Compared to the famous shield from Sutton Hoo Mound 1, the shields from the other treasure-filled princely Anglo-Saxon burials lack ostentatious decorative fittings. In the first chapter (link) we discussed the striking similarity of these shields, which appeared to be high-performance gear for warrior princes, optimised for agility rather than ostentation. In the second chapter (link) we reported on our project to produce an authentic replica of such a shield, and explore just how light weight they could have been.
Despite the minimal fittings, its hard to imagine the shields of the late 6th century princely burials were entirely plain, and new evidence has come to light concerning early Anglo-Saxon paints, and the painted designs preserved from the late Iron Age, which has allowed us to more confidently wade into the painting of early Anglo-Saxon shields for the first time.
Researching and experimenting these paints, exploring the evidenced designs, and how they relate to decorative motifs seen in other media across both Anglo-Saxon material culture and adjacent cultures, we were finally able to finish our replica princely shield with a plausible painted design.
Researching and experimenting these paints, exploring the evidenced designs, and how they relate to decorative motifs seen in other media across both Anglo-Saxon material culture and adjacent cultures, we were finally able to finish our replica princely shield with a plausible painted design.
( Step-by-step updates on this project were shared in real time on our social media pages from April to July 2021 organised under the hashtag #ThegnsShield10. )
Having completed installation of the replica’s metal fittings, the result was an ultra-light weight but robust shield representative of the remains found in the princely burials, and consistent with our hypothesis that rather than being merely ordinary shields, these examples were carefully optimised for weight reduction and performance. Nevertheless, the shield at this stage still looked rather plain.
As previously discussed, the shield represents the single largest display surface in the typical Anglo-Saxon warrior panoply, which surely would’ve been utilised to great visual effect. Elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon material culture we see the principle of ‘horror vacui’ – that, generally being time-rich and material-poor, early medieval people tended to decorate every available surface of objects made of hard-won materials. Metal figural appliques are very rare on early Anglo-Saxon shields and notably absent from this class of princely burial shields but, despite a lack of direct archaeological evidence (due to poor preservation) painting has always been a firm possibility (Dickinson & Harke, 1992; Stephenson, 2002) albeit a risky one.
Having completed installation of the replica’s metal fittings, the result was an ultra-light weight but robust shield representative of the remains found in the princely burials, and consistent with our hypothesis that rather than being merely ordinary shields, these examples were carefully optimised for weight reduction and performance. Nevertheless, the shield at this stage still looked rather plain.
As previously discussed, the shield represents the single largest display surface in the typical Anglo-Saxon warrior panoply, which surely would’ve been utilised to great visual effect. Elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon material culture we see the principle of ‘horror vacui’ – that, generally being time-rich and material-poor, early medieval people tended to decorate every available surface of objects made of hard-won materials. Metal figural appliques are very rare on early Anglo-Saxon shields and notably absent from this class of princely burial shields but, despite a lack of direct archaeological evidence (due to poor preservation) painting has always been a firm possibility (Dickinson & Harke, 1992; Stephenson, 2002) albeit a risky one.
Organic preservation of Anglo-Saxon shield boards has generally been too poor for paint traces to be identifiable, but we know that shields of adjacent periods and cultures – Roman Shields (such as Dura Europos, Turkey), Germanic Iron Age shields (such as from Nydam Mose, Denmark- Holst & Neilsen, 2020) and Viking Shields (such as those from the Gokstad Ship, Norway) – were all painted, sometimes intricately. Tantalisingly microscopic traces of a ‘calcite-, aluminosilicate- and beeswax-containing layer’ were found between the metal fittings and traces of the board-covers, on two of the shields from the 6th century cemetery at Tranmer House, Suffolk (the 6th century cemetery beside Sutton Hoo) which may have been white paint layers (Bullock et. al., 2011). The incredible manuscript illuminations of the 8th century further provide strong evidence of a well-established culture of vibrant painting using a wide range of pigments.
Despite this, we have hitherto avoided painting any of our early Anglo-Saxon gear. The reasons for this are threefold; firstly the lack of direct archaeological evidence to inform technical aspects (pigments, binders, surface treatments) of early Anglo-Saxon painting; secondly lack of archaeological clarity regarding how painting was achieved on shields of related cultures (especially with respect to binding agents, and overcoming the technical challenges of painting onto flexing, skin-product surfaces) and thirdly and most significantly, lack of evidence to inform what designs are appropriate to paint. We have always been aware, however, that this cautious, conservative aesthetic in general runs contrary to what we know of Anglo-Saxon taste, the ‘horror vacui’ principle which runs through all Anglo-Saxon material culture, and perhaps risks reinforcing a plain, drab and rough, perhaps even ‘Dark Age’ ‘Barbaric’ visual impression that mostly cannot be justified.
Despite this, we have hitherto avoided painting any of our early Anglo-Saxon gear. The reasons for this are threefold; firstly the lack of direct archaeological evidence to inform technical aspects (pigments, binders, surface treatments) of early Anglo-Saxon painting; secondly lack of archaeological clarity regarding how painting was achieved on shields of related cultures (especially with respect to binding agents, and overcoming the technical challenges of painting onto flexing, skin-product surfaces) and thirdly and most significantly, lack of evidence to inform what designs are appropriate to paint. We have always been aware, however, that this cautious, conservative aesthetic in general runs contrary to what we know of Anglo-Saxon taste, the ‘horror vacui’ principle which runs through all Anglo-Saxon material culture, and perhaps risks reinforcing a plain, drab and rough, perhaps even ‘Dark Age’ ‘Barbaric’ visual impression that mostly cannot be justified.
The Paints
More recently, analysis of finds from two very different contexts- those from the late 6th to 7th century Anglo-Saxon princely burial from Prittlewell , Essex (Blackmore et. al, 2019), and notionally ‘proto-Anglian’ 4-5th century ‘sacrificed’ battle-loot from Nydam Mose (Holst & Neilsen, 2020) have provided valuable insights into how early Anglo-Saxon woodwork, including shields, were decorated.
At Nydam preserved fragments of shields sacrificed as part of one of the latest deposits show traces of paint on both sides of shields, which in a couple of cases (on the backs) are well preserved enough for general designs to be inferred. Paint was mostly applied in narrow concentric bands, with occasional interlacing and figural elements. Colours included red (cinnabar / mercuric sulfide, and iron oxides), black (graphite and burnt bone), yellow (yellow orpiment - arsenic sulfide), grey or white (barium sulfate), and mixtures thereof. A number of paints, including a blackish green, contained traces of calcium copper silicate (Egyptian blue) and may therefore have appeared blue originally before degradation in the bog (Holst & Neilsen, 2020).
Many of these pigments are surprisingly exotic, and although most of these were used, sparingly, in later insular manuscripts (and directly on leather, as in the case of the Cuthbert Gospel cover - Breay, 2015) their use in early Anglo-Saxon material culture remains unclear.
At Nydam preserved fragments of shields sacrificed as part of one of the latest deposits show traces of paint on both sides of shields, which in a couple of cases (on the backs) are well preserved enough for general designs to be inferred. Paint was mostly applied in narrow concentric bands, with occasional interlacing and figural elements. Colours included red (cinnabar / mercuric sulfide, and iron oxides), black (graphite and burnt bone), yellow (yellow orpiment - arsenic sulfide), grey or white (barium sulfate), and mixtures thereof. A number of paints, including a blackish green, contained traces of calcium copper silicate (Egyptian blue) and may therefore have appeared blue originally before degradation in the bog (Holst & Neilsen, 2020).
Many of these pigments are surprisingly exotic, and although most of these were used, sparingly, in later insular manuscripts (and directly on leather, as in the case of the Cuthbert Gospel cover - Breay, 2015) their use in early Anglo-Saxon material culture remains unclear.
