Two Twelfth-Century Kite Shields from Szczecin, Poland

Arms & Armour ISSN: 1741-6124 (Print) 1749-6268 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yaaa20 Two Twelfth-Century Kite Shields from Szczecin, Poland Keith Dowen, Lech Marek, Sławomir Słowiński, Anna Uciechowska-Gawron & Elżbieta Myśkow To cite this article: Keith Dowen, Lech Marek, Sławomir Słowiński, Anna Uciechowska-Gawron & Elżbieta Myśkow (2019): Two Twelfth-Century Kite Shields from Szczecin, Poland, Arms & Armour, DOI: 10.1080/17416124.2019.1667049 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17416124.2019.1667049 Published online: 09 Oct 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yaaa20 ARMS & ARMOUR, 2019, 1–28 Two Twelfth-Century Kite Shields from Szczecin, Poland KEITH DOWEN Assistant Curator of Armour, Royal Armouries, Leeds, UK LECH MAREK Lecturer in Mediaeval Archaeology, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland
SŁAWOMIR SŁOWINSKI Archeologist at the Archaeological Department, National Museum, Szczecin, Poland ANNA UCIECHOWSKA-GAWRON Archaeologist at the P.P. PKZ Archaeological Department of the Castle of the Pomeranian Dukes, National Museum, Szczecin, Poland
_ ELZBIETA MYSKOW Assistant Professor at the Institute of Experimental Biology, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland The Polish city of Szczecin, located on the Odra river in north-west Poland, has a complex history which is reflected in its excavated material culture. The most remarkable artefacts among the numerous finds of arms and armour from the city are two late twelfth century kite shields found in the area of the early medieval stronghold. Based on our current state of knowledge, these are the only surviving examples of such shields in the world. Of the two shields recovered from Szczecin, the painted example has been published several times in Polish journals and yet it remains largely unknown to the wider European audience. The unpainted shield, however, was only recently identified and its importance fully appreciated. As such this study aims to update the information on the painted shield based on the latest research, and integrate it and the unpainted shield into the wider European archaeological context. KEYWORDS Szczecin, kite-shield, shields, leather, rawhide, medieval # 2019 The Trustees of the Royal Armouries DOI 10.1080/17416124.2019.1667049 2 K. DOWEN ET AL. Introduction Located in north-west Poland on the Odra river, in the twelfth century Szczecin became the most important early urban centre in Western Pomerania. However, as far as can be ascertained, no written accounts concerning the origin and early development of the medieval town have survived. As such our understanding of the town is based only on archaeological evidence largely undertaken after the Second World War. These excavations encompassed the early medieval stronghold (the area of the later Castle Hill) and the extensive suburbium (called: the Castle Bailey— Podzamcze), located along the Odra River valley (Figure 1). Archaeology has revealed that by the end of the twelfth century defensive ramparts encircled the FIGURE 1. Szczecin Podzamcze—site plan with kite shield find spots highlighted in red: marked with I—the painted shield, marked with V—the unpainted shield. Ramparts of the early mediaeval stronghold—blue hatched area. Drawing: A. Uciechowska Gawron. TWO TWELFTH-CENTURY KITE SHIELDS FROM SZCZECIN, POLAND 3 nucleus of the urban settlement. Within this area the layout of the buildings followed the main roads which connected the main market squares inside as well as river and land trade routes outside the town. Between the turn of twelfth/thirteenth centuries and the mid-thirteenth century the town’s infrastructure was already well developed with the residence of the ruling duke, Warcisław (c. 1100–1135/36), established on the Castle Hill.1 At this early stage the town was divided into a well-defined system of plots and a number of timber-paved road networks. Building plots consisted of log houses and occasionally wattle-work constructions accompanied by free standing stoves or fire-places. In addition, extensive suburbia was also developed along the Odra River valley at this time. Following the mission of St Otto of Bamberg in 1124 and the conversion of the town’s populace to Christianity two churches, dedicated to St Adalbert and Sts Peter and Paul, were established. From 1186 Szczecin became home to a number of German settlers who established their own church dedicated to St James the Greater (1187). However, the gradual and stable development of the town was disturbed by Danish raids in 1173 and again in 1189. Although the inhabitants were able to successfully fight off the raid in 1173, a lack of provisions forced them to the negotiating table which resulted in the town becoming a vassal of the Danish Crown. As the result of further Danish raids in 1184–1185, Duke Bogusław I of Pomerania (c. 1135–1187) was forced to pay tribute to Canute VI of Denmark (1182–1202).2 However, following his death his widow, Duchess Anastazja (1164–1240), broke off the alliance with Denmark; instead counting on the support of her father Mieszko III Stary (c. 1126/27–1202) Duke of Greater Poland. Consequently Canute VI launched a campaign against Szczecin in 1189 and successfully captured and burned the town (the damage is recognisable in the archaeological record from the Castle Hill as well as the quarter located along the Odra River bank). It is therefore highly likely that the spectacular shield finds from the Castle Bailey area, which are the subject of this paper, may be regarded as traces of one of these conflicts. Kite shields Prior to the unearthing of the Szczecin shields, our knowledge of the appearance of kite shields was based exclusively on pictorial sources, as no other examples are known to have survived. One shield apparently of kite-type had been kept in R€ oldal church, Hardanger, Norway until the seventeenth or eighteenth century, when it was lost.3 Although a drawing of it was reproduced by Thordeman, it is not possible to determine its authenticity. The Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford possesses a kite-shaped shield (Inv. No. 1911.29.12), which was donated to the collection in 1911. Its manner of construction though, most likely indicates a nineteenth century date. In particular, the treatment of the back of the shield with its numerous pieces of oddly shaped leather nailed to the boards and the arrangement of the leather grips is 4 K. DOWEN ET AL. unusual in light of the evidence presented below.4 Another kite shield appeared at auction in Switzerland in 2014 which was dated to between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries. However, the style of the iron fittings and the paint-scheme suggests a nineteenth century date, particularly as the latter appear to have been printed onto the shield.5 Prior to more detailed analysis, some scholars had believed that the triangular, or ‘heater,’ shield of Arnold von Brienz, in the Swiss abbey of Seedorf, had originally been a kite shield which had been converted in the second quarter of the thirteenth century into a more modern, knightly shield.6 This hypothesis, put forward by Hugo Schneider, remained unchallenged until Helmut Nickel expressed his scepticism towards it in his doctoral thesis. Apart from other doubts raised by this author, he pointed out correctly that the shape of the Seedorf shield was not unusual and could be found on early thirteenth century seals.7 Eventually, on the basis of archeometric analysis during conservation of the shield, Matthias Senn and Franz Moser proved that neither the wooden board with its parchment coating, nor the painted layers on the surface had been altered at any time.8 As such, there is no indication the Seedorf shield had been modified at a later date or should be viewed as analagous to the Szczecin finds.9 Kite shields with their characteristic ogival or ‘tear-drop’ outline, most probably appeared in the Byzantine and Islamic worlds around the middle of the tenth century.10 Their distribution across the Mediterranean appears to have been quite rapid, as a number of early examples are known from Catalan bibles dated to the beginning of the eleventh century.11 From around c. 1100, probably as a result of contact with the Byzantine and Islamic worlds during the Norman conquest of Sicily (1061–1091) and the First Crusade (1096–1099), the kite shield became widespread in Western Europe. The majority of early kite shields appear to have been flat, as indicated by their use as improvised tables shown on the late eleventh century Bayeux ‘Tapestry,’ although by the end of the eleventh century curved shields were also coming into use; some of them being bent to form almost a half-cylinder as depicted in the c. 1150–1175 D€ usseldorf ‘Bibla Sacra’ (ULB D€ usseldorf Ms A-2 Bibla Sacra f.151v) and on the famous enamel plate depicting Count Geoffrey of Anjou in Le Mans Cathedral. There is no evidence, however, for the Szczecin shields having been curved. If they had been the weight of the soil covering them would have caused the shield boards to break rather than merely flatten. A few depictions of kite shields show them with a sharp, well defined medial ridge, such as those wielded by Prussian foot-soldiers on the twelfth century bronze-cast doors from the Gniezno cathedral (Figure 2). Although used by both horsemen and infantry, the kite shield is thought to have originally been developed for use by the mounted warrior.12 The new sophisticated system of leather straps, in place of the traditional central wooden grip, enabled the horseman to free both of his hands when necessary, whilst still retaining the shield. Following the development of combat with the couched lance in the early to mid-eleventh century, the long kite shield TWO TWELFTH-CENTURY KITE SHIELDS FROM SZCZECIN, POLAND 5 FIGURE 2. Kite shields as depicted on the doors of Gniezno Cathedral—drawing by Dr Lech Marek. was of particular importance in protecting the body and leg of the charging knight.13 The shield from Szczecin differs from the basic type in having a triangular top. Such acutely shaped upper edges are not a common feature