7th Centuries" - Stephen Pollington.
Fans of Anglo-Saxon archaeology will notice, however, a gaping hole in the series representing shields from early Anglo-Saxon burials. Sutton Hoo Mound 1 is far from the only treasure-filled Anglo-Saxon royal tomb known to us, and although none of the others rival its opulence, the royal burials of Prittlewell (Essex), Broomfield (Essex), Taplow (Buckinghamshire) and Sutton Hoo Mound 17 (Suffolk)– all dated to the late 6th century – otherwise represent the pinnacle of the furnished burial rite in early Anglo-Saxon lowland Britain and stand head and shoulders above the burial wealth otherwise seen in cemetery contexts. The treasures from these burials, though fewer in number, are comparable to those of Sutton Hoo Mound 1, and we should expect them to have yielded at least vaguely comparable shields, yet they didn’t. Instead, the shields from these burials appear absolutely typical – boring, even (Blackmore et. al, 2019).
It’s hard to reconcile the “workmanlike” shields of the princely burials with the wealth and status communicated by the other finds, and, so heavily overshadowed by the other treasures and apparently unremarkable even by the standards of typical grave shields, to our knowledge no great attention has ever been paid to them. Yet examining them as a class has revealed two interesting observations; first, they had features which foreshadowed developments in the 7th century (and were therefore, in a sense, “innovative”) and second, and more surprisingly, they all appear to be practically identical.
 Boss of one of the shields from the Taplow princely burial, late 6th century. ((C) British Museum)  Boss from the shield from the Prittlewell Princely Burial (Blackmore et. al. 2019) |  Boss from the shield from Sutton Hoo Mound-17, late 6th century. ((C) British Museum)  Boss from the shield from the Broomfield princely burial ((C) British Museum) |
The most dateable feature – the bosses found in all these burials were of type SB-4b (Bayliss et. al., 2013) equivalent to Dickinson’s Type 6. Shield bosses varied significantly in shape, both spatially and over time, and it is quite remarkable that this particular, quite narrowly defined boss-type occurs in all of these late 6th century princely burials. This type of shield boss was small, lacking the difficult-to-forge overhanging carination (convex sidewall) between the cone and rivet-flange, and had the lowest average weight of all Anglo-Saxon shield boss types (Dickinson & Harke, 1992).
Like later types they have diminished apical buttons, and were also the first type to forego the large disc-headed rivets universal on most 6th century bosses, for much smaller dome-headed rivets which would become universal on 7th century “sugarloaf” bosses (Evison, 1963). Smaller domed rivets are less easily caught and wrenched by enemy blades, and we have also found them, counterintuitively, to be easier to install and insure a tight-fit of boss onto board. Of course, they also allow for a narrower boss-flange, achieving further economies in terms of weight. Contrasting strongly with the extravagant and heavy types of the earlier 6th century, these bosses appear to have been optimised for efficiency, of simplified shape, of the smallest size practicable, and built thinner than other types.
The savings made, in terms of precious iron, were probably fairly negligible from Dickinson Type 3 to this innovative type 6, and could easily have been overlooked by the wealthy occupants of the princely burials, so instead, the adoption of this type seems to be motivated by a desire for weight-reduction. The shield boss’ crash-diet in the late 6th century was an essential stepping stone towards their increase in height in the 7th culminating in the magnificent blade-glancing sugarloaf.
The shield from the Prittlewell princely burial, Broomfield, Sutton Hoo Mound 17 (the horse warrior), and all three shields from the Taplow princely burial had SB-4b shield bosses, of which the SHM17, Prittlewell, and 2/3 of the Taplow bosses were all of extremely narrowly defined subtype SB4-b2. Importantly this class of shield-boss has never been found with elaborate decorative fittings (either for the boss or board).
