![]() ![]() The timber of native UK willow species all share relatively similar properties the most likely candidate species for the willow represented by trace remains on shield fittings from early Anglo-Saxon graves are the often massive-growing white willow ( Salix alba), with less likely candidates being the (smaller) goat willow ( Salix caprea) or crack willow ( Salix euxina and hybrid 'common crack willow' Salix x fragilis). Anglo-Saxon shield-makers would certainly have had an intuitive understanding of the properties of woods available to them, and certainly would have had a sense that among all available woods, willow had perhaps the best combination of toughness, springiness, and lightness, while also being relatively easy to cleave into narrow planks. Despite this lower density, it has impressive toughness (following closely behind birch, ash and oak) and moderate split-resistance exceeding that of oak and alder. 75% of the density of maple, and 65% of the density of birch, ash or oak (Dickinson & Harke, 1992). It is the lowest-density of shield woods from early Anglo-Saxon graves (approx. Thanks to data from Dickinson and Harke (1992) we had known for some time that willow (or black poplar, which is archaeologically indistinguishable, though structurally inferior) was the most common wood used for shields from early Anglo-Saxon graves, accounting for around 1/3 of wood traces associated with shield fittings. The result would provide a theoretical minimum weight for an early Anglo-Saxon shield of practical size, and represent our tenth and most ‘authentic’ shield reproduction to date. In 2021 we undertook a project to reconstruct such a shield – to explore precisely how light such a shield could be for a given diameter, and to explore methods consistent with archaeological clues which might have been employed to embellish such shields, commensurate with the status of their owners, without compromising their performance. We have therefore argued that the princely shields represent a class of very carefully made, high-performance versions of the standard Anglo-Saxon shield, with weight-reduction prioritised over ostentation. This is the lightest combination of fittings possible, among those evidenced from early Anglo-Saxon graves. In a number of these cases the boards were also made of ultra-light-weight willow. In the previous chapter (link) we revealed that (in contrast to the wide variability of shields from contemporary graves) the late 6th century princely burial shields were all practically identical, with suites of four simple disc mounts on the board, simple 1a(i) iron grip reinforcers, and innovative SB-4b / Dickinson’s Type 6 shield bosses – the smallest and lightest of all Anglo-Saxon bosses. Curiously the shields from the other treasure-filled princely burials – Taplow, Broomfield, Prittlewell, Sutton Hoo Mound 17 and others appear especially so, not befitting the status of these burials, with little in the way of decorative fittings, and very minimal, unusually simplified bosses. These replaced in the 14th century by smaller heater shields, such as bouches and pavises, and eventually abandoned in battle, favoring mobility and two-handed weapons.Aside from the magnificently decorated, heavy shield from Sutton Hoo Mound 1, remains of early Anglo-Saxon shields suggest they were typically relatively plain. ![]() The Normans introduced the kite shield around the 10th century, giving protection to the user’s legs. In the early European Middle Ages, round shields made with light wood and reinforced with leather were designed for intercepting incoming blows to deflect them. The heavily armored Roman legionaries used large shields to create a tortoise-like formation, great for protection against missiles but not ideas for swift movement. On the other hand, the Ancient Greek hoplites used a round, bowl-shaped wooden shield that was reinforced with bronze. The Mycenaean Greeks, for example, used two types of shields: the “ figure-of-eight” shield and a rectangular “ tower” shield. Lightly armored warriors would generally carry light shields, either small or thin, while heavy troops might rely on robust shields that covered most of the body. Historically, sizes and weights have varied greatly. Shields were used from prehistory to protect against attacks by swords, axes and maces, sling-stones, or arrows.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |