In previous chapters we began an exploration of the archaeology representing an early ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or perhaps more accurately ‘Anglo-British’ community which lived along the Warwickshire & Worcestershire Avon valley in the 5-7th centuries, in a chain of settlements along a westward flowing river in an area – the West Midlands – generally regarded as the western frontier of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ activity. This community provides perhaps the perfect case-study for getting to grips with the complexities of late antiquity in Britain, with themes of both continuity and change, and the interplay and transformation of identities after Roman withdrawal, leading ultimately to the emergence of coherent Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.
Costume impression of the mid c6th woman from Wasperton g24.
In part 2 (here) we explored the cemetery at Wasperton – a rare case of a community cemetery in continuous use from the Roman to early medieval period – and presented a costume reconstruction based on one 6th century woman’s burial, with a particularly diverse array of jewellery and textiles which provide a compelling image of the interaction of different influences and fashions adopted by the folk who lived here at a ‘crossroads’ between cultures.
Although there are many early medieval cemeteries in this zone – some exhibiting a proportionally more impressive array of grave-goods – Wasperton is one of very few to have been excavated relatively recently and subject to modern analysis. Unlike with other cemeteries in the valley (many excavated in the early 20th century) the work at Wasperton sheds light on phases of burial tradition, bioarchaeology, and the invaluable insights into textiles and costume locked within the mineralised remains on the backs of metal items – the ‘mud’ which, in the earlier days of cemetery excavation would’ve been ignored and scrubbed away. Our choice of a high-status woman’s burial as a case-study is partly justified by the fact that it is these burials, with their impressive copper-alloy jewellery on which textile remains can be preserved, which provide the richest seam of information for costume more broadly. Lower-status burials, or burials from phases in which such elaborate grave-goods were not included, unfortunately yield little to no information with which costumes can be reconstructed, and it is for this reason that costume presentations skew towards high status, and towards phases with well-furnished burials.
Information concerning mens costume is also proportionally scarcer within these cemeteries, with mens dress including fewer metal items on which textiles can be preserved (Walton-Rogers, 2007). Setting aside the famous but highly atypical princely burials of the late 6th to 7th centuries, masculine grave-goods assemblages from furnished burials within cemeteries tend to have (and to some extent are defined by) an absence of anything which could be described as jewellery: the only common metal dress-item being a buckle at the waist, which even in putatively ‘high status’ / well-furnished burials can often be small, utilitarian and plain. The extremely limited textile remains tend to come from these buckles, only found at the waist, providing little evidence directly representing the form and construction of garments without reference to more complete examples of clothing from adjacent periods and cultures. Well-furnished male burials instead tend to stand out through the inclusion of non-costume-related objects – particularly weapons and shields – though represented primarily by degraded iron remains, these still typically appear superficially less impressive than the equivalent feminine assemblages. The true impressiveness of such items can only be revealed through deeper analysis (particularly via radiography and metallography) and visualised by reconstruction.
Complimenting the costume reconstruction already presented based on Wasperton G24, here we present the results of team member Marc Smith’s project to represent another of the 242 burials from the same cemetery: grave 91.
Although there are many early medieval cemeteries in this zone – some exhibiting a proportionally more impressive array of grave-goods – Wasperton is one of very few to have been excavated relatively recently and subject to modern analysis. Unlike with other cemeteries in the valley (many excavated in the early 20th century) the work at Wasperton sheds light on phases of burial tradition, bioarchaeology, and the invaluable insights into textiles and costume locked within the mineralised remains on the backs of metal items – the ‘mud’ which, in the earlier days of cemetery excavation would’ve been ignored and scrubbed away. Our choice of a high-status woman’s burial as a case-study is partly justified by the fact that it is these burials, with their impressive copper-alloy jewellery on which textile remains can be preserved, which provide the richest seam of information for costume more broadly. Lower-status burials, or burials from phases in which such elaborate grave-goods were not included, unfortunately yield little to no information with which costumes can be reconstructed, and it is for this reason that costume presentations skew towards high status, and towards phases with well-furnished burials.
Information concerning mens costume is also proportionally scarcer within these cemeteries, with mens dress including fewer metal items on which textiles can be preserved (Walton-Rogers, 2007). Setting aside the famous but highly atypical princely burials of the late 6th to 7th centuries, masculine grave-goods assemblages from furnished burials within cemeteries tend to have (and to some extent are defined by) an absence of anything which could be described as jewellery: the only common metal dress-item being a buckle at the waist, which even in putatively ‘high status’ / well-furnished burials can often be small, utilitarian and plain. The extremely limited textile remains tend to come from these buckles, only found at the waist, providing little evidence directly representing the form and construction of garments without reference to more complete examples of clothing from adjacent periods and cultures. Well-furnished male burials instead tend to stand out through the inclusion of non-costume-related objects – particularly weapons and shields – though represented primarily by degraded iron remains, these still typically appear superficially less impressive than the equivalent feminine assemblages. The true impressiveness of such items can only be revealed through deeper analysis (particularly via radiography and metallography) and visualised by reconstruction.
Complimenting the costume reconstruction already presented based on Wasperton G24, here we present the results of team member Marc Smith’s project to represent another of the 242 burials from the same cemetery: grave 91.
The Man from G91
Grave 91 was situated in the northern part of the enclosure and slightly west of centre (context SG6) approximately 20m North-Northeast of the previously discussed Grave 24 and (unlike that burial) was oriented north-south. Immediately surrounded by a number of cremations, and overlying / sometimes intercutting pre-existing burials from the Roman phase, it appears that the cluster of north-south burials here with 6th century culturally ‘Anglo-Saxon’ grave goods represent the ‘takeover’ of this part of the cemetery by a group who were perhaps unaware of, or were not connected to folk which had been buried here in the previous centuries, in contrast to the more careful layout of graves in the southwestern part of the cemetery (Carver et. al. 2009).
Skeletal remains (not collected) from grave 91 indicated that the individual – at least 1.6m in height –had been placed on their back in the grave cut, which was a little over 2m long and 1m wide. Although parts of the skull, teeth and part of the pelvis did survive, the osteological sex of the individual was either not determined or not recorded, but the report interpreted them as “a man” based on the masculine nature of the grave-goods discussed below. Where biological sex of the occupant of a burial is identified (either by osteology or genetic analysis) it has become best-practice to record this separately to a burial’s gender (as expressed through grave-goods, Bayliss et. al. 2013) as, although both variables correspond expectedly in the overwhelming majority of cases, important exceptions do occur (for more on this, see here). In this case we cannot know the sex of the occupant although their grave-goods represent a masculine gender-expression, so for simplicity’s sake we will hereafter refer to this individual as a man.
Among the 91 ‘culturally Anglo-Saxon’ inhumations at Wasperton, 33 contained traditionally masculine assemblages of grave goods, and 11 were ‘ungendered’, among whom, many are likely to have also been men. Taken together the Anglo-Saxon phase therefore appears to have a relatively equal gender balance; we can guess that there were very approximately 40 male inhumations from the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ phase.
The skeletal remains of the man from Grave 91 were not among the small sample which were subject to isotopic analysis, or radiocarbon dating, so it is not possible to comment on their geographic origin or to know when they lived except by reference to the items they were buried with, which are mostly of culturally ‘Anglo-Saxon’ type and dateable to the early 6th century. On the basis of these grave-goods, Carver et. al. (2009) assigned this burial roughly to their ‘Period 4’ – which immediately preceded the period to which our woman from Grave 24 belonged. Seriation of grave-goods in this period is quite vague, however, with periods substantially overlapping, and challenges in forming equivalences between the seriations of masculine and feminine grave-goods (which tend not to be found in the same graves). We can therefore say that it is likely – though not certain – that the man from Grave 91 died before the woman from Grave 24. These individuals probably both were alive at some point in the early 6th century and may well have known each other in life, though, buried in different parts of the cemetery and in different orientations they are unlikely to have been closely related. Broadly part of the same community, these differences in burial practices hint that they may have had different subcultural affiliation and/or heritage.