Stonyhurst / Cuthbert Gospel, c7-8th. (CC. British Library) At Prittlewell, a small wooden box in the late 6th century princely burial had been painted fairly crudely in yellow-orange, red, and white, using easily locally sourced iron-oxide earth pigments - red and yellow ochre, and allegedly, white gypsum (Blackmore et. al, 2019). Locally sourced earth pigments - also conveniently mostly non-toxic, likely formed the backbone of the early Anglo-Saxon paint palate as they had during the Iron Age. The white is unlikely to have been purely white gypsum, which is quite optically neutral and works as an additive rather than a pigment on its own. Although the shield in Prittlewell was too badly degraded to show decoration, spear shafts also showed zoomorphic and two-strand guilloche carving seemingly highlighted with a reddish pigment (though none was identified) and strongly resembling both the motifs seen on the Nydam shields, and the great many carved spear and arrow shafts from that site.
Preserved early Anglo-Saxon woodwork is otherwise effectively non-existent, but the resemblance of the precious wood fragments from late c6th Prittlewell to the abundant material from 4-5th century phases of the Nydam demonstrates that woodwork - including shields- were likely intricately and colourfully decorated throughout the early Anglo-Saxon period - with designs and techniques highly conserved. Though high-status gear could conceivably have been painted with exotic pigments such as those identified on the Nydam shields, Prittlewell suggests that even for high status gear, in the more isolated context of 6th century Britain, local earth pigments predominated, together with perhaps organic pigments such as indigo/woad, which conveniently, unlike many of the brighter imported mineral pigments, are non-toxic.
To these precedents might also be added the famous c7-8th Cuthbert / Stonyhurst Gospel; a beautiful palm-sized, Coptic-bound copy of St John’s Gospel in capitular uncial script, in a tactile cover of foundation-moulded, imported cinnabar-dyed alum tawed goat leather over thin wooden boards (Breay, 2015). The front features rectangular fields (picked out with foundation-moulding achieved with cord), tooled guilloche patterns, and a central vines and chalice motif which appears to have been stamped into a soft clay matrix behind, while the back panel features a tooled design reminiscent of carpet-pages in illuminated manuscripts. This and the guilloche patterns on the front are picked out with pigments – yellow orpiment (arsenic sulphide) and blue woad/indigo (Breay, 2015). These painted details are extremely delicate, and now barely visible. The Stonyhurst Gospel was added to Cuthbert’s tomb at some time during the late 7th or early 8th century, and is the oldest surviving European style book still in its original binding, which in turn is a beautiful example of the 7th century leatherworker’s art (more later). Importantly the pigments listed above were used to decorate leather moulded over wooden boards, in a manner homologous with shield-painting.
Unfortunately, the archaeology provides no clarity on what binding agents - the drying, liquid component - were used to make these pigments into paints. Theophilus’ 12th century treatise on various arts (Hawthorne & Smith, 1979) describes the use of linseed oil; - oil paint some 400 years before it was fashionable, but linseed oil point can take weeks, or even months to dry, which seems quite impractical when trying to achieve intricate, multi-coloured designs on something like a shield. Encaustic - hot wax painting is a strong possibility, for the blurry-edged painting on the Prittlewell box, but risk of bleeding, or even denaturing skin product might rule it out for shields. Theophilus (12th century) also mentions use of tree resin as a binding agent, the use of egg-white both as a binder and varnish (glair) and very briefly brushes over the use of egg yolk (tempera).
Egg tempera was favoured for painting religious icons and altar boards through the medieval period and has a number of advantages, including being quick drying, durable, easily layered, and opalescent. Crucially, made of protein and fats, it is archaeologically fugitive enough to be consistent with the absence of identifiable binding agent in both the Nydam and Prittlewell contexts, and as a bacterial growth medium might explain some peculiarities of decay observed in association with certain paints on the Nydam boards (Holst & Neilsen, 2020). Tempera’s translucency, however, presents other challenges - it is traditionally painted on a white ground (gesso - chalk combined with animal glue, also described by Theophilus) but no such gesso has been identified on AS or pre-AS shields, and it’s thought to be too brittle to be durable on a thin, flexing shield board, with risk of flaking or chipping off, as those applying it to reconstructions of Viking shields have found (Warzecha, 2017).
