Fall 2006 Volume 16, Number 1/2

AVISTA AT KALAMAZOO 2007 4

ARTICLES

A Novel Reconstruction of the Body Armor from Sutton Hoo: Experimentation with Designs Based on Seventh-century Pictorial Evidence.

DAVID HORVATH 5 The Geometrical Structure of Strasbourg Plan A: A Hypothetical Step-by-step Reconstruction

ROBERT BORK 14The Salisbury Spire Scaffold Debate Continues…

DANIEL H. MILES 23

AVISTA AT KALAMAZOO 2006: THE ART, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY OF MEDIEVAL TRAVEL

Medieval Navigational Instruments 28

Medieval Travel and the Fine Arts 32

Medieval Journeys, Charted and Uncharted 36

Medieval Travel in Theory and Practice 40

Medieval Vehicles and Logistics 43

KALAMAZOO ROUNDUP 2006 47

BOOKS AND DISSERTATIONS 78

AV

IST

A F

oru

m J

ourn

alD

epar

tmen

t of

Art

an

d A

rt H

isto

ryW

hea

ton

Col

lege

26 E

ast M

ain

Str

eet

Nor

ton

, MA

027

66Jo

urna

l of t

he A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Vill

ard

de H

onne

cour

t for

the I

nter

disc

iplin

ary

Stud

y

of M

edie

val T

echn

olog

y, S

cien

ce, a

nd A

rt

AV

ISTA

FOR

UM

JOU

RN

AL 16.1/2 (2006)

AVISTA Forum Journal

5

A NOVEL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BODY ARMOR FROM SUTTON HOO: EXPERIMENTATION WITH DESIGNSBASED ON SEVENTH-CENTURY PICTORIAL EVIDENCE

DAVID HORVATH

Introduction

Mound one at Sutton Hoo, often referred to as “The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial,” has been a rich source of information on the war gear of early seventh-century Anglo-Saxon kings. However, there have been only two attempts to reconstruct the body harness (see Bruce-Mitford 1978, 564-582; 1982 and Gamber 1966; 1982) (see figures 1 and 2). There was also one earlier attempt to combine the Sutton Hoo finds with con-temporary finds in Sweden to produce an explanation for a set of iron staves from a seventh-century Swedish grave, Valsgärde 8, that likely served as some form of armor (Cedelöf 1955). Both reconstructions were based on the finds of several belt and shoulder mounts and buckles located jumbled, but in close proximity to each other, in mound one of the Sutton Hoo site (Bruce-Mitford 1978, 564) (see figures 3a-3e), and both used the presence of the two hinge-like shoulder clasps (figure 3b) to suggest that the body armor was based on a late Roman lorica musculata design (Gamber 1966; Bruce-Mitford 1978, 218) (see figure 4). I propose another possible and more likely design for the Sutton Hoo body armor based on picto-rial representations of seventh-century armor and experimen-tal evidence.

The pins for the hinges on the Sutton Hoo armor appear to have been made to allow easy separation of the two halves of the clasp. A different but similarly detachable clasping mech-anism can also be seen in the clasps found in another rich sev-enth-century grave from Taplow Bucks, England (see figure 5a) (Bruce-Mitford 1978, 534). These clasps may have served in a manner similar to the Sutton Hoo clasps. An additional contemporary hinged clasp was found in Vendal grave XIV, Sweden (Stolpe et al. 1927, Plate XXXVIII) (see figure 5b). This partial hinge also shows the characteristic chain linked to the hinge pin, suggesting that the Sutton Hoo clasp is not nec-essarily unique among seventh-century northern European armor artifacts. The easily separable Sutton Hoo hinge clasps would seem unnecessary if they were simply used to connect the front and back plate of a lorica musculata at the shoulders so as to allow the two halves to swing open. Most reconstruc-tions of lorica musculata are easily donned by disconnecting the front and back plate along the sides and placing the head through the neck hole. The two halves are then reconnected with the ties often depicted at the sides beneath the arms and at the waist (Clark 2005). There is no need for the hinges to be detachable. Indeed, disconnecting the front and back halves

FIGURE 2: Author’s graphic representation of Sutton Hoo armor (based on Gamber 1966, plate LVII).