Skeletal remains (not collected) from grave 91 indicated that the individual – at least 1.6m in height –had been placed on their back in the grave cut, which was a little over 2m long and 1m wide. Although parts of the skull, teeth and part of the pelvis did survive, the osteological sex of the individual was either not determined or not recorded, but the report interpreted them as “a man” based on the masculine nature of the grave-goods discussed below. Where biological sex of the occupant of a burial is identified (either by osteology or genetic analysis) it has become best-practice to record this separately to a burial’s gender (as expressed through grave-goods, Bayliss et. al. 2013) as, although both variables correspond expectedly in the overwhelming majority of cases, important exceptions do occur (for more on this, see here). In this case we cannot know the sex of the occupant although their grave-goods represent a masculine gender-expression, so for simplicity’s sake we will hereafter refer to this individual as a man.
Among the 91 ‘culturally Anglo-Saxon’ inhumations at Wasperton, 33 contained traditionally masculine assemblages of grave goods, and 11 were ‘ungendered’, among whom, many are likely to have also been men. Taken together the Anglo-Saxon phase therefore appears to have a relatively equal gender balance; we can guess that there were very approximately 40 male inhumations from the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ phase.
The skeletal remains of the man from Grave 91 were not among the small sample which were subject to isotopic analysis, or radiocarbon dating, so it is not possible to comment on their geographic origin or to know when they lived except by reference to the items they were buried with, which are mostly of culturally ‘Anglo-Saxon’ type and dateable to the early 6th century. On the basis of these grave-goods, Carver et. al. (2009) assigned this burial roughly to their ‘Period 4’ – which immediately preceded the period to which our woman from Grave 24 belonged. Seriation of grave-goods in this period is quite vague, however, with periods substantially overlapping, and challenges in forming equivalences between the seriations of masculine and feminine grave-goods (which tend not to be found in the same graves). We can therefore say that it is likely – though not certain – that the man from Grave 91 died before the woman from Grave 24. These individuals probably both were alive at some point in the early 6th century and may well have known each other in life, though, buried in different parts of the cemetery and in different orientations they are unlikely to have been closely related. Broadly part of the same community, these differences in burial practices hint that they may have had different subcultural affiliation and/or heritage.
The Grave Goods
Aside from their associated fragments, only three grave-goods survive from Wasperton Grave 91 – a knife, a shield, and a spear, nevertheless representing one of the more well-furnished male burials from the cemetery. Each of these objects are represented by degraded iron remains with some organic remnants, but analysis of these items (together with similar objects from other burials in the cemetery) has provided a wealth of information on Anglo-Saxon smithcraft.
With only partial survival of the skeletal remains there is only limited scope for commenting on the relationship between any of these finds and the body. Nevertheless the stratigraphy of this relatively undisturbed grave provides some interesting clues concerning the sequence of burial (see later).
The Knife
Found at the waist, with length of 11.1cm, the knife (Evison type 1 / Bohner A) is a typical example of a modest all-purpose utility / eating knife common to both mens and womens burials. 64 burials at Wasperton contained such knives (59% of the 108 furnished inhumations, or 36% of the 177 inhumations excavated) with a further two found unstratified within the survey area. The specific knife from Grave 91 was not among the six examples subject to metallographic analysis by David Starley (2006) but that work nevertheless sheds light on the quality of smithcraft seen among the Wasperton knives and can therefore help to inform our reconstruction of the items from Grave 91.
Of those examined, three were of poor quality, formed of piled iron with no additional steel edge, and likely made by reworking / recycling iron from different sources (Starley, 2006). The other three were of high quality, with two having piled-iron backs supplemented with a harder carbon steel edge butt-welded on; of these, one had been very well heat-treated to harden the edge. The remaining knife was made using an unusual steel-envelope technique, in which a triangular-section blade-core of piled iron had a flat piece of carbon steel added on both sides, meeting to form the blade edge, then heated, quenched and tempered. Across this sample there appears to be no clear correlation between knife quality and date, gender or burial wealth (Carver et. al. 2009).
With only partial survival of the skeletal remains there is only limited scope for commenting on the relationship between any of these finds and the body. Nevertheless the stratigraphy of this relatively undisturbed grave provides some interesting clues concerning the sequence of burial (see later).
The Knife
Found at the waist, with length of 11.1cm, the knife (Evison type 1 / Bohner A) is a typical example of a modest all-purpose utility / eating knife common to both mens and womens burials. 64 burials at Wasperton contained such knives (59% of the 108 furnished inhumations, or 36% of the 177 inhumations excavated) with a further two found unstratified within the survey area. The specific knife from Grave 91 was not among the six examples subject to metallographic analysis by David Starley (2006) but that work nevertheless sheds light on the quality of smithcraft seen among the Wasperton knives and can therefore help to inform our reconstruction of the items from Grave 91.
Of those examined, three were of poor quality, formed of piled iron with no additional steel edge, and likely made by reworking / recycling iron from different sources (Starley, 2006). The other three were of high quality, with two having piled-iron backs supplemented with a harder carbon steel edge butt-welded on; of these, one had been very well heat-treated to harden the edge. The remaining knife was made using an unusual steel-envelope technique, in which a triangular-section blade-core of piled iron had a flat piece of carbon steel added on both sides, meeting to form the blade edge, then heated, quenched and tempered. Across this sample there appears to be no clear correlation between knife quality and date, gender or burial wealth (Carver et. al. 2009).
Table 1: Metallurgy of knives from Wasperton with reference to details of the burials from which they came, associated finds, and date of deposition.
|
Grave (Inh)
|
Gender (Goods)
|
Knife Quality
|
Other Grave-Goods
|
Burial Date (CE)
|
|
6
|
M
|
Good (steel edge)
|
Shield, Spear
|
530 - 580 (Period 4)
|
|
34
|
?
|
Good (steel envelope)
|
-
|
250-430 (C-date. Period 2)
|
|
75
|
M
|
Medium (Steel edge, failed treatment)
|
Shield
|
550-600 (Period 5)
|
|
4
|
F
|
Poor (piled iron)
|
Saucer brooches, beads
|
470-650 (Period 6)
|
|
73
|
M
|
Poor (piled iron)
|
Shield
|
550-600 (Period 5)
|
|
179
|
?
|
Poor (piled iron + iron edge)
|
-
|
480-530 (Period 3)
|
Source: Starley, D., 2006. The Metallurgical Examination of Ferrous Grave Goods from Wasperton Anglo-Saxon Cemetery MN80-85'. Royal Armouries Technological Report, 1. <Cross-referenced with>
Carver, M., Hills, C. and Scheschkewitz, J., 2009. Wasperton: a Roman, British and Anglo-Saxon community in central England.
Carver, M., Hills, C. and Scheschkewitz, J., 2009. Wasperton: a Roman, British and Anglo-Saxon community in central England.
The knife from grave 91 bore no identifiable remains of handle or sheath, but all knives at Wasperton which did, featured handles of horn, and those bearing sheath-remains were of 1-2mm leather, which in two cases clearly had a double-layer at the blade edge (showing the sheath had been formed by folding around the back and securing at the blade-edge in the typical fashion) and in at least one case overlapped the base of the handle (Carver et. al. 2009). These remains though limited are entirely consistent with what’s understood to be the typical design for sheaths for early Anglo-Saxon knives (perhaps best represented by the better preserved small knife sheaths from Snape, Cameron (2000) and discussed <here>).
The Shield
Overlying the very limited remains of the head and upper part of the body were the remains of a shield. Represented by a largely intact iron boss (Dickinson Type 3) and iron grip reinforcer (Dickinson type 1a(i)) this shield had been placed over the head area of the burial, and also featured two iron board-disc fittings of approx. 2cm diameter, on which mineralised remains of wood were preserved. The boss – a common type of the early to mid 6th century features a low curving cone, overhanging carination, button apex, and three intact 6mm diameter flat disc rivet-heads (of an original five), and was approx. 17cm in diameter (Carver et. al. 2009). The flange of the boss bore mineralised remains of wood and leather on the back, and some textile traces on the front. Analysis of the wood revealed the board to have been made of planks of alder (one of the more common woods for early AS shield boards (Dickinson & Harke, 1992) arranged with a single grain direction.