Egg tempera was favoured for painting religious icons and altar boards through the medieval period and has a number of advantages, including being quick drying, durable, easily layered, and opalescent. Crucially, made of protein and fats, it is archaeologically fugitive enough to be consistent with the absence of identifiable binding agent in both the Nydam and Prittlewell contexts, and as a bacterial growth medium might explain some peculiarities of decay observed in association with certain paints on the Nydam boards (Holst & Neilsen, 2020). Tempera’s translucency, however, presents other challenges - it is traditionally painted on a white ground (gesso - chalk combined with animal glue, also described by Theophilus) but no such gesso has been identified on AS or pre-AS shields, and it’s thought to be too brittle to be durable on a thin, flexing shield board, with risk of flaking or chipping off, as those applying it to reconstructions of Viking shields have found (Warzecha, 2017).
Left - painting our shield with egg tempera (square bottle) and natural earth pigments - red and yellow ochre. Top right: red and yellow ochre paint preserved on fragment of the box from late c6th Prittewell princely burial; bottom right - preserved painted designs on late Iron Age Nydam pigment trench shield 11.
Having experimented with offcuts, we decided to go ahead with (yolk) egg tempera applied directly to the un-oiled/waxed leather surface, allowing the initial layers of paint to penetrate and bond with the porous surface. With a 1:1 mixture of yolk and distilled water, the paint can be applied neatly without bleeding through the leather like a stain, and in layers thin enough to be durable.
For pigments, we chose to use natural red ochre, and yellow ochre, combined with light and dark under-painting with chalk and finely-ground charcoal respectively, and for blue, precious natural woad/indigo powder.
Although the red ochre is a joy to work with, the dark leather background made the yellow (yellow ochre) and blue (woad) more of a challenge; the transparency of these required many paint layers for the colour to overpower the dark background. The use of a layer or two of chalk-white underpainting, effectively acting as a localised gesso, helped to lift these colours. Nevertheless, it’s clear that these paints would work far better with a lighter background; our experiments on offcuts of lighter modern veg-tan for example were extremely pleasing. This insight combined with lack of gesso our any kind of base-coat on the remains of the painted shields from Nydam (Holst & Neilsen, 2020) raises interesting questions about the state of (now degraded) skin-product used on these shields; were the covers dark veg-tanned hide, like on our shield, or could they have been lighter products – such as alum-tawed skins (Cameron, 2000) or more minimally tannin-impregnated tanned hides closer to modern veg-tan? (For more on the archaelogical evidence for the state of tanning on prehistoric to Viking-Age shields see Warming et. al. 2016)
These questions aside, through much experimentation we had found a method to use for the painting of the shield, and now turned to the difficult question of what design we ought to paint.
The Design
With poor preservation of shield boards from Anglo-Saxon graves, what designs they painted on shields remains a mystery. It might be tempting to borrow motifs from jewellery - such as disc or saucer brooches, but these were designed to be perceived at their own scale and it cannot be simply assumed that larger objects such as shields would be decorated with ‘blown up’ versions of the same designs. It has, further, long been recognised that particular art forms practiced contemporaneously – from manuscript illumination to weaving to jewellery, although sometimes in communication and emulating each other, have their own distinct idiosyncrasies; it is for good reason that reenactors are usually advised by authenticity officers not to transfer designs between different media.
Inevitably any design which is painted on such a shield will be conjectural, but it is possible to draw clues both from designs seen on shields of related cultures, similar designs in Anglo-Saxon material culture and, where it is evidenced, some crosstalk between different media.
The 4-5th century shields from the “pigment trench” of the Nydam votive weapon deposit show abundant evidence for painting, though most are too poorly preserved to provide full coherent designs (Holst & Neilsen, 2020). What is clear, however, is that the dominant scheme for all of these round-shields was the division of the board into concentric circular fields using delicately painted borders. Many also had a solid red field around the shield boss. Interestingly both these features are also seen on Roman shields from Dura Europos (circular fields on the so-called Troy shield, and a rectangular field on the more famous heavy scutum). Although early Anglo-Saxon iconography is rarely detailed, pressblech foils which show warriors with shields (such as those from the Staffordshire Hoard – Fern et. al., 2019) often appear to show concentric bands on the boards, perhaps suggestive of similar decoration.