among kite shields, but examples are present in Byzantine art (Figure 3a,d). A number of depictions can also be found in miniatures from Spanish manuscripts (Figure 3b) dated to the twelfth century, such as the ‘Avila Bible’ (Biblioteca Nacional Madrid, Cod. Vit.15-1, fol. 6 K. DOWEN ET AL. 3. Triangular topped shields in art: a—mural, church of the Agii Anargyroy, Kastoria, late twelfth century; b—Avila Bible, late twelfth century, National Library Madrid; c—seal of the city of Soissons, mid-twelfth century; d—mural, Monastery of Semen, mid-fourteenth century; (a—after Grotowski 2011; b—after del Campo 1993, c—drawing by Dr Lech Marek after Martin 1967; d—drawing by Dr Lech Marek after Nicolle 1999). FIGURE TWO TWELFTH-CENTURY KITE SHIELDS FROM SZCZECIN, POLAND FIGURE 7 4. (a–c) The Wrocław chessman, twelfth/thirteenth centuries. Photo: L. Marek. CCCXXIIII v), whilst others are known from twelfth century French pictorial sources, such as the seal of the city of Soissons (Figure 3c).14 The triangular top to the Szczecin shield cannot therefore be considered particular to north-western Poland. The closest example of a triangular topped kite shield may be found on a chessman recovered during excavations at 9 Universytecka St. Wrocław, Poland. The figurine is carved out of deer antler and depicts a knight sitting on his heels, wearing a skull cap, a hauberk and holding a sword which is resting on his shoulder (Figure 4). Based on its style and the arms and armour depicted, it has been dated to the latter half of the twelfth century.15 Context The painted shield (Inv. No. 175/1/S—Lm) was found in one of the log chambers forming the inner construction of the bailey rampart of the main stronghold of Szczecin (Figures 1, 5 and 6) during archaeological excavations undertaken in 2000. Dendrochronological samples taken from the chamber’s logs (date range 1170–1197) confirmed that this part of the rampart must have been repaired at the very end of the 12th or the beginning of the thirteenth century. At this time the shield must have been considered unusable and was simply discarded as part of the infill of the chamber. It is possible that the shield may have been related to one of the two sieges undertaken by the Danes in 1173 and 1189.16 Interestingly, in his description of the siege of 1173, the Danish historian and theologian Saxo Grammaticus noted 8 K. DOWEN ET AL. 5. Site plan of building block No. I, archaeological trench No. 13—across the early mediaeval-stronghold-rampart. Archaeological contexts: XIV and XIVa are the fills of log chambers in the inner rampart construction. The exact location of the painted shield-find is marked with the shield symbol. Drawing: A. Uciechowska-Gawron. FIGURE how the Danish youths, in their desire for glory, stormed the ramparts of Szczecin using only their shields as protection.17 The plain unpainted example (Inv. No. 6061/ VI/S) was found in the courtyard of the early medieval stronghold (Figures 7–9). The ceramic context of the find points to a twelfth century date, which may again relate to the period of the Danish attacks. Particularly interesting in the context of these shields is the etymology of the name Szczecin. According to some scholars the origin of the word (medieval: Szczycin) is connected either to the location of the stronghold on tops of three hills—from old Slavonic szczyt—meaning apex, peak, or alternatively to szczyt—meaning a shield. If the latter is correct, one could hardly imagine a better place to find the only surviving examples of early medieval kite shields than in the ‘stronghold of shields’ according to its old Slavonic name.18 TWO TWELFTH-CENTURY KITE SHIELDS FROM SZCZECIN, POLAND 9 FIGURE 6. The painted kite shield from Szczecin, twelfth century: a—on site; b—after conservation; c—reconstruction; a,c—after: Kowalska, Uciechowska Gawron 2015; b—photo: L. Marek. Construction The board of the painted shield is constructed of seven planks made of alder wood (Figure 6b), simply laid side by side without connecting dowels, lap or dovetail joints. Although the lower point of the shield is now missing, the estimated overall length is 125 cm. The shield measures 86 cm at its widest point, with the individual planks measuring 6–17 cm wide and 0.4–0.8 cm thick. In comparison, most round AngloSaxon shields had a minimum diameter of between 35–45 cm and a maximum diameter of 49–73 cm, whereas all thirty two shields from the ninth century Gokstad ship burial had a diameter of 94 cm.19 An example of a large, wide kite-type early 10 K. DOWEN ET AL. FIGURE 7. Site plan of settlement level No. XXXIV, building block No. V, archaeological trench No. VI, and building No. 81. The exact location of the unpainted shield-find is marked with the shield symbol. Drawing: A. Uciechowska-Gawron. medieval shield can be seen on a depiction of the martyrdom of archbishop Thomas Becket on an early thirteenth century reliquary from Hedal church, Norway. There are eight holes drilled through the board to take nails for fixing the arm straps from which the left one, made of tanned leather and measuring TWO TWELFTH-CENTURY KITE SHIELDS FROM SZCZECIN, POLAND 11 8. The unpainted kite shield from Szczecin, twelfth century: a—obverse, b—reverse; a–b—drawing: N. Lenkow. FIGURE 12 K. DOWEN ET AL. 9. The unpainted kite shield from Szczecin, twelfth century: a—reverse, b—obverse; a–b—photo: L. Marek. FIGURE TWO TWELFTH-CENTURY KITE SHIELDS FROM SZCZECIN, POLAND 13 FIGURE 10. The painted kite shield from Szczecin, twelfth century, details: a—arm strap; b— reconstruction of the arm strap system; a—photo: L. Marek; b—after Głosek, Uciechowska Gawron 2011. 