The remains showed an A1 type organic grip construction / joint, with the iron reinforcer showing both longitudinal wood grain, and wood grain (from the planks) perpendicular to it, at the rivets, suggesting lap-jointed-in (rather than continuous with the board) handle construction (Carver et. al. 2009). Free length of rivets associated with the handle and boss complex was approx. 7mm; a measure of the thickness of the board at this point, which is broadly in keeping with thickness data for other early AS shields (Dickinson & Harke, 1992).
Based on the position of the board discs the shield cannot have been smaller than 42cm diameter (Carver et. al. 2009), but was almost certainly larger (see discussion on estimating shield sizes<here>; Thompson, 2021) with a maximum possible diameter of around 68cm which appears to have been estimated based on the diameter of an (off-centre with the boss) soil-stain. The absolute maximum possible diameter based on the width of the grave cut would by around 80cm. Based on what can be determined from the remains this shield is, in all respects entirely typical and representative of shields from early to mid 6th century Anglo-Saxon graves.
Overlying the very limited remains of the head and upper part of the body were the remains of a shield. Represented by a largely intact iron boss (Dickinson Type 3) and iron grip reinforcer (Dickinson type 1a(i)) this shield had been placed over the head area of the burial, and also featured two iron board-disc fittings of approx. 2cm diameter, on which mineralised remains of wood were preserved. The boss – a common type of the early to mid 6th century features a low curving cone, overhanging carination, button apex, and three intact 6mm diameter flat disc rivet-heads (of an original five), and was approx. 17cm in diameter (Carver et. al. 2009). The flange of the boss bore mineralised remains of wood and leather on the back, and some textile traces on the front. Analysis of the wood revealed the board to have been made of planks of alder (one of the more common woods for early AS shield boards (Dickinson & Harke, 1992) arranged with a single grain direction.
The remains showed an A1 type organic grip construction / joint, with the iron reinforcer showing both longitudinal wood grain, and wood grain (from the planks) perpendicular to it, at the rivets, suggesting lap-jointed-in (rather than continuous with the board) handle construction (Carver et. al. 2009). Free length of rivets associated with the handle and boss complex was approx. 7mm; a measure of the thickness of the board at this point, which is broadly in keeping with thickness data for other early AS shields (Dickinson & Harke, 1992).
Based on the position of the board discs the shield cannot have been smaller than 42cm diameter (Carver et. al. 2009), but was almost certainly larger (see discussion on estimating shield sizes<here>; Thompson, 2021) with a maximum possible diameter of around 68cm which appears to have been estimated based on the diameter of an (off-centre with the boss) soil-stain. The absolute maximum possible diameter based on the width of the grave cut would by around 80cm. Based on what can be determined from the remains this shield is, in all respects entirely typical and representative of shields from early to mid 6th century Anglo-Saxon graves.
The Spear
A spear had been placed on the left side of the body, represented by an iron spearhead (27cm long) and possibly also by a copper alloy stud with punched decoration which may have covered the butt-end; an unusual alternative to the cone-shape ferrules found in other graves including here at Wasperton. Similar studs have been identified in association with the butt-end of spears in at least eight other graves from early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, including another at Wasperton (g107), the nearby Barrington A cemetery (Gloucestershire), but also as far away as Essex and Kent (Welton, 2018).
A spear had been placed on the left side of the body, represented by an iron spearhead (27cm long) and possibly also by a copper alloy stud with punched decoration which may have covered the butt-end; an unusual alternative to the cone-shape ferrules found in other graves including here at Wasperton. Similar studs have been identified in association with the butt-end of spears in at least eight other graves from early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, including another at Wasperton (g107), the nearby Barrington A cemetery (Gloucestershire), but also as far away as Essex and Kent (Welton, 2018).
Wasperton grave 91 spearhead - photo and radiograph, from Starley (2006)
Cross-section of the g91 spear based on interpretation of metallography (Starley, 2006)
The spearhead of angular form with lozenge-shaped cross section and split socket, was assigned to Swanton’s Type H2 (Swanton, 1973), broadly dateable to the late 5th and 6th centuries (Carver et. al. 2009), though thought to have arrived in the Avon Valley during the early C6th. Mineralised wood remains in the socket were not among the sample identified to species, but spear-shaft remains from other graves at Wasperton were of hazel and ash (Carver et. al. 2009). Among the 24 spearheads from graves at Wasperton, 8 were subjected to metallographic analysis (Starley, 2006); among these, most were of what is described as “low quality” – forged of relatively soft iron, some having received heat-treatments and work-hardening but not incorporating carbon steel (nb. Many of these are of a size that would better be regarded as javelins; Welton, 2018).
The spearhead from G91, however, was one of only three to show signs of higher quality smithcraft, and one of only two to feature welded-on steel edges. These were not merely butt-welded on, however, but inserted into the iron core of the blade – a far more technical approach which would’ve increased the durability of the blade but also prolonged the presence of a steel edge even with repeated resharpening. This spearhead was thus identified as of construction type 2b in Welton’s typology (Welton, 2018). It was further observed (Starley, 2006) that these panels had, within them had variable alloys folded together, which would have given a watery appearance to the edge of the blade. Starley (2006) described this spearhead as of “good quality composite construction with high carbon edges inserted into the low carbon body” and which had been “originally quenched to give hard edges that would retain a sharp edge” but noted that, rather like a number of other spearheads at Wasperton, the temper of the blade appeared to have been deliberately undone through long-term heating / annealing prior to burial: a ‘ritual killing’ activity perhaps intended to render the grave-goods less usable by anyone who might later seek to rob them.
Assuming the spear had been placed into the grave intact (which is not always the case) it is likely to have been approximately 1.9m long.
The spearhead from G91, however, was one of only three to show signs of higher quality smithcraft, and one of only two to feature welded-on steel edges. These were not merely butt-welded on, however, but inserted into the iron core of the blade – a far more technical approach which would’ve increased the durability of the blade but also prolonged the presence of a steel edge even with repeated resharpening. This spearhead was thus identified as of construction type 2b in Welton’s typology (Welton, 2018). It was further observed (Starley, 2006) that these panels had, within them had variable alloys folded together, which would have given a watery appearance to the edge of the blade. Starley (2006) described this spearhead as of “good quality composite construction with high carbon edges inserted into the low carbon body” and which had been “originally quenched to give hard edges that would retain a sharp edge” but noted that, rather like a number of other spearheads at Wasperton, the temper of the blade appeared to have been deliberately undone through long-term heating / annealing prior to burial: a ‘ritual killing’ activity perhaps intended to render the grave-goods less usable by anyone who might later seek to rob them.
Assuming the spear had been placed into the grave intact (which is not always the case) it is likely to have been approximately 1.9m long.
Clothing
Frustratingly this grave yielded no dress items – not even a buckle at the waist onto which clothing had been preserved, though it is conceivable that a small iron or even organic buckle might have been present but entirely decayed in the very acidic soil conditions which had dissolved almost all of the skeletal remains. Mineralised remains of textile, however, were present on the back of the iron shield grip reinforcer which had lain on the head or possibly the upper chest (Carver et. al. 2009). This fabric was a relatively coarse 2/2 twill wool – entirely of Z spun yarns at a density of 8 threads per cm, in both the warp and weft directions; it was not well preserved enough to infer whether it was a patterned weave, nor its colour / whether it had been dyed. 2/2 twill wool is the quintessential fabric of early Anglo-Saxon burials (Walton-Rogers, 2007) – the classic product of the ‘Germanic’ warp-weighted loom, and similarly coarse twills have been identified on shields and spearheads from other weapon-bearing graves at Wasperton (Carver et. al. 2009). This combined with the textile’s relative coarseness, and the position of the remains over the head area, makes it overwhelmingly likely that these remains do not represent a tunic, but rather, a blanket or cloak that was likely spread over the body as a shroud prior to the placement of the shield and spear on top. It’s reasonable to infer that this textile is broadly representative of the kind of cloak which the deceased may have worn in life, and the practice for repurposing cloaks as grave-covers (rather than burying the dead wearing them) might partly explain the rarity of even rudimentary cloak fasteners – brooches or pins – in masculine-furnished burials (Walton-Rogers, 2007). Nevertheless, given the limited remains representing clothing or dress-items, reconstruction of the appearance of this individual (see below) must necessarily rely on drawing insights from remains from other similar burials from this cemetery, better-preserved items of clothing and iconography from adjacent periods and cultures (Owen-Crocker, 2004).
Frustratingly this grave yielded no dress items – not even a buckle at the waist onto which clothing had been preserved, though it is conceivable that a small iron or even organic buckle might have been present but entirely decayed in the very acidic soil conditions which had dissolved almost all of the skeletal remains. Mineralised remains of textile, however, were present on the back of the iron shield grip reinforcer which had lain on the head or possibly the upper chest (Carver et. al. 2009). This fabric was a relatively coarse 2/2 twill wool – entirely of Z spun yarns at a density of 8 threads per cm, in both the warp and weft directions; it was not well preserved enough to infer whether it was a patterned weave, nor its colour / whether it had been dyed. 2/2 twill wool is the quintessential fabric of early Anglo-Saxon burials (Walton-Rogers, 2007) – the classic product of the ‘Germanic’ warp-weighted loom, and similarly coarse twills have been identified on shields and spearheads from other weapon-bearing graves at Wasperton (Carver et. al. 2009). This combined with the textile’s relative coarseness, and the position of the remains over the head area, makes it overwhelmingly likely that these remains do not represent a tunic, but rather, a blanket or cloak that was likely spread over the body as a shroud prior to the placement of the shield and spear on top. It’s reasonable to infer that this textile is broadly representative of the kind of cloak which the deceased may have worn in life, and the practice for repurposing cloaks as grave-covers (rather than burying the dead wearing them) might partly explain the rarity of even rudimentary cloak fasteners – brooches or pins – in masculine-furnished burials (Walton-Rogers, 2007). Nevertheless, given the limited remains representing clothing or dress-items, reconstruction of the appearance of this individual (see below) must necessarily rely on drawing insights from remains from other similar burials from this cemetery, better-preserved items of clothing and iconography from adjacent periods and cultures (Owen-Crocker, 2004).
Interpretation
It has been noted (Welton, 2018) that stratigraphy can provide important clues concerning burial sequence and significantly adjust our understanding of the rites, meaning or significance of particular grave goods – detail generally lost when graves are reduced to a list of grave-goods / a ‘burial assemblage’. In the case of Wasperton g91 the section-drawing shows that the spearhead was found slightly higher in the grave than the other finds and in a sloping orientation with its tip closer to the surface than its socket, having been at least partly propped up by the top edge of the grave-cut. Given the close proximity of the shield boss, slightly deeper in the grave, it is therefore very likely that the spear must have been placed in the grave after the shield, with the spear shaft overlapping the shield board, which in turn covered the head of the body. The spear thus appears to have been the last item to have been added to the grave. We can likewise infer based on the presence of the 2/2 twill fabric on the back of the shield, that this grave-cover was spread over the body prior to the shield being placed in the grave.
Together, then, we’re able to reconstruct a very basic sequence of events for this burial;
Considering that, as already discussed, there are likely to have been 33-44 men among the Anglo-Saxon inhumations, the 34 graves containing evidence of shields or spears represents a remarkably high proportion. Notwithstanding the tautology of identifying gender through grave-goods (primarily shields and spears) then commenting on it, a majority of these graves contain at least one item of putative ‘military gear’, while approximately half of masculine-furnished burials contained both a shield and a spear. This is all the more remarkable considering the near complete absence of grave goods which might be regarded as hallmarks of membership of a warrior elite, such as swords, elaborate shield decoration, or feasting gear. Indeed, the most impressive items among these burials (save for the shields and spearheads themselves) are two bronze-bound buckets, from G51 & G161; both of these graves had spears but no shield.
It is important to add the caveat that we do not know why particular items were included in burials; precise practices, the layers of meaning placed upon them, and how tightly they were clung to or prioritised above worldly concerns likely varied between communities and certainly varied over time. Nevertheless, it is clear that, like many rural communities represented by early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, the folk buried at Wasperton from the late 5th until the start of the 7th centuries engaged in a broadly shared but narrowly defined – even egalitarian- form of the weapon burial rite, perhaps expressing the deceased’s cultural affiliation, heritage and/or masculine identity, but using a quite limited array of grave-goods. No particular male burial assemblage stands out among the others.
It has been noted (Welton, 2018) that stratigraphy can provide important clues concerning burial sequence and significantly adjust our understanding of the rites, meaning or significance of particular grave goods – detail generally lost when graves are reduced to a list of grave-goods / a ‘burial assemblage’. In the case of Wasperton g91 the section-drawing shows that the spearhead was found slightly higher in the grave than the other finds and in a sloping orientation with its tip closer to the surface than its socket, having been at least partly propped up by the top edge of the grave-cut. Given the close proximity of the shield boss, slightly deeper in the grave, it is therefore very likely that the spear must have been placed in the grave after the shield, with the spear shaft overlapping the shield board, which in turn covered the head of the body. The spear thus appears to have been the last item to have been added to the grave. We can likewise infer based on the presence of the 2/2 twill fabric on the back of the shield, that this grave-cover was spread over the body prior to the shield being placed in the grave.
Together, then, we’re able to reconstruct a very basic sequence of events for this burial;
- First the grave was dug -2.2 x 0.98m, with steep sides, aligned north-south.
- The body was laid in the grave on its back, most probably dressed as in life, with a knife worn at the waist or else placed there following the laying-out of the body.
- A 2/2 twill wool fabric – possibly a repurposed cloak – was spread over the body hiding it from view.
- A shield was placed over the head area, on top of the fabric shroud.
- Finally, a spear was placed – alongside and in the same orientation as the body, partly overlapping the edge of the shield. The grave was then infilled.
Considering that, as already discussed, there are likely to have been 33-44 men among the Anglo-Saxon inhumations, the 34 graves containing evidence of shields or spears represents a remarkably high proportion. Notwithstanding the tautology of identifying gender through grave-goods (primarily shields and spears) then commenting on it, a majority of these graves contain at least one item of putative ‘military gear’, while approximately half of masculine-furnished burials contained both a shield and a spear. This is all the more remarkable considering the near complete absence of grave goods which might be regarded as hallmarks of membership of a warrior elite, such as swords, elaborate shield decoration, or feasting gear. Indeed, the most impressive items among these burials (save for the shields and spearheads themselves) are two bronze-bound buckets, from G51 & G161; both of these graves had spears but no shield.
It is important to add the caveat that we do not know why particular items were included in burials; precise practices, the layers of meaning placed upon them, and how tightly they were clung to or prioritised above worldly concerns likely varied between communities and certainly varied over time. Nevertheless, it is clear that, like many rural communities represented by early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, the folk buried at Wasperton from the late 5th until the start of the 7th centuries engaged in a broadly shared but narrowly defined – even egalitarian- form of the weapon burial rite, perhaps expressing the deceased’s cultural affiliation, heritage and/or masculine identity, but using a quite limited array of grave-goods. No particular male burial assemblage stands out among the others.
It could be argued that this aspect of the male burials at Wasperton is simply the result of it not being the custom of this community to practice lavish furnished burial for men, though more lavishly furnished male burials have occurred in nearby cemeteries, and the diversity of items in female burials combined with isotopic data suggests this community was highly integrated into the wider region and beyond. Alternatively, the lack of more elaborate male burials could indicate relative poverty of this community, though again this fits uncomfortably with the quality of the grave goods in female burials and their diverse origins. Instead, or relatedly, we might infer that the character of the male burial assemblages represents a somewhat flattened male social hierarchy, with the community primarily composed of farming free-men, with no trace of a supra-local elite. If a supra-local warrior elite did rule here, they appear to have been buried elsewhere.