Inevitably any design which is painted on such a shield will be conjectural, but it is possible to draw clues both from designs seen on shields of related cultures, similar designs in Anglo-Saxon material culture and, where it is evidenced, some crosstalk between different media.
The 4-5th century shields from the “pigment trench” of the Nydam votive weapon deposit show abundant evidence for painting, though most are too poorly preserved to provide full coherent designs (Holst & Neilsen, 2020). What is clear, however, is that the dominant scheme for all of these round-shields was the division of the board into concentric circular fields using delicately painted borders. Many also had a solid red field around the shield boss. Interestingly both these features are also seen on Roman shields from Dura Europos (circular fields on the so-called Troy shield, and a rectangular field on the more famous heavy scutum). Although early Anglo-Saxon iconography is rarely detailed, pressblech foils which show warriors with shields (such as those from the Staffordshire Hoard – Fern et. al., 2019) often appear to show concentric bands on the boards, perhaps suggestive of similar decoration.
Anglo-Saxon shield painting 'mood board' featuring images of Nydam shield 11 and the Roman 'Troy' shield from Dura Europos (from Holst & Neilsen 2020), Pendant from Garton, Yorks, and presslblech design from the Staffordshire Hoard (Fern et. al. 2019).
On the ‘Troy’ shield from Dura quite naturalistic depictions of painted figures – characters from the Trojan war – are painted in the broad, mid concentric field – design elements which probably did not find their way onto shields of the more abstract-oriented Germanic Iron Age and early Anglo-Saxon period. On the other hand, the at a glance more distantly related Dura heavy scutum places a beast (manticore) to one side of the central field, and a bird on the other, in visual balance. This seems strikingly reminiscent of the gold wrym and bird mounts of the Sutton Hoo shield which may be distantly referencing / reflecting this design tradition. At least one of the painted Nydam shields shows painted beasts (the best preserved appears to be a small bull), perhaps chasing each other in a ring around the shield. The scale of these beasts is similar to the smaller figural appliques from early Anglo-Saxon shields (such as the Tranmer House shield) which otherwise appear too small to satisfyingly decorate the boards they were mounted on (Dickinson, 2005) and seem to have been positioned in quite peculiar arrangements. The resemblance to the Nydam beasts shield raises the concerning possibility that our interpretation of these mounts in isolation might be entirely wrong; that they might actually simply be the one or two gilded members of a menagerie of many more beasts decorating the board, well integrated and balanced with the others being painted and now invisible to us, preventing us seeing the complete picture.
The best-preserved decoration on a shield from Nydam integrated a flat two-strand interlace in red, bounded by thin borders (Holst & Neilsen, 2020). The rounded diamond/lozenge fields within this interlace were picked out in two alternating colours. Simple two-strand interlaces delineating lozenge fields are well represented in early Anglo-Saxon art, significantly including the leatherwork of the c7th scabbard from Lapwing Hill, and the cover of the Stonyhurst / Cuthbert gospel (Breay, 2015) both of which, achieved by moulding thin skin-product over wooden boards, are arguably intimately connected to the craft of making and decorating shields. As already discussed, details of the latter had also been picked out with delicate painting onto the leather surface. Guilloche patterns also appear (with alternating-colour fill) in late Roman mosaics, wherein large, circular shield-like motifs were very popular, decorated with similar concentric bands of interlaces.
The Nydam shield interlace can also be viewed as a simplified overlapping guilloche, seen in more detailed painting on the rectangular Roman shield from Dura, extremely popular in mosaics, and in turn, occurring frequently on early Anglo-Saxon jewellery - particularly gold brooches and pendants, which may have sought to emulate designs visible in surviving Roman mosaics as part of the “Romanitas” fashion of the 7th century. With discoveries at Chedworth confirming that Roman mosaics continued to be produced in Britain well into the 5th (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-55256415) and possibly even the 6th century, it is now clear that they formed part of the early Anglo-Saxons’ visual landscape and very likely influenced their own work in other media. Other common elements both from Roman shield painting and mosaics include wave and saw-tooth patterns to mediate transitions between colour blocks.
The Nydam shield interlace can also be viewed as a simplified overlapping guilloche, seen in more detailed painting on the rectangular Roman shield from Dura, extremely popular in mosaics, and in turn, occurring frequently on early Anglo-Saxon jewellery - particularly gold brooches and pendants, which may have sought to emulate designs visible in surviving Roman mosaics as part of the “Romanitas” fashion of the 7th century. With discoveries at Chedworth confirming that Roman mosaics continued to be produced in Britain well into the 5th (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-55256415) and possibly even the 6th century, it is now clear that they formed part of the early Anglo-Saxons’ visual landscape and very likely influenced their own work in other media. Other common elements both from Roman shield painting and mosaics include wave and saw-tooth patterns to mediate transitions between colour blocks.
'Mood board' of various mid to late Roman moasics from lowland Britain. Roman moasics were familiar to early Anglo-Saxons and likely influenced their own art in other media. (Images C. British Museum and National Trust; others used under fair dealing)
Over all, then, there appears to be a relatively highly conserved visual language shared by Roman shields, mosaic motifs of similar scale, painted shields of the late Germanic Iron Age, and extending as far as 7th century Anglo-Saxon jewellery, tooled and painted leatherwork, and other items. We might therefore expect early Anglo-Saxon shield painting to follow similar conventions, with delicate interlacing and guilloche patterns confined within concentric fields (as seems to be implied by pressblech depictions).
Painting our Shield
Working tentatively based on these insights, we chose to paint the shield sparingly with delicate borders and patterns in concentric bands, using precious pigments more sparingly, as well as allowing plenty of unpainted space for the leather to still be seen. Tempera paint, being somewhat translucent, is better deployed on a white background - traditionally gesso (chalk with animal glue) but there is no evidence for the use of gesso on the late Iron Age shields, and experiments have shown it to be too brittle and friable to survive the natural flexing of thin shield boards. Instead, we used underpainting with chalk + tempera to provide a pale base on which to apply the blue and yellow.
The main decorative motif was built from a flat two-strand interlace in red, like the design from Nydam, with the diamonds within filled with yellow-ochre and woad blue, rather than Nydam’s yellow-green and black-green (possibly degraded blue). The application of fine, dark overpainted lines converted the red borders into a more intricate-looking 3D twisting guilloche. Around the central field framing the boss, a mosaic-inspired saw-tooth pattern was added to help integrate the painted and unpainted zones.
The interlace elements, quite accidentally, are evocative of fine bands of tabletweave encircling the board. It is likely that AS shields were often more extensively painted than this, but based on the limited clues available we feel this design is a plausible representation of what a more sparingly painted board may have looked like.
The main decorative motif was built from a flat two-strand interlace in red, like the design from Nydam, with the diamonds within filled with yellow-ochre and woad blue, rather than Nydam’s yellow-green and black-green (possibly degraded blue). The application of fine, dark overpainted lines converted the red borders into a more intricate-looking 3D twisting guilloche. Around the central field framing the boss, a mosaic-inspired saw-tooth pattern was added to help integrate the painted and unpainted zones.
The interlace elements, quite accidentally, are evocative of fine bands of tabletweave encircling the board. It is likely that AS shields were often more extensively painted than this, but based on the limited clues available we feel this design is a plausible representation of what a more sparingly painted board may have looked like.
The over all effect, we hope, compliments but does not distract from the metal fittings, is sufficiently convincing, based on the available clues, and adds colourful visual interest while not overpowering the reconstruction or looking out of place. A careful application of waterproofing beeswax and neatsfoot-oil blend, taking care to avoid abrading the paint, helped to condition and darken the surrounding leather, in turn helping the colours – and particularly the ferric oxide red, to stand out against the now dark-brown background.
