By Tarrach Alfson

The armor often found in rich 7^th century graves usually includes a helmet, shield, and various components of body armor including (but not limited to) mail and splinted leg and arm armor. These artifacts can be supplemented by artistic representations of armor from the 7^th century which provide evidence for less stable armor components made from cloth or leather. Finally, the placement of buckles and strap ends can provide additional evidence for armor construction and wear.

Helmets: The most common design for helmets in the 7^th century was based on a close fitting skullcap of spangen type construction (Figure 1) and are undoubtedly descendants based on earlier Roman designs. Such helmets were formed by constructing a framework of bands; one that encircled the head just above the eyes, one that crossed over the top of the head from front to back, and one that crossed over the head from side to side. Such a design leaves four large openings of nearly equal size. However, there are several examples of framework consisting of three bands crossing over the top of the head leaving six openings of nearly equal size. It should be noted that one such six banded helmet was quite small and is thought to have belonged to a child. In another example, the skullcap of the helm was formed from a single sheet of iron with no bands at all (Bruce-Mitford, 1978). Finally, on the Ulltuna helm, the skullcap is formed entirely of latticework (Figure 1).

The gaps between the banded framework were covered in a variety of methods. For the previously mentioned three banded child’s helmet, sheets of horn were riveted to the framework to fill the gaps (MacGregor, 1985) (Figure 2). On several Scandinavian helms from Valsgard and Vendel the openings were covered using a latticework of iron bands (Figure 1) (Arwidsson, 1942; Arwidsson, 1954; Tweddle, 1992). Although no evidence of fabric or leather remains in these examples, it is obvious that a brightly colored helmet lining visible through the gaps in the lattice would have had rich and beautiful results. Solid plates appear to have been used to cover the gaps on the helm from Coppergate (Tweddle, 1992). On at least one of the helms from Valsgard, two separate plates were used to cover the gap (Figure 1).

Additional protection of the face and neck was provided by plates, bars or mail suspended from the skullcap. On most of the helms from Valsgard and Vendel, an additional plate was riveted to the front of the helmet such that it protected the upper cheeks nose and eyes. Eyeholes cut in this plate give the helmet a "goggles" like appearance (Figure 1) and such are often referred to as eyeglass or eye goggle helms. In the case of the helm from Sutton Hoo, this plate was extended to cover the whole face. A more open, but full face plate was present on the helm from Uppland Sweden (Tweddle, 1992). The Coppergate and Pioneer helm only have a nasal for protecting the face. It is of interest to note that both these are the only good examples of early true Anglo-Saxon helms (although fragments of the Benty Grange helm appear similar). To protect the sides of the face, cheek plates suspended from hinges were present on the helm from Sutton Hoo, Coppergate, and the "Pioneer helm" (Figure 3). The back of the neck was protected by metal slats hung off the back of the helm from Uppland and a full Romanesque flanged plate was riveted to the back of the Sutton Hoo helm (Bruce-Mitford, 1978). On several helms including the helm from Valsgard 7 and 8, and the helm from Coppergate, mail was hung around some or all of the metal plates. The mail was suspended on a wire fed through a notched bronze tube in the case of the Coppergate helm (Figure 4). On most of the Vendel and Valsgard helms, the mail was suspended by linking them through holes punched along the rim of the skullcap and goggles) (Arwidsson, 1942; Arwidsson, 1954). The mail in all examples were either welded or riveted (or a combination of both) (Figure 5). The rivets for the mail were almost always of bronze. For a good discussion of techniques for early production of welded and riveted links, see Tweddle, 1992.

Most of the helms found had some form of crest. In the case of the Scandinavian helms, a hollow bronze zoomorphic crest (often with heads at both ends) that started at the back of the skullcap and extended down over the nose was common (Arwidsson, 1942; Arwidsson, 1954; Bruce-Mitford, 1978). In the case of the Sutton Hoo helm, the crest was made of iron and decorated with inlaid silver wire (Bruce-Mitford, 1978). Most of the other Anglo-Saxon helms had a bronze or iron boar mounted on the top of the helm. Most helms were also decorated with large bronze eyebrows and bronze decorations that ran down to the end of the nasal or goggles. In the case of the Coppergate helm, there were bronze bands that decorated the skullcap which had runic inscriptions that read "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, (and) God; and to (or with) all we say Amen. Oshere" (Oshere is a well-documented Old-English name) (Tweedle, 1992). Gold and garnet cloisonné work also decorated the eyebrows of the Sutton Hoo and several of the other Scandinavian helms (see figure JM). It is also of interest to note that the zoomorphic terminals on the eyebrows of the Sutton Hoo helm were made of brass (30% zinc 70% copper) rather than the more common bronze (10% tin 90% copper) (Bruce-Mitford, 1978).

Figure 1. Reproductions and restorations of various 6 – 7^th century helms: A) Roman Cavalry Helm (6^th century German); B) Helm from Vendel 14 (7^th century Swedish); C) Pioneer Helm (7^th century Anglo-Saxon); D) Ulltuna helm (7^th century Swedish); E) Sutton Hoo Helm (7^th century Anglo-Saxon); F) Coppergate Helm (7^th Century Anglo-Saxon); G) Lombard Helm (7^th century Anglo-Saxon); H) Frankish Prince’s Helm (6^th century France); I) Uppland Helm (7^th century Swedish); J) Valsgard 6 Helm (7^th century Swedish); K) Ostrogoth Helm (7^th century Italian); L) Valsgard 5 Helm (7^th century Swedish); M) Valsgard 7 Helm (7^th century Swedish); N) Valsgard 8 Helm (7^th century Swedish); O) Vendel I (7^th century Swedish); P) The Benty Grange Helm (7^th century Anglo-Saxon)

Figure 2. Line drawings of four 7^th century helms showing construction and methods of covering "quarter panels". A) Valsgard 5helm; B) Valsgard 6 helm; C) Valsgard 8 helm; D) Ulltuna helm (Drawings from Tweedle, 1992)

Figure 3. Close up of hinges on Coppergate helm. (Tweedle, 1992).

Figure 4. Various methods used to attach mail to the Copppergate helm. (Tweedle, 1992)

Figure 5. Close up of the mail from Coppergate helm showing riveted and welded links. (Tweedle, 1992)

Shields: Unless specifically referenced, all of the information on shields comes from an excellent review by Dickinson T. and Harke H. (1992). Nearly all graves with either spear or sword also contain a shield. Shields were almost always round with a central boss. However, there are limited examples of oval shaped shields. The shield size range from 12 inches up to 40 inches in diameter. However, the bulk of them were between 20-3 0 inches in diameter. Shields were almost always constructed of a single layer of planks (no plywood). Planks were oriented so that the handle was perpendicular to the grain. The thickness of the planks usually ranged from 6-8mm and tapering of the shield to the edge appears rare. Despite a number of references to linden (lime) wood shields, the most common woods for shield construction were alder and willow, however there are examples of shields made from poplar, maple, birch, ash, oak (very rare), and linden (linden is the same as lime and basswood). I do not know if American basswood has similar qualities but it is the same genus and they are apparently difficult to distinguish from one another. Most shields were flat. However, some of the very nice examples such as the shield from Sutton Hoo have a convex surface (Bruce-Mitford, 1978). A hole is often found cut in the central plank over which the boss is mounted. On the best shields, the handle is formed by two D shaped cuts that form the central hole. Thus, on these shields, the handle is actually part of the central plank and is not a separate piece (Figure 6).

Shields were usually faced with vegetable tanned leather of a thickness between 2-4mm (Figure 7). In all of the examples examined (only three that I know of), there is no evidence of dyes or paints on the leather. I do not know if the leather was glued into place or not. However, with the existence of shields without metal rims or other decorations to hold the leather in place,

it seems likely that it was. Since the planks used to construct the shield were not plied and that the decorative shield mounts were often not placed in such a way as to add to the structural integrity of the shield, I suspect that the main function of the leather was to hold the planks together.

The central boss of 7^th century shields was more dome shaped than the typically conical bosses of the 6^th century and earlier (Figure 8). These domed bosses could be quite tall with extremes being referred to as "sugar loaf’ shield bosses (Evison, 1963). The bosses mostly

appear to have been constructed in two parts. A domed top was almost always welded to a flanged base, however there are examples of bosses that appear to lack this weld line and thus may have been raised from a single piece of metal. Often a decorative button was fixed to the top of the dome. In most cases, the shield boss was attached to the shield by 5 or more rivets (4 rivet attachments are known but rare). The rivets were often covered with decorative domed bosses and gilding and inlay work on bosses was common in the richer grave finds (Figure 9).

Figure 10a. Graphic representation of shield decorations from various 7^th century shields. (Bruce-Mitford, 1978)

Other shield decorations included simple geometric bronze (often gilded or tinned) plaques with repose and stamped decorations (Figure l0a). In some very rich graves such as that at Sutton Hoo, some of the shield mounts were decorated with gold and garnet cloisonné as well (Bruce-Mitford, 1978) (Figure l0b). Other shield mounts include typical type II Anglo-Saxon bird motifs and there is at least one example of a false ring (similar to those found on sword hilts) mounted on one of the geometric plaques (Arwidsson, 1942; Arwidsson, 1954; Bruce-Mitford, 1978). In most cases, the shield mounts were oriented to go with the grain of the planks and nailed to the shield. They may have served to help hold the leather facing in place. Additional decorations on the face of the shield include fastenings for the rim (when present), and inlay or enameling on the button for the shield boss. The metal reinforcing the handle on the back of the shield was also commonly decorated. Usually this piece was a long bronze plaque with several branching dragonesque motifs (Figure 11). It may have served some structural purpose as it was usually mounted perpendicular to the planks. Surprisingly, other structural mounts of wood or metal are rare.

Body Armor: There is very little archaeological evidence for body armor. The one exception being a mass of alternately riveted and welded mail and shoulder clasps found at Sutton Hoo (Bruce-Mitford, 1978). Previous reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo armor represent it as being similar to ₄th century roman armor with a hinged cuirass for chest protection (Bruce-Mitford, 1978; Bruce-Mitford, 1982; Gamber, 1966; Gamber 82, Cederloef, 1955). However, with the exception of the Cederloef paper, these reconstructions did not take into account any representations of armor from the 7^th century. Most of the evidence for body armor comes from representative art of the 7^th century. Invariably, such pictures depict individuals wearing either mail, or a stiff corset like garment (leather?) suspended by shoulder straps (Figure 12). Note the decorations on the straps and corset of the figures on the silver repose plate from Byzantium. In at least one figure on the Joshua Scroll, a buckle appears to be connecting the front half of the shoulder strap to the back half. It should be noted that the Joshua Scroll and Joshua Casket are 7^th and 11^th century works that are thought to be copies of an earlier 7^th century work that is now lost (Tselos, 1950). In most cases, this type of armor is depicted being worn over only a tunic. However, there is one picture showing an individual wearing this type of armor over what appears to be a Romanesque leather tunic with terges below the waist and at the shoulders. The only possible archaeological evidence for this type of armor may be the shoulder clasps found at Sutton Hoo and Taplow Bucks, and a pair of simple buckles found at the shoulder of a warrior in a 7^th century Frankish grave (Bruce-Mitford, 1978; Pescheck, 19??) (Figure 13). These items would have served well as a means of connecting the front shoulder straps to the back. This two piece shoulder strap appears to be necessary as the straps must have passed through loops in the garment directly under the corset. (Figure 14) Personal experience has indicated this loop is necessary to keep the shoulder straps from slipping down over the shoulders during combat. However, it is possible that a one-piece strap could have been used if the presumed loop through which the shoulder strap passed was designed to open and close (with either buckles or ties) (Figure 14). Often, the corset appears to have a belt that circles the chest and passes over the shoulder straps. This is the only pictorial evidence for a means of closing the corset. There is one drawing that shows lacing up the side of the corset, however, it should be noted that this representation appears to lack the chest belt. There is one buckle from the Sutton Hoo find that appears to have no obvious function (Bruce-Mitford, 1978). In a paper on the reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo harness, I have proposed that this buckle serves to close the corset in the back (Horvath, 1999). The only other depictions of body armor from the ₇th century are on helmet plaques from Valsgard and Vendel (Cederloef, 1955; Stolpe and Arne, 1927). These plaques depict individuals wearing mail coats. Interestingly, the mail on one figure (Figure 15a) appears to be designed more like the karate gee type garment worn by other warriors depicted on the plaques rather than the tunic like garment shown on other more obviously mail clad warriors (Figures 15b and c). This gee like tunic appears to be a common design for coat-like garments in the 7^th century as based on representative 7^th century art (Lamm and Nordstom, 1983).

Leg and arm protection: The grave at Valsgard 6 contained a number of iron bars connected by leather straps that clearly served as a form of splinted armor. The original reconstruction of the armor from this grave depicted these bars forming a splinted corset similar in design to those described above (Arwidsson, 1942) (Figure 16). However, the size and shape of the metal bars indicate that they served as splinted greaves for both legs and splinted arm armor for the right arm (Cederloef, 1955). Similar splinted armor is depicted on the figure from the helmet plaque previously mentioned (Figure 15). Cederloef suggests that the arm armor was for the upper arm, but analysis of the representative art suggest it is more likely that they protected the forearm instead.

Hands and feet: There is pictorial evidence on 7^th century helmet plaques that have been interpreted by one author to represent gloved hands (Figure 15). Similar helmet plaques show figures that appear to be wearing foot coverings of some sort (i.e. they are not barefoot). Pictures from the Byzantine plate and the Joshua Scroll and Casket depict the warriors wearing calf high boots (laced up the front in the case of the figure on the plate) (Figure 12). However, there is no archaeological evidence that I know of (besides finds of shoes that I will cover later) which indicate any special armor for hands or feet.

http://www.geocities.com/Area5 1/Rampart/877 1/spangenhelms. html

Return to A&S Homepage

Last Updated: Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Published by: THL Gweniver Kenwyn of Roseveth (jenmcnitt@havenonline.com)