All were associated with the simplest and commonest type of iron grip reinforcer – Dickinson type 1a(i) which would become universal in the 7th century. These shields were not entirely without decoration, however; although we only have the boss from the Broomfield shield (due to a botched 19th century excavation) we know that the Prittlewell and SHM17 shields all had
Like later types they have diminished apical buttons, and were also the first type to forego the large disc-headed rivets universal on most 6th century bosses, for much smaller dome-headed rivets which would become universal on 7th century “sugarloaf” bosses (Evison, 1963). Smaller domed rivets are less easily caught and wrenched by enemy blades, and we have also found them, counterintuitively, to be easier to install and insure a tight-fit of boss onto board. Of course, they also allow for a narrower boss-flange, achieving further economies in terms of weight. Contrasting strongly with the extravagant and heavy types of the earlier 6th century, these bosses appear to have been optimised for efficiency, of simplified shape, of the smallest size practicable, and built thinner than other types.
The savings made, in terms of precious iron, were probably fairly negligible from Dickinson Type 3 to this innovative type 6, and could easily have been overlooked by the wealthy occupants of the princely burials, so instead, the adoption of this type seems to be motivated by a desire for weight-reduction. The shield boss’ crash-diet in the late 6th century was an essential stepping stone towards their increase in height in the 7th culminating in the magnificent blade-glancing sugarloaf.
The shield from the Prittlewell princely burial, Broomfield, Sutton Hoo Mound 17 (the horse warrior), and all three shields from the Taplow princely burial had SB-4b shield bosses, of which the SHM17, Prittlewell, and 2/3 of the Taplow bosses were all of extremely narrowly defined subtype SB4-b2. Importantly this class of shield-boss has never been found with elaborate decorative fittings (either for the boss or board).
All were associated with the simplest and commonest type of iron grip reinforcer – Dickinson type 1a(i) which would become universal in the 7th century. These shields were not entirely without decoration, however; although we only have the boss from the Broomfield shield (due to a botched 19th century excavation) we know that the Prittlewell and SHM17 shields all had
simple iron disc fittings (a common feature on early Anglo-Saxon shields) which were arranged in two opposing pairs either side of the boss (Carver, 2005) while identical disc mounts were also recovered from Taplow. Finally, the apical buttons of both the Prittlewell boss and one of those from Taplow were augmented with discs of simple, unembellished silver sheet – a minimalist nod so some of the bigger and more flashy shield boss embellishments of earlier generations.
Reconstruction drawings of the shield from the Prittlewell Princely Burial (Blackmore et. al. 2019)
Beyond their suites of fittings, how much these shields shared in terms of their organic elements is largely unknowable; across the sample at least two different woods (willow, and lime) have been identified (Blackmore et. al. 2019; Mortimer, 2021; Carver, 2005). And although they seem to have foregone elaborate metallic decoration, the extent to which they bore organic decoration including perishable appliques, or painted designs, remains unknowable.
Although we should expect some degree of concordance between items in burials of the same phase / which took place within a generation of each-other, the resemblance between these shields (or rather, their combination of metal fittings) is uncanny, and leaves us wondering why, or how, the highest-status burials of three distinct kingdoms in the late 6th century could contain what appear to be almost identical shields.
Although we should expect some degree of concordance between items in burials of the same phase / which took place within a generation of each-other, the resemblance between these shields (or rather, their combination of metal fittings) is uncanny, and leaves us wondering why, or how, the highest-status burials of three distinct kingdoms in the late 6th century could contain what appear to be almost identical shields.
Certainly, these bosses, and combinations of fittings do occur elsewhere – they are not peculiar to the princely burials, but it is curious that the shields of the princely burials should be so similar. It is, further, odd that despite quite variable burial practices from grave to grave, and from community to community, not even once among these burials did anyone choose to include an even slightly earlier style of shield (such as one with a type 3 boss and more visually exciting decorative fittings) which absolutely must still have been in use and circulation at that time.
The best explanation we can come up with, based on the particular characteristics of these shields (and hinted at by their simplified, ultra-light-weight bosses) is that they represent an innovative class of shields being produced not with ostentation in mind, but designed to be “high-performance”. For these early Anglo-Saxon princes, perhaps leading armies of newly formed kingdoms into battle, the cumulative effect of modest weight reductions – by foregoing ostentatious embellishments, rationalising the shield boss, and perhaps other tweaks to the manufacture of the board itself (including the choice of wood) may have added up to significant improvements in agility, and the ability to sustain dynamic use of the shield during prolonged, intense battle.
The best explanation we can come up with, based on the particular characteristics of these shields (and hinted at by their simplified, ultra-light-weight bosses) is that they represent an innovative class of shields being produced not with ostentation in mind, but designed to be “high-performance”. For these early Anglo-Saxon princes, perhaps leading armies of newly formed kingdoms into battle, the cumulative effect of modest weight reductions – by foregoing ostentatious embellishments, rationalising the shield boss, and perhaps other tweaks to the manufacture of the board itself (including the choice of wood) may have added up to significant improvements in agility, and the ability to sustain dynamic use of the shield during prolonged, intense battle.
It has been suggested that burial with certain items might indicate not just status and/or role of the deceased but also their particular life stage at the time of their death, with certain finds suggesting that both the occupant of the Prittlewell Princely burial and Sutton Hoo Mound-17 were relatively young men when they died. If this logic could extend not just to grave-goods, but the subtypes chosen, it might be reasonable to speculate that inclusion of a more utilitarian, practical high-performance shield as opposed to a flashier, heavier heirloom shield (exemplified by Sutton Hoo Mound 1) might represent the deceased’s status as a younger, fitter and more hands-on warrior rather than a mature veteran. Observing the similarity of these shields, it could even be speculated that the royalty of various kingdoms were acquiring their battle shields (or, rather, those they were buried with) from a single source/workshop (via trade or diplomatic gifting) as opposed to using more diverse and typically more locally-made shields seen in earlier, and lesser burials. As yet, more examples, and details of these shields, are probably needed for us to make this case with any certainty.
Nevertheless, the discovery of an almost ‘universal’ shield specification for a late 6th to early 7th century princely burials provides us with an exciting opportunity – as an “all in one” reconstruction of such a shield could fit perfectly into impressions of any of these assemblages.
In 2020-21 we therefore embarked on a project to produce such a shield… (part 2 to follow).
Nevertheless, the discovery of an almost ‘universal’ shield specification for a late 6th to early 7th century princely burials provides us with an exciting opportunity – as an “all in one” reconstruction of such a shield could fit perfectly into impressions of any of these assemblages.
In 2020-21 we therefore embarked on a project to produce such a shield… (part 2 to follow).
References
Blackmore, Lyn, et al. The Prittlewell Princely Burial: Excavations at Priory Crescent, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003. MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology), 2019.
Bayliss, Alex; Hines, John, et. al Anglo-Saxon graves and grave goods of the 6th and 7th centuries AD: a chronological framework. Routledge, 2013.
Carver, Martin. Sutton Hoo: a seventh-century princely burial ground and its context. British Museum Press. 2005.
Dickinson, Tania M, and Härke, Heinrich. Early Anglo-Saxon Shields. Vol. 110. London: Society of Antiquaries of London, 1992.
Dickinson, Tania M. "Symbols of protection: The significance of animal-ornamented shields in early Anglo-Saxon England." Medieval Archaeology 49.1 (2005): 109-163.
Evison, V. I. Sugar-Loaf Shield Bosses. The Antiquaries Journal 43 (1). Vol 43. 1963
Mortimer, Paul. [Personal Communication]. 28/07/2021
Stephenson, Ian P. The Anglo-Saxon Shield. Tempus, 2002.
Blackmore, Lyn, et al. The Prittlewell Princely Burial: Excavations at Priory Crescent, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003. MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology), 2019.
Bayliss, Alex; Hines, John, et. al Anglo-Saxon graves and grave goods of the 6th and 7th centuries AD: a chronological framework. Routledge, 2013.
Carver, Martin. Sutton Hoo: a seventh-century princely burial ground and its context. British Museum Press. 2005.
Dickinson, Tania M, and Härke, Heinrich. Early Anglo-Saxon Shields. Vol. 110. London: Society of Antiquaries of London, 1992.
Dickinson, Tania M. "Symbols of protection: The significance of animal-ornamented shields in early Anglo-Saxon England." Medieval Archaeology 49.1 (2005): 109-163.
Evison, V. I. Sugar-Loaf Shield Bosses. The Antiquaries Journal 43 (1). Vol 43. 1963
Mortimer, Paul. [Personal Communication]. 28/07/2021
Stephenson, Ian P. The Anglo-Saxon Shield. Tempus, 2002.
RSS Feed