Conclusion
The shield – perhaps the most essential item of battle-gear for any warrior – is among the most impressive items from the Sutton Hoo Mound 1 burial, yet its counterparts in the other royal burials have hitherto seemed the least impressive items of their respective treasure-rich panoplies. Through this project we have hopefully brought to life these overlooked shields, and demonstrated that despite their lack of metallic ornamentation they were nevertheless finely crafted ‘elite’ gear, carefully optimised for performance in battle, and representing the latest developments in Anglo-Saxon shield technology. Further, thanks to new discoveries concerning late Germanic Iron Age and early Anglo-Saxon painting, we now know that they were very unlikely to have been plain; instead (like all other war-gear used by the ‘psychopathic peacock’ 6-7th century warrior elite) being vibrantly and intricately decorated, but in a way which didn’t compromise their function.
Late 6th / early 7th century æthling (team member Æd Thompson) with the princely shield. Photo by member Julia Ward.
References
Bayliss, Alex; Hines, John, et. al Anglo-Saxon graves and grave goods of the 6th and 7th centuries AD: a chronological framework. Routledge, 2013.
Blackmore, Lyn, et al. The Prittlewell Princely Burial: Excavations at Priory Crescent, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003. MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology), 2019.
Breay, Claire. The St Cuthbert Gospel: studies on the Insular Manuscript of the Gospel of John (BL, Additional MS 89000). British Library, 2015.
Bullock, Hayley, Alexandra Baldwin, and Jamie Hood. "Evidence for shield construction from the early Anglo-Saxon cemetery site of Tranmer House, Bromeswell, Suffolk." British Museum technical research bulletin 5 (2011): p-15.
Cameron, Esther Anita. Sheaths and scabbards in England AD 400-1100. Archaeopress, 2000.
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.
Evison, Vera. I. Sugar-Loaf Shield Bosses. The Antiquaries Journal 43 (1). Vol 43. 1963
Hawthorne, John G., and Cyril Stanley Smith. On divers arts: the foremost medieval treatise on painting, glassmaking, and metalwork. Courier Corporation, 1979.
Holst, Sandie, and Poul Otto Nielsen. Excavating Nydam-Archaeology, Palaeoecology and Preservation: The National Museum's Research Project 1989-99. Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 2020.
Stephenson, Ian P. The Anglo-Saxon Shield. Tempus, 2002.
Warming, Rolf Fabricius, et al. "Shields and hide. On the use of hide in Germanic shields of the Iron Age and Viking Age." Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission (2016): 155-225.
Warzecha, Roland. Et. al. The Viking Shield; Research, Reconstruction Experimentation. (Youtube Series). 2017 [Online] (URL= https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_hVs5MjWFV1IwpWIBswZr1pRq-qcpMIA) [Accessed 17/04/2022]
Blackmore, Lyn, et al. The Prittlewell Princely Burial: Excavations at Priory Crescent, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003. MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology), 2019.
Breay, Claire. The St Cuthbert Gospel: studies on the Insular Manuscript of the Gospel of John (BL, Additional MS 89000). British Library, 2015.
Bullock, Hayley, Alexandra Baldwin, and Jamie Hood. "Evidence for shield construction from the early Anglo-Saxon cemetery site of Tranmer House, Bromeswell, Suffolk." British Museum technical research bulletin 5 (2011): p-15.
Cameron, Esther Anita. Sheaths and scabbards in England AD 400-1100. Archaeopress, 2000.
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.
Evison, Vera. I. Sugar-Loaf Shield Bosses. The Antiquaries Journal 43 (1). Vol 43. 1963
Hawthorne, John G., and Cyril Stanley Smith. On divers arts: the foremost medieval treatise on painting, glassmaking, and metalwork. Courier Corporation, 1979.
Holst, Sandie, and Poul Otto Nielsen. Excavating Nydam-Archaeology, Palaeoecology and Preservation: The National Museum's Research Project 1989-99. Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 2020.
Stephenson, Ian P. The Anglo-Saxon Shield. Tempus, 2002.
Warming, Rolf Fabricius, et al. "Shields and hide. On the use of hide in Germanic shields of the Iron Age and Viking Age." Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission (2016): 155-225.
Warzecha, Roland. Et. al. The Viking Shield; Research, Reconstruction Experimentation. (Youtube Series). 2017 [Online] (URL= https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_hVs5MjWFV1IwpWIBswZr1pRq-qcpMIA) [Accessed 17/04/2022]
RSS Feed