5 cm wide, has fortunately survived (Figure 10 a,b). The distance between the pairs of rivets for strap end attachment is about 10 cm (left: 10.1; right: 9.7 cm).20 The plain unpainted example has only two planks still preserved (Figures 8 and 9). Taking into account the general outline of the shield and the considerable width of the planks—13.8 and 12.2 cm, respectively—we may assume that originally they might have formed nearly half of the width of the shield. If the rest of the shield was similarly constructed, we can estimate that the whole board was made up of five planks. The surviving part of the shield measures 97 cm in length with the thickness of the planks ranging from 0.75 to 0.9 cm. The line of the shield’s outer edge suggests it belongs to a similar triangular-topped type as the painted example. Due to its relatively thin wooden boards, suggestions have appeared in the literature that the painted shield might have been for ceremonial rather than battlefield use.21 To support this argument, the Seedorf shield was quoted as an example, as it is nearly twice as thick (1.5 cm according to Wendelin Boeheim).22 However, this failed 14 K. DOWEN ET AL. to take into account the thickness measurements of this example also included the layers of parchment and paint, not only the wooden planks.23 Rather, the thickness of the Szczecin finds correspond very well with the dimentions of other pre-Roman Iron Age, Roman and early medieval shields. For example, the pre-Roman shields from the famous Hjortspring ship, dated to c. 350 BC measure only 0.5 cm in thickness, exactly the same as the early Roman shield from Vaedebro/Alken Enge bog.24 Boards of the late second to early third century AD Illerup shields measure 0.8–1.2 cm thick in the middle, narrowing to 0.2–0.4 cm at the edge.25 One of the two ninth century AD shields found in the bog in Tirskom, Liep aja region, Latvia measures only 0.6 cm thick, whilst the other is 1.4 cm thick. In the latter case only the middle plank was preserved which usually comprised the thickest part of the shield.26 The thickness of the individual planks depended on local manufacturing techniques, as well as on the choice of material used to construct the shield. For example, in the case of the Illerup finds the thinnest shields were made of oak.27 Boards of poplar or willow found on early Anglo-Saxon sites in England have an estimated thickness of 0.8–1.1 cm, while examples produced from of alder were sometimes only 0.5–0.6 cm thick, such as those found in the cemetery at Bargates, Dorset.28 At Berinsfield, Oxfordshire, board thicknesses ranged from 0.38–0.84 cm.29 An average thickness for a circular board of alder from this time is estimated at 0.7 cm which corresponds well with the dimensions of the Szczecin shields. The timber for large shields had to be both lightweight and resilient. Achieving this balance was undoubtedly a difficult task for the shieldmaker. Using an example of a fifteenth century Burgundian pavise from the Schweizerisches Nationalmuseum Z€ urich (Inv. No. KZ 386), it is possible to observe how the weight of the completed shield would have changed had the craftsman chosen different materials. Made of poplar, the shield weighs 4.84 kg. If the shieldmaker had used alder, the shield would have weighed 5.91 kg, beech: 7.74 kg, lime: 5.70 kg; spruce: 5.05 kg, respectively.30 Types of wood Numerous species of wood were used in the construction of shields. Based on an analysis of 148 early Anglo-Saxon (c. 410–c. 660 AD) shields these were alder, ash, beech, birch, lime, maple, oak, poplar and willow.31 Of these species alder, willow and poplar were the most widely favoured, due to being lightweight yet resistant to mechanical stress.32 Indeed, constructing boards of alder planks seems to have been the most common procedure in the Pre-Roman and Roman Iron Age.33 There are, however, local exceptions to this general rule.34 In early medieval Scandinavia pine was also used for shield boards; as confirmed by the Vendel period find from Valsg€ arde (Grave 6) and the later 32 circular Viking shields from the Gokstad ship which according to analyses undertaken by Prof. A. Blytt, were made of white pine.35 TWO TWELFTH-CENTURY KITE SHIELDS FROM SZCZECIN, POLAND 15 11. Anatomical features of the unpainted shield (Figs. 9–10), characteristic of alder wood, viewed on the handmade sections. (a). The diffuse-porous wood with vessels in radial files (white arrow) are shown on transverse section. The aggregate ray is also visible (black arrow); (b). the uniseriate ray (arrow) on tangential section; (c). the scalariform perforation plate of vessel. Scale bar in mm. FIGURE The identification of wood types used for specific shields is more often based purely on subjective opinion rather than on specialist analyses. A good example is the Seedorf shield. Initially the shield was believed to have been constructed either of fir or lime, however, further analysis revealed it to be of alder.36 In order to ascertain the species of wood used in the construction of the Szczecin painted shield, a number of samples were taken from different areas of the shield boards for analysis.37 Although it would be logical to expect a shield board to be constructed of homogeneous material, and thus avoiding uneven weather-induced stresses, there are instances of shields constructed of different species of wood. Such examples were encountered among the Roman Age finds from Illerup as well as early Anglo-Saxon examples from England.38 This may be explained by the need to repair a damaged shield when either the original wood was not available, not known or not considered to be of importance. However, the results in the case of the Szczecin painted shield confirmed that all the boards were made of alder (Alnus sp). In order to identify the species of wood used in the construction of the unpainted shield from Szczecin, microscopic analyses were undertaken. Due to the importance of the piece only a few small slivers of wood were cut using a razor blade to obtain transverse, tangential and radial sections.39 The sections were then analyzed using an Olympus BX-50 light microscope and documented using an Olympus CP71 camera and Cell B Software. The Macromedia Fireworks MX2004 programme was used for the preparation of plates. Based on microscopic analysis, the wood has been identified as alder (Alnus sp.). due to the presence of a diffuse-porous structure with vessels located in solitary or in radial files of 2–3 pores each.40 Rays were uniseriate and aggregate rays were also noted. The vessels, without spiral thickenings, possessed scalariform perforation plates with 10–20 bars (Figure 11). 16 K. DOWEN ET AL. The assembly of the shield boards Various methods of joining shield planks have been recorded. The earliest known wooden shields dated to the mid-fourth century BC, found in the Hjortspring bog, have their boards cut out of a single piece of wood or composed of two up to three vertically arranged planks held together by dovetail joints and sealed with tree tar.41 However, the most widespread technique was to arrange planks vertically in one layer to form a board, before being glued edge to edge. This technique of shield construction is well documented within the Barbaricum during the Roman Iron Age, with the most spectacular finds from Scandinavian bog deposits in Illerup, Nydam or Thorsbjerg.42 In the classical Roman world this technique was used mainly to construct circular shields, such as the painted examples from Dura Europos, also dated to the third century AD.43 The Roman legionary scutum found at the same site during earlier archaeological campaigns was constructed in a different way, using a laminated or plywood technique, involving three layers of thin strips of plane (Platanus sp.) wood glued together.44 Laminated construction is also evidenced by an older Republican Roman scutum from Fayum.45 However, following the Roman period, this technique appears to have fallen out of use. In 1953 excavations at the AngloSaxon inhumation cemetery at Petersfinger uncovered the remains of what at first appeared to be a laminated shield.46 However, later re-examination of the shield showed this not to have been the case.47 Beginning in the tenth century it appears that some shields were again constructed from laminated boards. The Latin poem Waltharius, for example, written around the beginning of the tenth century refers to shields of three and seven ply.48 An example of a laminated shield was recovered during excavations at the so-called ‘Library site’ in the old town of Trondheim.49 Dating to c.1050–1100, the elongated oval shield was formed of two layers of thin wooden planks set at right angles to each other and covoldal shield no longer survives ered with a layer of leather.50 In addition, although the R€ (which was believed to be of twelfth century date), the drawing by Thordeman indicates it too was constructed in a similar manner.51 This practice, however, did not become widespread as plank construction continued to dominate. Evidence from the triangular ‘heater’ shields from Marburg, dating from the late thirteenth to early fourteenth centuries, shows that this technique was continued into the late Middle Ages.52 The same predominance of plank construction was also noted in the sample of late medieval pavises which underwent conservation and specialist analysis.53 Precisely how the planks were originally held together in the Szczecin shields remains a mystery. Most probably they were glued together with an organic adhesive which has since degraded. Theophilus a Benedictine monk from the Rhineland (most probably Roger of Helmerhausen) in his twelfth century book On Diverse Arts, recommended casein glue (an adhesive made from milk protein) as the best to hold together door, altar, or shield planks. It was his belief that this method would ensure that after drying, the elements could not be separated either by heat or moisture.54 The Seedorf shield dated to the turn of the twelfth/thirteenth centuries had planks TWO TWELFTH-CENTURY KITE SHIELDS FROM SZCZECIN, POLAND 17 with bevelled sides to increase the surface area for bonding.55 No such feature appears on the Szczecin examples, although the outer edges are bevelled probably for the addition of a rim (see below). Instead, the edges of the individual planks are cut at right angles; a construction feature more common among shield boards dating from antiquity up to the Middle Ages. Shield coverings According to Theophilus, his preferred shield covering was ass, horse, or ox rawhide, though he suggested the use of linen cloth if rawhide was unavailable.56 Firstly, the hair had to be removed before the hides were soaked in water and then wrung-out. Following this, the damp rawhide was fixed to the surface of the shield with casein glue.57 Upon drying, the rawhide would shrink, pulling the planks together and adding structural stability. Specialist analyses of surviving shields have revealed the majority are covered with rawhide or parchment (both rawhide and parchment are produced from untanned animal hides or skins. The production of parchment involves the chemical and mechanical removal of the grain surface). The Seedorf shield was coated with parchment made of ox-skin taken from a young animal rather than from a calf.58 Late medieval pavises, intended for common soldiers were more often covered with untanned pigskin or linen cloth prior to painting.59 A Burgundian pavise kept at the Schweizerisches Nationalmuseum Z€ urich (Inv. No. KZ-386) stands out from the rest in being covered with kid-skin which was vegetable tanned on the obverse and alum tanned (tawed) on the reverse.60 This example must have been produced for elite troops as confirmed not only by its expensive leather coating but also by the rare pigments used for its decoration. In archaeological contexts rawhide rarely survives even in water-logged environments. As a result complete shields with their coverings seldom survive. The closest comparable shields to the ones from Szczecin are most probably represented by the late second to early third century AD Illerup finds. Although no traces of leather or rawhide coverings were ever recorded among the Illerup shields, archaeological experiments suggest that originally there must have been some kind of skin stretched over the boards. A good candidate would be very thin rawhide, which when soaked with linseed oil forms a protective transparent layer, resistant to weather conditions but thin enough to allow any design on the wooden boards to remain visible.61 A similar construction method might have been used for the shields from the famous Gokstad ship dated to the ninth/tenth centuries AD, with their yellow and black painted decoration applied directly onto the wooden surface.62 The use of hemp rope, bast fibre, linen thread and grass as a reinforcing layer laid perpendicular to the shield board joints is recorded in a number of medieval documents.63 So far this appears to have only been found on the shield from the Curonian warriors grave in Tirskom.64 Close examination of the surface of the unpainted shield from Szczecin has not revealed any traces of a reinforcing layer.65 18 K. DOWEN ET AL. 12. The painted kite shield from Szczecin, twelfth century, detail of bevelled edge. Photo: L Marek. FIGURE Shield rims Based on pictorial sources, kite shields appear to have been provided with some form of edge reinforcement or rim, either of metal or perhaps an organic material such as leather. A notable feature of the Szczecin shields is that they both TWO TWELFTH-CENTURY KITE SHIELDS FROM SZCZECIN, POLAND 19 have bevelled outer edges, possibly indicating the use of metal rims intended to provide additional structural rigidity and prevent the boards from being easily split by a blow (Figures 8, 9 and 12). Such features are well known from bog deposits dated to the Roman Iron Age in northern Europe. Late second to early third century AD shields found in Illerup, for instance, had bevelled edges to take iron rims, which in some cases were still preserved.66 In Anglo-Saxon England, most shield rims appear to have been of copper-alloy.67 For example, the rim of the early seventh century AD shield recovered from Mound 1 at Sutton Hoo is formed of a u-sectioned gilt bronze strip, attached to the shield boards by a number of gilt-bronze clips.68 Metal rims may have been applied to the shields from the Gokstad ship, which are dated to the turn of the ninth/ tenth centuries AD. The shield boards exhibit bevelled edges with a row of holes along the circumference, which have been interpreted as rivet holes69 Other scholars, however, believe the holes were used to stitch a leather edging band in place.70 The usual stitching technique to secure the leather or rawhide covering on a wooden