FIGURE 1: Author’s graphic representation for placement of buck-les and shoulder clasps on the Sutton Hoo armor (based on Bruce-Mitford 1978, fig. 425).

6

of the cuirass at the sides and the shoulders would increase the difficulty of putting on the armor. Also, assuming the Taplow Bucks clasps served the same purpose, they would be ill-fitted for connecting the two halves of such a cuirass, as this mechanism would allow the two halves to separate at the shoulder if one side was pushed upwards, a motion that would commonly occur during use. It is therefore unlikely that the artists who produced the Sutton Hoo armor based their design on late Roman lorica musculata. Assuming this statement is true, what might have been the inspiration for the artist(s) who created it?

Seventh-century depictions of armor

A limited number of works of art can both depict armor and be dated as contemporary to the Sutton Hoo find. Many such depictions are found on helmet plaques from the Sutton Hoo helmet itself and from helmet plaques from various other seventh-century Swedish helmets. Most of these helmet plaques depict warriors wearing mail or long coats of fur or fabric (figure 6). Indeed, a mass of mail found in the Sutton Hoo grave is of sufficient mass to have been a mail hauberk (Brooks 1999, 46; Underwood 1999, 91). Thus it seems likely that this was part of the body armor. Another early seventh-century armor depiction occurs on the “David Plates,” a set of Byzantine silver plates depicting the David and Goliath story (see figure 7) (Leader 2000). An examination of the plates indicates an armor style different from the Roman lorica mus-

culata. The armor depicted on the plate shows a decorated corset covering the chest of the figures. This corset is held up by decorated straps secured to the corset that pass over the shoulders of the figures, and is apparently worn over a fabric tunic, an under-armor of mail (interlocking rings or scales), or a lamellar (small plates laced together). A close examination of the shoulder straps depicted in these figures gives hints that there may have been clasps fixed to the straps at the point where the straps pass over the shoulder. Also, there appears to be a decorative belt that passes around the top of the cor-set and overlaps the shoulder straps. There is no indication of buckles or any seam in the front or at the sides of the corset holding it together.

Additional depictions of this style of armor in the seventh century come from the Joshua Scrolls and Joshua Casket of Byzantine provenance (see figures 8 and 9) (Evans and Wixom 1997). These works of art date to the tenth century, but there is reasonable conjecture that they were copies of an earlier work (Tselos 1950) originally done to commemorate the retaking of Jerusalem from the Persians by Emperor Heraclius in the year 630 (Evans and Wixom 1997, 240). The argument that the Joshua Scrolls are copies of an earlier work is bolstered by the fact that the soldiers depicted on the work are all wear-ing what appear to be corsets suspended by shoulder straps (similar to the armor worn by the individuals depicted on the silver plates) (figure 7). What appear to be shoulder clasps can be seen on at least one figure on the Joshua Scroll (figure 8,

FIGURE 3a-e: Belt buckles, clasps, and purse mount from Sutton Hoo (Bruce-Mitford 1978, plates 13, 20, 15, and 19).

Articles

AVISTA Forum Journal

7

FIGURE 4: A statuary depiction of lorica musculata (Clark 2005).

detail). However, it should be noted that the shoulder straps on these figures are considerably wider than those depicted on the David Plates. Also, it should be noted that again no seams or buckles are visible on any of the figures, true even of figures whose backs are clearly visible. Narrow straps, more similar to those depicted on the silver plates, can be seen on figures depicted on the Joshua Casket (figure 9). The armor and style are similar to that depicted on the Joshua Scroll, and thus it is likely that the depictions on the casket were also copied from the original work. The differences in the width of the shoulder straps on the two presumed copies may be the result of the artist’s rendering of the work. However, since the figures depicted on the David Plates and on the Joshua Casket both show narrow straps passing over the shoulders, it is more likely that the wide straps depicted on the Joshua Scroll are less representative of the armor from the period and that narrow straps were the norm.