Over all, then, it seems reasonable to interpret the individual buried in Grave 91 not as a member of an extraordinary supra-local warrior elite, but rather, an ordinary member of this local community, occupying a masculine role which (as symbolised by their burial with shield and spear) may have on rare occasion involved defending their family and/or community, but whose daily life was spent crafting, perhaps trading, but particularly, farming in this fertile Avon valley.
Over all, then, it seems reasonable to interpret the individual buried in Grave 91 not as a member of an extraordinary supra-local warrior elite, but rather, an ordinary member of this local community, occupying a masculine role which (as symbolised by their burial with shield and spear) may have on rare occasion involved defending their family and/or community, but whose daily life was spent crafting, perhaps trading, but particularly, farming in this fertile Avon valley.
The Reconstruction
Clothing
Poor survival of textiles in Anglo-Saxon graves combined with the scarcity of metal dress items (on which mineralised textile remains can be preserved) mean that it is all but impossible to reconstruct male dress based only on clues from a single grave, without reference to a wider pool of textile remains from Anglo-Saxon graves (Walton-Rogers, 2007), to iconography (Owen-Crocker, 2004) and to better-preserved whole garments from adjacent periods and cultures which can inform our understanding particularly of garment form and construction. Dress for early Anglo-Saxon men is broadly understood to follow the blueprint of ‘Germanic’ costume from late antiquity to the Viking Age, with one or more layered, sleeved tunics (most famously represented by the C4th Thorsberg tunic) belted at the waist, worn over a pair of tight-fitting trousers (most famously represented by the 3-4th century pairs from Thorsberg and Dammendorf). This costume is broadly consistent with depictions of late antiquity ‘Germanic’ military dress, most famously represented by the early 5th century Stilicho Diptych. Where multiple layers of fabric traces are found on the backs of buckles from early Anglo-Saxon mens burials these tend to be interpreted as representative of layered tunics and/or the upper part of a pair of trousers (Walton-Rogers, 2007) approximately resembling the late Iron Age garments from Thorsberg, and it has been common practice to equip depictions of early Anglo-Saxon men with generic interpretations of the clothing from Thorsberg – sans many of their particular idiosyncrasies.
Taking an alternative approach, Marc chose to instead base part of this costume on the glacier-preserved tunic from Lendbreen Pass, Norway discovered in 2011 (Vedeler & Jorgensen, 2013). Radiocarbon-dated to 290-390 CE, this tunic shares many features with the tunic from Thorsberg – including a boat-neckline and construction from separate front and back body panels, and sleeves, but features somewhat more sophisticated tailoring, with inset-sleeves (previously thought to be a much later innovation!) giving a more flattering fit on the shoulders, and wholly sewn-up side seams, which nevertheless had sufficient room in the skirt thanks to the body panels having been cut wider at the base than at the top (Vedeler & Hamarlund, 2017).
Poor survival of textiles in Anglo-Saxon graves combined with the scarcity of metal dress items (on which mineralised textile remains can be preserved) mean that it is all but impossible to reconstruct male dress based only on clues from a single grave, without reference to a wider pool of textile remains from Anglo-Saxon graves (Walton-Rogers, 2007), to iconography (Owen-Crocker, 2004) and to better-preserved whole garments from adjacent periods and cultures which can inform our understanding particularly of garment form and construction. Dress for early Anglo-Saxon men is broadly understood to follow the blueprint of ‘Germanic’ costume from late antiquity to the Viking Age, with one or more layered, sleeved tunics (most famously represented by the C4th Thorsberg tunic) belted at the waist, worn over a pair of tight-fitting trousers (most famously represented by the 3-4th century pairs from Thorsberg and Dammendorf). This costume is broadly consistent with depictions of late antiquity ‘Germanic’ military dress, most famously represented by the early 5th century Stilicho Diptych. Where multiple layers of fabric traces are found on the backs of buckles from early Anglo-Saxon mens burials these tend to be interpreted as representative of layered tunics and/or the upper part of a pair of trousers (Walton-Rogers, 2007) approximately resembling the late Iron Age garments from Thorsberg, and it has been common practice to equip depictions of early Anglo-Saxon men with generic interpretations of the clothing from Thorsberg – sans many of their particular idiosyncrasies.
Taking an alternative approach, Marc chose to instead base part of this costume on the glacier-preserved tunic from Lendbreen Pass, Norway discovered in 2011 (Vedeler & Jorgensen, 2013). Radiocarbon-dated to 290-390 CE, this tunic shares many features with the tunic from Thorsberg – including a boat-neckline and construction from separate front and back body panels, and sleeves, but features somewhat more sophisticated tailoring, with inset-sleeves (previously thought to be a much later innovation!) giving a more flattering fit on the shoulders, and wholly sewn-up side seams, which nevertheless had sufficient room in the skirt thanks to the body panels having been cut wider at the base than at the top (Vedeler & Hamarlund, 2017).
Marc Smith wearing his tunic based on the garment from Lendbreen, Norway, by Caleb Burch / Project Broadaxe.
Like the Thorsberg tunic (and like textile remains from Wasperton; Carver et. al. 2009) the garment from Lendbreen had been made of 2/2 twill wool – specifically diamond-twill (also represented at Wasperton), and, importantly, the fabric of the sleeves contrasted with the body both in quality and colour (Vedeler & Hamarlund, 2017). This find establishes an important, clear precedent for garments in Migration-Age northern Europe to feature deliberately contrasting fabrics; a possibility which had only previously tentatively been suggested by the bizarre patchwork garment from Bernuthsfeld.
Marc’s tunic in the style of the example from Lendbreen was produced by expert historic costumier Caleb Burch / Project Broadaxe, featuring a body of naturally grey undyed plainweave wool, with contrasting sleeves of diamond contrast-twill wool featuring sleeves dyed with bedstraw – a plant dye which, although capable of producing yellows, reds and oranges less effectively / efficiently than madder, is better represented among textiles from 6th century graves (Walton-Rogers, 2007). Marc’s tunic is worn over a pair of tight-fitting trousers again of undyed stone-colour plain-weave wool.
The fabrics here were chosen to be representative of textiles typical from 5-6th century burials from cemeteries including Wasperton, where tabby and 2/2 twill were standard and diamond-patterned 2/2 twill was common (Walton Rogers, 2007), sometimes fine, sometimes course, but mostly medium weight. Dyes have been mostly detected in small items such as head-coverings, bags and tablet-woven bands and natural fleece colours, brown, black and grey, were often used in full-size cloths (Walton-Rogers, 2018).
On one of the coarser diamond twills from Wasperton grave 43 (indicated as goat hair), dense pigmentation was present in some of the fibres, indicating that the coat was originally black-and-white, although when mixed in the textile, the general impression would have been grey. It may be compared with a twill cloak made from naturally pigmented wool, grey or brown, in grave 13 at Bidford-on-Avon. (Crowfoot & Rogers, in Carver et. al. 2009).
Taking some clues from this, and representing the coarse 2/2 twill wool fabric which had been used as a grave-cover and may well have been a repurposed cloak, Marc’s cloak is of coarse 2/2 diamond twill, woven with contrasting undyed but naturally pigmented yarns, based on better-preserved remains of the similarly 2/2 ZZ twill textile from Wasperton g43. Early Anglo-Saxon cloaks are believed to have typically been rectangular bolts of fabric ‘straight from the warp-weighted loom’ with natural selvedges, and warp-ends either hemmed or, as shown, tied into tassels or a short fringe, worn by men folded and affixed on one shoulder leaving the dominant-arm free. Direct evidence on which to base the size of early Anglo-Saxon cloaks is, however, lacking. Marc based the size of his cloak on the partially preserved examples from Vehnemoor and Thorsberg, North Germany, both of which are tentatively dated to the Roman Iron Age, estimated to have originally been 175 by 285cm, and 168 by 236cm respectively (Owen-Crocker, 2004). Like those examples, Marc's (between the two, at 162 by 242cm) is longer than any body and thus must have been worn folded in two, providing a double layer for extra warmth.