shield board is evidenced by the Vaedebro/Alken Enge bog find dated to the very beginning of the Roman period, the fourth century AD Nydam examples and the ninth century AD circular shield preserved with its original leather covering from the grave in Tirskom.71 On the other hand the existence of a metal rim on a late twelfth century AD shield could be regarded as unlikely particularly as between the sixth and eleventh centuries AD, the use of metal shield rims appears to decrease considerably.72 The attachment of the arm straps The arm straps on the painted Szczecin shield were fixed very low, about 50 cm below the upper edge (Figure 10b). This has led some scholars to conclude that the shield must have been poorly balanced.73 However, it is possible the location of the attachment holes may be for a specific purpose. For example, contemporary knightly literature notes how the rectangle formed by the arm-strap rivet-heads was frequently targeted with lances; as the of presence of rivet holes weakened this area of the shield. According to Reinfried von Braunschweig ‘where one could see the attachment of the grips by the nails on the shield, that it where the lance was often aimed with knightly spirit’.74 Tournament targes, for instance, often had decorative rivet heads to facilitate aiming at the arm strap riveting.75 By placing the rivets lower down the shield and therefore in a more difficult to reach area, this could potential be avoided. A more likely explanation may be due to the shield being designed for use in siege warfare. The largest and heaviest pavises of the Sturmwand type known from the late Middle Ages were held very low in order to offer better protection to the upper body when approaching fortifications, or when kneeling or crouching.76 The use of large shields in siege-warfare is represented in a number of visual sources of the period, including in the early twelfth century ‘Historiae Hierosolymitanae Libri 20 FIGURE K. DOWEN ET AL. 13. Arm strap systems as depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry—after Kohlmorgen 2002. quatuor’ by Balderic Bishop of Dol (BNF Latin 5134, f.020r) and in the mid-thirteenth century ‘Aschaffenburg Golden Gospels’ (HBA MS. 13, f.18v). This hypothesis could also partly explain the width of the shield. Large shields, possibly similar to the pavise, are known from France from the early twelfth century where they are called variously ‘talavacius/talochia/talebart/talevas’.77 The arm strap system of eleventh to twelfth century shields was by no means standarised. For example, kite-shields depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry exhibit diverse arm strap arrangements, of which the most popular were the four following types: 1 - one leather strap/grip running across the entire width of the shield, 2 - a similar grip in combination with two arm loops, 3 - arm straps forming a square and a leather grip, 4 - a grip formed of leather straps crossed to form a letter X in combination with two arm loops placed below (Figure 13).78 Another feature of the shield was the long carrying strap or guige (German: Schildfessel). This had been developed by the ninth century (see: Prudentius’s Psychomachia, MS 23, folio 2), enabling the warrior to sling the shield across his shoulder when required. This practical application of the guige is depicted a number of times in the twelfth century Liber ad Honorem Augusti by Petrus de Ebulo (see for example BBB.Cod. 120.II Liber ad honorem Augusti sive rebus Siculis f107r-1), which show knights riding with a lance in one hand, the reigns of the charger in the other, and the shield suspended from the neck. Literary accounts also attest to the use of the guige. The twelfth century poet Robert Wace, for instance, wrote that on the arrival of the Normans in England the knights were ‘all armed and wearing hauberks, with their shields around their necks and their helmets laced on’.79 Indeed, the presence of a guige on the painted shield has been previously hypothesised (Figure 10b).80 TWO TWELFTH-CENTURY KITE SHIELDS FROM SZCZECIN, POLAND 21 It has been suggested in modern studies that the holes for the attachment of the straps on the painted shield have been poorly located.81 However, this conclusion seems unlikely given that this was a practical and important piece of equipment. Instead, it is probable that the shield originally had a sophisticated system of armstraps, which could be used in various ways on the battlefield according to the situation. Unfortunately, due to wood shrinkage after conservation and the fact that considerable parts of the shield are now missing, it is virtually impossible to precisely reconstruct its arm strap arrangement. The unpainted shield has four pairs of holes drilled through the longest plank. Two of them, located approximately in the middle of the shield (Figure 8), served to fix the left arm strap to the board just as in the case of the painted shield. Near the upper edge there are two holes aligned one above the other, most probably for the attachment of a guige or an arm strap running transversely across the inner side