Evidence for Byzantine contact and influence in seventh-century England

It is noteworthy that the David Plates as well as the Joshua Scroll and Casket are Byzantine works. There is substantial evidence in the Sutton Hoo find of trade with and influence by Byzantine culture with the Anglo Saxons in East Anglia in the seventh century. In the find is a silver spoon similar to those found commonly in Byzantium and also several silver serving dishes and bowls that are thought to be from

Byzantium (Bruce-Mitford 1975-83). Additionally, H.L. Adelson (1960) provides evidence that from AD610-640 there was a large increase in Byzantine coinage being distributed through Western Europe, suggesting active trade between these cultures. Also, the time of the Sutton Hoo burial is sometimes referred to as “the conversion period” because the Catholic Church was in the process of converting the pagan Anglo Saxons to Christianity at that time. There is evidence that Redwald, who is arguably the original owner of the grave goods found at Sutton Hoo, was the first East Anglian king to be Christianized (Grohskopf 1970, 127). Thus, Redwald may have been exposed to manuscripts of Byzantine origin that could have depicted warriors wearing armor such as those represented in the Joshua Scroll.

Indeed, early Christian figurative art was known to the Anglo Saxons (Carver 2001). Byzantine culture certainly influenced both physical and linguistic art in the seventh century (Cook 1928; Casson 1932; Desham 1987). As the royalty buried in the Sutton Hoo grave was likely contempo-rary to Heraclius and trade was clearly taking place between these cultures, it is at least arguable that descriptions of these Byzantine works would have been known to the artists that created the armor found in the Sutton Hoo grave. However, it remains to be determined if the fittings found in the Sutton Hoo grave are consistent with the armor depicted in these Byzantine images.

8

Armor reconstruction

Reconstructions of armor as depicted were produced with consideration for the placement and use of the major clasps and buckles found in the Sutton Hoo ship burial. Heavy sole leather (12 oz) was used to construct the corset portion of the armor. Tooling-grade belt straps were used for the shoul-der straps. The under-armor was of lighter tooling-grade vegetable-tanned leather. Shoulder clasps were made of cast bronze. The pins for the shoulder clasps were made from bronze welding rods and were simply bent over on one side to prevent them from being pushed all the way through the hinge. All leather was sewn together using waxed linen twine. The shoulder clasps were attached to the straps by punching holes in the straps through which the loops on the bottom of the clasps could pass. Waxed linen twine was then used to lace through the loops, thus securing the shoulder clasps to the straps.

A modern test of the effectiveness and mobility of the armor was done with the help of members of the Society for Creative Anachronism, who graciously fought with the author for many hours. The armor was tested in both single combat and melee activities. All fighting was with blunt rattan weapons, so the ability of the armor to withstand cutting or piercing was not tested. However, the ease of wear, movement, and fea-sibility of the design could be thoroughly examined.

Results of armor testing

The under-armor was essentially a leather sheet with a neck hole and straps to hold the back panel to the front, similar

to the depiction of the body armor by Gamber (1966) (Plate L) with the exception that the two halves are contiguous at the shoulders rather than connected with the shoulder clasps (figure 10). Such under-armor is in keeping with the design of lamellar armor, which is often depicted as a contiguous sheet with a head hole that is draped over the shoulders and has front or back extensions that wrap around the torso. The ini-tial design for the armor had the corset sewn together in the back. This was done because none of the pictorial evidence showed any obvious way to hold the corset closed. The great gold buckle was worn as a belt across the chest as suggested by Gamber (1966, Plate LVII). Doing so was consistent with depictions of a wide decorative strap across the top of the cor-set depicted on the Byzantine artistic representations.

Testing of this design indicated that if the pin is pushed through so the bent end is toward the inside, the hinge pin does not slip out even during high levels of activity. Such a design provides support for functionality of the remov-able hinge pins in the shoulder clasps from Sutton Hoo. Admittedly, these tests provide extremely limited indication as to the effectiveness of such armor. However, the tests did provide some evidence for the protective capacity of such a corset. Initially there was some skepticism about the amount of protection because of the limited area of the torso that was covered by the corset. Surprisingly, most of the blows received to the body landed at least partially on the corset, with very few striking cleanly into the arm pit, the lower abdo-men, or the upper chest. Additionally, even though the corset was made of stiff leather, it posed no hindrance to movement,

FIGURE 5: a (top)—Photo of shoulder clasps from Taplow Bucks (Bruce-Mitford 1978, fig. 343) and b (bottom)—Author’s drawing of hinged clasp from Vendel XIV (based on Stolpe 1927, plate XXXVII).

Figure 6: Author’s drawing of armor from cast of helmet plaques showing a warrior in mail and what appears to be a heavy coat (based on Bruce-Mitford 1978, fig, 147).

Articles

AVISTA Forum Journal

9

FIGURE 9: Author’s drawing of warriors wearing corset-like armor as depicted on the Joshua Casket.

FIGURE 8: Author’s drawing based on the Joshua Scroll showing warriors wearing corset-type armor suspended from shoulder straps. The possible representation of a hinged shoulder clasp is on the enlarged figure (see Evans and Wixom 1997, 239).

FIGURE 7: Author’s drawings of the David Plates, dated to early seventh-century Byzantium.

10

including squatting, twisting, lunging, or bending forward, backward, or sideways. The heavy leather over the leather under-armor and a loose linen tunic proved to be excellent protection from blunt force impacts. Even considering that in actual combat blows would have been specifically targeted toward non-armored areas, which was generally not the case in the testing that was done, such armor would likely have been effective to mitigate incidental impacts by friend or foe. If worn over mail or lamellar armor as commonly depicted, the corset would provide outstanding protection against most of the contemporary weapons of seventh-century north-ern Europe.

However, this initial design was untenable if the corset was worn over anything except a tunic. Pulling the corset up and over skirted leather under-armor was exceptionally difficult, and the under-armor made shifting the shoulders to allow the corset to be pulled over the head impossible. If the corset was loosened to allow easier donning over the skirted leather, it moved around too much during fighting and tended to twist around the wearer. It also looked out of proportion. Two other flaws in this design were discovered during the initial experimentation. One was that the shoulder straps had a ten-dency to slip off the shoulder, thus pinning the wearer’s arm to the side. Also, the chest belt serves only a decorative purpose and readily slips down the corset, often ending up around the

ankles of the wearer. Finally, there is no functional need for the detachable shoulder clasps, as the supporting straps of the corset can simply be slipped over the shoulders. Assuming the shoulder clasps were designed to mount on the shoulder straps, a different body armor design was suggested.

To solve the problem of the shoulder straps slipping, the straps were initially moved closer together in the back, and stiffer shoulders were placed on the under-armor. Unfortunately this did not prove completely effective in keeping the shoul-der straps in place. The only way to keep the shoulder straps from slipping was to install loops in the under-armor through which the shoulder straps could be secured. Interestingly, this modification not only kept the shoulder straps from slipping, but also required that the wearer open the hinge clasp so the straps could be fed through the loops.

To mitigate the awkwardness caused by donning the perma-nently closed corset, the corset was opened in the back and a single buckle and strap were installed near the bottom of the corset. Such a design greatly increased the ease of donning the armor. Also, the chest belt was run under the shoulder straps in the back and over the straps in the front (figure 11). This effectively held the chest belt up and was in keeping with the depictions that exist of this armor design. Gamber (1966) argues that the great gold buckle was attached to a linen belt

FIGURE 10: Photos of the reconstruction and donning of the under-armor. Note the way the tie is used to secure the under-armor.

Articles

AVISTA Forum Journal

11

that went around the chest and served to cinch the cuirass tight. This explanation seems plausible, as the presence of a single buckle near the base of the corset provides a use for the chest belt, since it is needed to hold the corset closed at the top. This design also adds some flexibility to the armor and allows more freedom of movement, since the corset can gap and flex slightly around the buckled strap in the back.

Based on pictorial evidence and evidence from these experi-ments, a reasonable construction of the Sutton Hoo harness is shown in figure 12, and the final reconstruction is shown as worn by the author during testing (figure 11): a leather corset covering the abdomen and chest that closes in the back. This corset is held up by the hinged shoulder clasps connecting the two halves of the shoulder straps together. The shoulder straps probably would have run through loops connected to leather, fabric, or mail under-armor to keep them from slip-ping over the shoulders. As noted above, the great gold buckle (figure 3a) was likely placed around the chest, also as noted by Gamber (1966). This leaves a single buckle and two match-ing strap ends (figure 3e) that appear to form a set based on the decorative design. Bruce-Mitford (1978, 578-580) places the buckle and strap ends as part of a baldric like strap sup-porting the main waist belt with the large gold buckle (figure 1). However, as Gamber (1982) points out, outside of baldrics holding swords, there is no evidence for such a strap sup-

porting a waist belt. Gamber (1982) has the buckle and strap ends being used as part of the sword harness connecting the hinged belt mount to the sword scabbard (figure 2). This is a much more plausible explanation for this buckle than the one suggested by Bruce-Mitford (figure 2). However, this buckle could have served to hold the corset closed at the back. Thus, this buckle is tentatively placed at the back near the bottom of the corset.

Careful measurement of the loops and strap ends indicate that the strap ends would not pass through the matching buckle. Both Gamber and Bruce-Mitford assume these strap ends might have served as decorative mounts on the same strap as the disputed buckle (Gamber 1982; Bruce-Mitford 1978, 578-580). However fortuitously, the construction of the test armor has two matching straps on the under-armor that tie together rather than buckle. Thus, it is possible that these two strap ends might have served a similar purpose. It is also possible that the strap ends were used as additional points for securing the corset. If two long straps were sewn to the back of the corset, they could have wrapped around to the front for tying. Such a mechanism could negate the need for either the chest belt or the buckle at the lower back of the corset. If the ties closed the corset at the bottom, then it is most likely that the disputed buckle was used on the sword harness as described by Gamber (1982). If the ties closed the corset at

FIGURE 11. Photo of the author wearing the reconstruction of the body armor. Note how the chest belt is fed underneath the shoul-der straps to prevent it from sliding down the corset during combat.

12

FIGURE 13: Author’s sketch of the Alexander mosaic from the House of the Faun, Pompeii, c.80BC, housed in the National Archaeologic Museum, Naples, Italy, and of the figure on the Joshua Casket to note the similarity in armor design.

FIGURE 12: Author’s drawing of proposed reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo armor. Small buckle that matches strap ends.

Shoulder Clasps

Great Gold Buckle

Sword Belt

Decorative Strap Ends

Small Gold Buckle that Matches Strap Ends

Articles

AVISTA Forum Journal

13

the top, then it is most likely that the great gold buckle was worn at the waist as described by Bruce-Mitford (1978, 565). However, it is certainly possible that, if the tie served to close the corset, it could have been located between the chest strap and the bottom buckle, in which case their placement would be as described in this reconstruction. Any of these possibili-ties are as likely as any other, given the evidence.

Leather was used in the construction of the under-armor. However, depictions of this form of armor clearly show that it could be worn over a number of different types of under-armor. The fact that a mail hauberk was included in the Sutton Hoo grave goods suggests that this might have formed the basis for the under-armor. However, as the mail was not found with the regalia included in the body armor and sword belt mounts, it is also possible that it might have been worn separately. If the mail were worn beneath the cor-set, loops for the shoulder straps would have to be secured to the mail itself.