As brooches tend not to be found in male Anglo-Saxon graves it is unclear how these cloaks were fixed; the late Roman Stilicho diptych shows a crossbow-brooch which (based on occurrence in some Romano-British male graves) at least among Romanised peoples in the 5th century does not seem to have been subject to any gender taboo.
Nevertheless the ‘Germanic’ bow-brooch styles which descend from them are exclusive to feminine burials, and seemingly emblematic of feminine dress and status.
Marc’s tunic in the style of the example from Lendbreen was produced by expert historic costumier Caleb Burch / Project Broadaxe, featuring a body of naturally grey undyed plainweave wool, with contrasting sleeves of diamond contrast-twill wool featuring sleeves dyed with bedstraw – a plant dye which, although capable of producing yellows, reds and oranges less effectively / efficiently than madder, is better represented among textiles from 6th century graves (Walton-Rogers, 2007). Marc’s tunic is worn over a pair of tight-fitting trousers again of undyed stone-colour plain-weave wool.
The fabrics here were chosen to be representative of textiles typical from 5-6th century burials from cemeteries including Wasperton, where tabby and 2/2 twill were standard and diamond-patterned 2/2 twill was common (Walton Rogers, 2007), sometimes fine, sometimes course, but mostly medium weight. Dyes have been mostly detected in small items such as head-coverings, bags and tablet-woven bands and natural fleece colours, brown, black and grey, were often used in full-size cloths (Walton-Rogers, 2018).
On one of the coarser diamond twills from Wasperton grave 43 (indicated as goat hair), dense pigmentation was present in some of the fibres, indicating that the coat was originally black-and-white, although when mixed in the textile, the general impression would have been grey. It may be compared with a twill cloak made from naturally pigmented wool, grey or brown, in grave 13 at Bidford-on-Avon. (Crowfoot & Rogers, in Carver et. al. 2009).
Taking some clues from this, and representing the coarse 2/2 twill wool fabric which had been used as a grave-cover and may well have been a repurposed cloak, Marc’s cloak is of coarse 2/2 diamond twill, woven with contrasting undyed but naturally pigmented yarns, based on better-preserved remains of the similarly 2/2 ZZ twill textile from Wasperton g43. Early Anglo-Saxon cloaks are believed to have typically been rectangular bolts of fabric ‘straight from the warp-weighted loom’ with natural selvedges, and warp-ends either hemmed or, as shown, tied into tassels or a short fringe, worn by men folded and affixed on one shoulder leaving the dominant-arm free. Direct evidence on which to base the size of early Anglo-Saxon cloaks is, however, lacking. Marc based the size of his cloak on the partially preserved examples from Vehnemoor and Thorsberg, North Germany, both of which are tentatively dated to the Roman Iron Age, estimated to have originally been 175 by 285cm, and 168 by 236cm respectively (Owen-Crocker, 2004). Like those examples, Marc's (between the two, at 162 by 242cm) is longer than any body and thus must have been worn folded in two, providing a double layer for extra warmth.
As brooches tend not to be found in male Anglo-Saxon graves it is unclear how these cloaks were fixed; the late Roman Stilicho diptych shows a crossbow-brooch which (based on occurrence in some Romano-British male graves) at least among Romanised peoples in the 5th century does not seem to have been subject to any gender taboo.
Nevertheless the ‘Germanic’ bow-brooch styles which descend from them are exclusive to feminine burials, and seemingly emblematic of feminine dress and status.
6th century Anglo-Saxon impression (Marc Smith); cloak of diamond-pattern undyed 2/2 twill wool, fixed at the shoulder with pin & loop. Hat inspired by the 5-6th century cremation lid from Spong Hill.
The scarcity of brooches pinning cloaks of men in middle to late Anglo-Saxon depictions is, likewise, suggestive of a gender-taboo concerning brooches having become established: by the 10th century even kings are seen being depicted with their cloaks – by then more sophisticated in their construction – being fixed with simple ties (Owen-Crocker, 2004). There are a number of exceptional cases where brooches have been found in early Anglo-Saxon ‘mens’ burials, the interpretation of which requires lengthy discussion (article forthcoming) but as no such object was present in this burial, Marc has chosen to pin his cloak using a wholly organic method evoking the description of much earlier ‘Germanic’ people by Tacitus (1st century CE) securing cloaks using ‘thorns’; a large pin of well-polished ox-horn, in turn prevented from slipping out by a simple loop of cord.
Although no remains of a belt were found in this grave the occupant is likely to have worn one in life similar to those found in Wasperton’s other burials containing similar assemblages of finds, so Marc’s tunic is cinched with a belt of veg-tan leather (by Marc himself) with a simple iron buckle with folded attachment plate (by Jason Green / Wieland Forge) resembling the buckle from related burial Wasperton g71.
Evidence for headwear for early Anglo-Saxon men is scarce, but includes, tentatively, textile remains within the 6th century helmet from Shorwell, Isle of Wight (tentatively perhaps representing a hat used to pad the helmet), and the sculpted clay figure on the 5-6th century cremation urn lid from Spong Hill, appearing to show a form of 'pillbox hat' otherwise represented by early medieval textile remains from sites including Leens, Netherlands (600-900 CE) and Hedeby / Haithabu, German/Danish border (c780 CE). Marc has made his hat in this style from undyed plain-weave wool.
Knife
From Marc’s belt hangs a replica of the knife from grave 91 produced by Anglo-Saxon blade expert and historic smith Andrew J. Welton. This knife, of Evison type 1 / Blakelock type B shape is 11.1cm long (including the tang) and had an estimated blade length of 7.1-2cm (when corrected for loss due to corrosion). As the metallurgy of the knife from g91 is not known, the replica blade’s structure reflects that of Wasperton g6 (Blakelock type 2) with a carbon-steel edge butt-welded onto a (in this case recycled antique) folded, wrought iron back.
Although no remains of a belt were found in this grave the occupant is likely to have worn one in life similar to those found in Wasperton’s other burials containing similar assemblages of finds, so Marc’s tunic is cinched with a belt of veg-tan leather (by Marc himself) with a simple iron buckle with folded attachment plate (by Jason Green / Wieland Forge) resembling the buckle from related burial Wasperton g71.
Evidence for headwear for early Anglo-Saxon men is scarce, but includes, tentatively, textile remains within the 6th century helmet from Shorwell, Isle of Wight (tentatively perhaps representing a hat used to pad the helmet), and the sculpted clay figure on the 5-6th century cremation urn lid from Spong Hill, appearing to show a form of 'pillbox hat' otherwise represented by early medieval textile remains from sites including Leens, Netherlands (600-900 CE) and Hedeby / Haithabu, German/Danish border (c780 CE). Marc has made his hat in this style from undyed plain-weave wool.
Knife
From Marc’s belt hangs a replica of the knife from grave 91 produced by Anglo-Saxon blade expert and historic smith Andrew J. Welton. This knife, of Evison type 1 / Blakelock type B shape is 11.1cm long (including the tang) and had an estimated blade length of 7.1-2cm (when corrected for loss due to corrosion). As the metallurgy of the knife from g91 is not known, the replica blade’s structure reflects that of Wasperton g6 (Blakelock type 2) with a carbon-steel edge butt-welded onto a (in this case recycled antique) folded, wrought iron back.
Based on organic remains on similar knives from other knives in the cemetery it has been reconstructed with a grip of green horn. The sheath of the knife was made by Marc from 1mm veg-tan in a manner consistent with the remains of knife-sheaths from other graves at Wasperton, formed around the blade and the root of the handle, and secured along the blade edge by tensioned running-stitching (after 6th century knife sheaths from Snape and Broomfield; Cameron, 2000) using the technique described by Thompson (2021b; link), and decorated with some rudimentary surface tooling (again based on the sheaths from Broomfield and Snape; Cameron, 2000).
Shield
Marc began work on recreating the shield from Wasperton g91 in early 2023, with the goal of producing a practical and durable replica which would partially fill the niche (of a ‘classic’ 6th century shield) vacated by the retirement of the much loved but ill-fated replica of the shield from Bidford-on-Avon grave 33 (discussed here).
A replica of the type-3 boss was produced by Jason Green / Wieland Forge, together with five disc-headed rivets.
As this shield is intended for handling and durability its board has been produced using ply rather than the originals’ alder planked construction, and based on the available size data a diameter of 62cm was chosen, with a target thickness of 6mm (inclusive of all layers) identified from the free length of the boss rivets. Previous work by the Thegns has established that, despite its very different structure, birch plywood is of very similar density to the timber species known to have been used for early Anglo-Saxon shields, and so, if used at the appropriate thickness and properly worked, is a reasonable analogue for planked shields of evidenced timbers, at least in terms of weight / weight distribution, and therefore most handling characteristics.
A board of 4mm thickness was used, tapered on the front face down to 1-2mm at the edge, which, with the addition of skin-product layers and glue, would give a maximal thickness of around 6mm at the boss. The hand hole was also cut at this stage and sanded smooth.
Shield
Marc began work on recreating the shield from Wasperton g91 in early 2023, with the goal of producing a practical and durable replica which would partially fill the niche (of a ‘classic’ 6th century shield) vacated by the retirement of the much loved but ill-fated replica of the shield from Bidford-on-Avon grave 33 (discussed here).
A replica of the type-3 boss was produced by Jason Green / Wieland Forge, together with five disc-headed rivets.
As this shield is intended for handling and durability its board has been produced using ply rather than the originals’ alder planked construction, and based on the available size data a diameter of 62cm was chosen, with a target thickness of 6mm (inclusive of all layers) identified from the free length of the boss rivets. Previous work by the Thegns has established that, despite its very different structure, birch plywood is of very similar density to the timber species known to have been used for early Anglo-Saxon shields, and so, if used at the appropriate thickness and properly worked, is a reasonable analogue for planked shields of evidenced timbers, at least in terms of weight / weight distribution, and therefore most handling characteristics.
A board of 4mm thickness was used, tapered on the front face down to 1-2mm at the edge, which, with the addition of skin-product layers and glue, would give a maximal thickness of around 6mm at the boss. The hand hole was also cut at this stage and sanded smooth.
Lap joints were carved for the insertion of a wooden handle of type A1 which Marc carved from ash, in a manner resembling the extant examples from Nydam Mose. Holes for stitching were added around the thin board edge using a square-section awl. The 1a(i) iron grip reinforcer (Dickinson & Harke, 1992) based on remains from the grave was cut from 1mm steel sheet, filed to shape, and heat-blued to match the boss, then coated in hot beeswax to combat rusting.
Based on insights from Warming (2022)’s analysis of skin product from shields bookending our period which showed both tanned, and untanned hide was sometimes used, Marc chose to use 1-1.2mm veg-tan leather (dyed to approximate the colour of more tannin-rich medieval leathers). The grip was glued into place with hide-glue, followed by the leather, on both the front and back. The grip reinforcer was then riveted into place, and the front and back leathers stitched together around the hand-hole (hiding the edges of the board, here) in a manner identified from shields from the 6th century cemetery at Tranmer House (Bullock, 2011).
Based on insights from Warming (2022)’s analysis of skin product from shields bookending our period which showed both tanned, and untanned hide was sometimes used, Marc chose to use 1-1.2mm veg-tan leather (dyed to approximate the colour of more tannin-rich medieval leathers). The grip was glued into place with hide-glue, followed by the leather, on both the front and back. The grip reinforcer was then riveted into place, and the front and back leathers stitched together around the hand-hole (hiding the edges of the board, here) in a manner identified from shields from the 6th century cemetery at Tranmer House (Bullock, 2011).
To finish the rim Marc chose to use the approach previously on the ‘Princely Shield’ project, Thompson (2022) (link) whereby the back leather was folded round onto the front, trimmed just short of the rim holes, and then the front leather was folded over it and stitched onto the back, creating a flush and tidy but slightly ‘tyre-like’ rim to the shield formed of multiple layers of leather which might help to protect the stitching from being cut in combat, and which appears to match contemporary iconography.
The grip was wrapped by leather strip (a feature known from a large number of shield finds, Dickinson & Harke 1992), and the boss was fixed into place by peening of the five rivets onto square iron roves carefully positioned so as not to intersect with the grip reinforcer. The leather was treated with a suitably medieval polish; a blend of neatsfoot oil and natural beeswax producing a tough and relatively water-resistant finish. Replicas of the shield’s two iron disc fittings were cut from sheet by Marc. These were soldered to iron rivets and fixed to the board, completing the shield.
The grip was wrapped by leather strip (a feature known from a large number of shield finds, Dickinson & Harke 1992), and the boss was fixed into place by peening of the five rivets onto square iron roves carefully positioned so as not to intersect with the grip reinforcer. The leather was treated with a suitably medieval polish; a blend of neatsfoot oil and natural beeswax producing a tough and relatively water-resistant finish. Replicas of the shield’s two iron disc fittings were cut from sheet by Marc. These were soldered to iron rivets and fixed to the board, completing the shield.
The result is a faithful representation of a typical early-to-mid 6th century shield, 62cm diameter, no more than 6mm thick, and weighing approximately 2.1kg. A replica of the spear from Wasperton g91 is forthcoming.
Like the impression from the previous chapter, the image presented here represents just one individual who died and was buried a little over 1500 years ago, in this long-used ‘Anglo-British’ community cemetery in the Warwickshire Avon valley, in the heart of lowland Britain, at an intersection between different cultural groups and influences and during a time of great change. We cannot know their life or family history, but the manner they were buried is broadly consistent with Anglo-Saxon funerary practise. Their grave-goods (unlike those of neighbouring feminine burials) were not especially locally distinctive, and in reconstructing their appearance we necessarily relied on broad principles and some quite distant precedents, thus producing an image which, based on the available evidence, could easily represent countless folk of similar status across lowland Britain who lived during this time.
Rather than membership of a privileged professional warrior elite, this individual was most likely an ordinary freeman of the Avon Valley community chain, employed primarily in subsistence farming, yet in death was buried with a set of items which appear to be emblematic of their role, alongside others, as a protector of their community. The decline of such burials in the decades that followed -- even before the Conversion period and the terminal decline of the furnished burial rite – perhaps provides a glimpse of the political changes underway at that time, as disparate local communities responsible for their own protection were increasingly subsumed by emerging kingdoms.
Rather than membership of a privileged professional warrior elite, this individual was most likely an ordinary freeman of the Avon Valley community chain, employed primarily in subsistence farming, yet in death was buried with a set of items which appear to be emblematic of their role, alongside others, as a protector of their community. The decline of such burials in the decades that followed -- even before the Conversion period and the terminal decline of the furnished burial rite – perhaps provides a glimpse of the political changes underway at that time, as disparate local communities responsible for their own protection were increasingly subsumed by emerging kingdoms.
Presenting costume reconstructions of two 6th century individuals based on furnished burial evidence from the well excavated and studied cemetery at Wasperton, we’ve explored how the items in these burials can provide fascinating insights into matters of identity, trade and funerary practice; through practical reconstruction, we have delved into material culture and technical aspects of Anglo-Saxon craftsmanship, and have also shown how different types of burials bring different challenges for faithful reconstruction.
These projects have benefitted from the opportunities provided by the painstaking excavation and detailed analysis of the Wasperton cemetery detailed in Carver et. al. (2009). Wasperton is far from the only substantial cemetery in this region to have been excavated, containing burials which might allow us to figuratively come face-to-face with our distant predecessors, but unfortunately, it is one of a tiny minority to have been properly studied and reported. Many others were excavated prior to the advent of modern archaeology, others simply having never been written up, and all suffer from regional inequities concerning the effort of scholarship with regard to this period. Staggeringly few of the incredible early medieval archaeological finds from this zone – which if discovered today would be regarded as of international importance – have found their way to display in museums in the region, reinforcing the widely held but false perception even among specialists that the early medieval West Midlands is archaeologically poor. The institutional “neglect” of this region’s early medieval archaeology is greatly to the detriment of narratives concerning this critical period of history; of our understanding of the development of England, which is instead dominated by more simplistic narratives rooted in the history and archaeology of the east coast (Tompkins, 2017).
We began this series by exploring one case-study cemetery where the flawed record-keeping of an excavation over a century ago, and piecemeal curation of their finds has severely challenged efforts to make sense of the archaeology in this region, and to bring it the attention it deserves. In the final part of this series, we will return to the enigmatic ‘productive site’ of Bidford-on-Avon with its spectacular finds, mostly scattered and forgotten, and, revealing replicas of finds never before put on public display, finally present the results of a multi-year effort to reconstruct and present an image of the enigmatic occupant of Bidford-on-Avon g88.
We began this series by exploring one case-study cemetery where the flawed record-keeping of an excavation over a century ago, and piecemeal curation of their finds has severely challenged efforts to make sense of the archaeology in this region, and to bring it the attention it deserves. In the final part of this series, we will return to the enigmatic ‘productive site’ of Bidford-on-Avon with its spectacular finds, mostly scattered and forgotten, and, revealing replicas of finds never before put on public display, finally present the results of a multi-year effort to reconstruct and present an image of the enigmatic occupant of Bidford-on-Avon g88.
References
Bayliss, A., Hines, J., Nielsen, K.H., McCormac, G. and Scull, C., 2013. Anglo-Saxon graves and grave goods of the 6th and 7th centuries AD: a chronological framework. London: Society for Medieval Archaeology.
Bullock, H., Baldwin, A. and Hood, J., 2011. Evidence for shield construction from the early Anglo-Saxon cemetery site of Tranmer House, Bromeswell, Suffolk. British Museum technical research bulletin, 5, pp.p-15.
Cameron, E.A., 2000. Sheaths and scabbards in England AD400-1100. BAR Publishing.
Carver, M., Hills, C. and Scheschkewitz, J., 2009. Wasperton: a Roman, British and Anglo-Saxon community in central England.
Dickinson, T.M. and Härke, H., 1992. Early Anglo-Saxon Shields (Vol. 110). London: Society of Antiquaries of London.
Leahy, K., 2011. Anglo-Saxon Crafts. The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology, pp.440-59.
Owen-Crocker, G.R., 2004. Dress in Anglo-Saxon England. Boydell Press.
Starley, D., 2006. The Metallurgical Examination of Ferrous Grave Goods from Wasperton Anglo-Saxon Cemetery MN80-85'. Royal Armouries Technological Report, 1.
Swanton, M. J. 1973. The spearheads of the Anglo-Saxon settlements. London: Royal Archaeological Institute.
Holst, Sandie, and Poul Otto Nielsen. Excavating Nydam-Archaeology, Palaeoecology and Preservation: The National Museum's Research Project 1989-99. Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 2020.
Tompkins, A., 2017. The Avon Valley in the fifth to mid-seventh centuries: contacts and coalescence in a frontier polity? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford).
Thompson, A. 2021(a). Shields: How small is too small? Thegns of Mercia [Online] [www.thegns.org/blog/shieldsizes] Accessed 03/04/2024.
Thompson, A. 2021(b). 'Shoddy' Sheaths; Rethinking some early medieval leatherwork. Thegns of Mercia [Online] [www.thegns.org/blog/shoddy-knife-sheaths] Accessed 03/04/2024.
Thompson, A. 2022. Shield of an Anglo-Saxon Prince, Part 2 Thegns of Mercia [Online] [www.thegns.org/blog/princely-shields-part-2] Accessed 03/04/2024.
Walton-Rogers, P., 2007. Cloth and clothing in early Anglo-Saxon England, AD 450-700.
Walton-Rogers, P., 2018. From Farm to Town: The Changing Pattern of Textile Production in Anglo-Saxon England. Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae, 31, pp.103-114.
Warming, R. F., et al. (2022) "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.
Welton, A.J., 2018. The spear in early Anglo-Saxon England: a social-technological history (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida).
Vedeler, M. and Hammarlund, L., 2017. Reconstructing the tunic from Lendbreen in Norway. Archaeological textiles review, 59, pp.24-33.
Vedeler, M. and Jørgensen, L.B., 2013. Out of the Norwegian glaciers: Lendbreen—a tunic from the early first millennium AD. Antiquity, 87(337), pp.788-801.
Bayliss, A., Hines, J., Nielsen, K.H., McCormac, G. and Scull, C., 2013. Anglo-Saxon graves and grave goods of the 6th and 7th centuries AD: a chronological framework. London: Society for Medieval Archaeology.
Bullock, H., Baldwin, A. and Hood, J., 2011. Evidence for shield construction from the early Anglo-Saxon cemetery site of Tranmer House, Bromeswell, Suffolk. British Museum technical research bulletin, 5, pp.p-15.
Cameron, E.A., 2000. Sheaths and scabbards in England AD400-1100. BAR Publishing.
Carver, M., Hills, C. and Scheschkewitz, J., 2009. Wasperton: a Roman, British and Anglo-Saxon community in central England.
Dickinson, T.M. and Härke, H., 1992. Early Anglo-Saxon Shields (Vol. 110). London: Society of Antiquaries of London.
Leahy, K., 2011. Anglo-Saxon Crafts. The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology, pp.440-59.
Owen-Crocker, G.R., 2004. Dress in Anglo-Saxon England. Boydell Press.
Starley, D., 2006. The Metallurgical Examination of Ferrous Grave Goods from Wasperton Anglo-Saxon Cemetery MN80-85'. Royal Armouries Technological Report, 1.
Swanton, M. J. 1973. The spearheads of the Anglo-Saxon settlements. London: Royal Archaeological Institute.
Holst, Sandie, and Poul Otto Nielsen. Excavating Nydam-Archaeology, Palaeoecology and Preservation: The National Museum's Research Project 1989-99. Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 2020.
Tompkins, A., 2017. The Avon Valley in the fifth to mid-seventh centuries: contacts and coalescence in a frontier polity? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford).
Thompson, A. 2021(a). Shields: How small is too small? Thegns of Mercia [Online] [www.thegns.org/blog/shieldsizes] Accessed 03/04/2024.
Thompson, A. 2021(b). 'Shoddy' Sheaths; Rethinking some early medieval leatherwork. Thegns of Mercia [Online] [www.thegns.org/blog/shoddy-knife-sheaths] Accessed 03/04/2024.
Thompson, A. 2022. Shield of an Anglo-Saxon Prince, Part 2 Thegns of Mercia [Online] [www.thegns.org/blog/princely-shields-part-2] Accessed 03/04/2024.
Walton-Rogers, P., 2007. Cloth and clothing in early Anglo-Saxon England, AD 450-700.
Walton-Rogers, P., 2018. From Farm to Town: The Changing Pattern of Textile Production in Anglo-Saxon England. Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae, 31, pp.103-114.
Warming, R. F., et al. (2022) "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.
Welton, A.J., 2018. The spear in early Anglo-Saxon England: a social-technological history (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida).
Vedeler, M. and Hammarlund, L., 2017. Reconstructing the tunic from Lendbreen in Norway. Archaeological textiles review, 59, pp.24-33.
Vedeler, M. and Jørgensen, L.B., 2013. Out of the Norwegian glaciers: Lendbreen—a tunic from the early first millennium AD. Antiquity, 87(337), pp.788-801.
RSS Feed