Conclusion

The pictorial and experimental evidence suggests that the armor found at Sutton Hoo was not based on a late Roman design, but rather on depictions of art from Byzantium. Interestingly, both the Joshua Scroll/Casket and the silver plates are meant to depict scenes from antiquity. Thus, the armor depicted in all of these works appears to be based on Greek armor designs and most closely resemble armor depicted being worn by Alexander the Great (fi gure 13). If indeed the Sutton Hoo armor was based on these depictions, it is tempting to speculate that the Romantic ideal of “war-rior” in seventh-century Europe was based more on the Greek heroes, such as Alexander the Great, than on the Romans, whose withdrawal and decline would have likely been remem-bered in both northern Europe and Byzantium.

ReferencesAdelson, H. L. 1960. Early Medieval Trade Routes. American Historical

Review 65: 271-287.Brooks, P. 1999. Arms and Armour. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of

Anglo-Saxon England, ed. M. Lapidge, J. Blair, S. Keynes, and Donald Scragg, 45-47. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Bruce-Mitford, R.L.S. 1978. The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial II: Arms, Armour and Regalia. London: British Museum Publications.

Bruce-Mitford, R.L.S. 1975-83. The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial III: Late Roman and Byzantine Silver. London: British Museum Publications.

Bruce-Mitford, R.L.S. 1982. The Sutton Hoo Helmet-Reconstruction and the Design of the Royal Harness and Sword-Belt: A Reply to Hofrat Dr. Ortwin Gamber With Some Additional Comments on the Sutton Hoo Arms and Armour. Journal of the Arms and Armour Society 10: 217-275.

Carver, M. 2001. Why That, Why There, Why Then? The Politics of Early Medieval Monumentality. In Image and Power in Early Medieval British Archaeology. Essays in Honour of Rosemary Cramp, ed. A. Macgregor and H. Hamerow, 1-22. Oxford: Oxbow Press.

Casson, S. 1932. Byzantine and Anglo-Saxon sculpture-I. Burlington Magazine 61: 265-269.

Cedelöf, O. 1955. The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial and Armour During the Vendel Period. Journal of the Arms and Armour Society 9: 153-164.

Clark, T.L. 2005. Bronze or Leather? Materials of the Lorica Musculata.<http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica/bronze_leather.htm>

Cook, A. S. 1928. Beowulf 1039 and the Greek arxi. Speculum 3: 75-81.

Deshman, R. 1987. Review of D. M Wislon, Anglo Saxon Art from the Seventh Century to the Norman Conquest. Speculum 62: 225-226.

Evans, H.C. and W.D. Wixom. 1997. The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843-1261. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Gamber, O. 1966. The Sutton Hoo Military Equipment- An Attempted Reconstruction. Journal of the Arms and Armour Society 5: 265-292.

Gamber, O. 1982. Some Notes on the Sutton Hoo Arms and Armour. Journal of the Arms and Armour Society 10: 209-216.

Grohskopf, B. 1970. The Treasure of Sutton Hoo: Ship-burial for an Anglo-Saxon King. Kingsport, Tennessee: Kingsport Press.

Leader, R.E. 2000. The David Plates Revisited: Transforming the Secular in Early Byzantium. The Art Bulletin 28: 407-427.

Stolpe, H., T.J. Arne, and O. Sorling. 1927. Necropole de Vendel. Stockholm: Academie Royale Des Belles Letters, De L’Histoire Et Des Antiquites.

Tselos, D. 1950. The Joshua Roll: Original or Copy. Art Bulletin 32: 275-290.

Underwood, R. 1999. Anglo-Saxon Weapons & Warfare. Brimscombe Port: Tempus Publishing.