of the shield. The purpose of drilling another pair of similarly arranged holes, very close to the lower point of the board, seems less obvious, though presumably they were used to attach a transverse leather strap. It is possible that the transverse leather loops located near the upper edge and the lower point of the shield, were designed to hold a post or a spear in order to support the shield in a vertical positional when not being carried; such as part of a static field or fortification defence. The painting of the shield Originally when excavated, the painted design on the Szczecin shield was clearly visible (Figure 6a), however, following conservation this is sadly no longer the case (Figure 6b). The design consists of a large cross potent painted in red with yellow highlighted edges. The border of the shield is marked by a black line and decorated along the edge with a row of interchanging red circles and black ovals with yellow rosettes painted against a red background (Figure 6c).82 Specialist analyses revealed that the pigments used were: vermilion, iron (III) oxide, calcium carbonate, an unidentified organic black paint and arsenic trisulphide otherwise known as orpiment. In addition to these colours, traces of an oil based medium were also identified.83 According to Cellino Cellini’s Il Libro dell’Arte, written at the turn of the fifteenth century, orpiment was recommended as a good vivid colour to paint on both shields and lances.84 Similar scientific investigations on pigments used in the decoration of shields are extremely rare. However, they are better documented for the Roman Iron Age and early medieval examples than later dated shields. Apart from the Illerup shields painted in red, some traces of blue and red pigments were identified on a third century AD shield from Bø, Norway.85 Remains of red paint were also found on shields from the early medieval graves at Valsg€arde 9 and at Sutton Hoo.86 In Grimstrup, Denmark, a piece of wood recovered from a tenth century horseman’s grave was interpreted as possibly being from a shield. It had been painted dark blue with blue- 22 K. DOWEN ET AL. green bands of tracery outlined in white, with additional white spots and a band of red.87 One of the probable techniques of painting shields in the Roman Iron Age and the early medieval period was to apply the decoration directly onto the wood possibly followed by a thin layer of transparent rawhide to protect it. However, by the later Middle Ages the use of multilayer and relief decoration required the shieldmakers to paint the boards after covering them with rawhide or leather. The Szczecin shield, therefore, represents the traditional, ancient technique. The meaning of the decoration It is commonly accepted that decorative mounts and bosses found on shields evolved out of practical fittings originally designed to hold the shield boards together and provide anchoring points for leather straps. Over time these details developed into painted apotropaic symbols and eventually into heraldic figures.88 It is thought that some of the latter, such as lilies or crosses might have originated from shield mounts made of metal.89 As such, some details on the painted shield from Szczecin may have been inspired either by metal mounts or other decorative elements set into the shield board. As previously mentioned the border of the shield is dotted with alternating coloured circles and ovals sometimes filled with yellow rosettes. These may have been added in imitation of precious or semi-precious stones arranged along the border of high-status parade shields such as the one sculpted on the early thirteenth century grave slab of Wiprecht von Groitzsch in the Stadtkirche St. Laurentius, Pegau, Germany.90 Stones set into the border of the shield were also imitated in gesso and moulded parchment by an artist decorating one of the finest knightly shields to be preserved in European collections, from the Chapitre Cath
edrale de Valere de Sion in Switzerland (Inv No. MV 172).91 Originally the stones may have had talismanic meaning and were not only used for display. The symbolism of colours most probably played an important role in the design of the Szczecin shield. Of all the colours used on the shield, red dominates. This colour was always regarded as sacred, related to judicial proceedings and trial by combat.92 Red was one of the most popular shield pigments used in the Roman Iron Age and early medieval period.93 The Old Norse Elder Edda relates that displaying a red shield on a mast of a vessel was regarded as a declaration of war.94 According to the ‘Chronicles of the Kings and Princes of Poland’ the Polish duke Bolesław III Krzywousty presented a choice to the defenders of Bialograd in 1108 between a white and a red shield (obessis duo scuta ostentans, unum album, alterum rubrum. ‘Quod, iquit, istorum eligitis?’). The townsmen responded that they would rather take the white one for ‘it seems to be tempting us with the delight of peace, while the other threatens with a horrible bloodshed’ (album, quia in se pacis blanditur delectamento, illud terribilem cruorum inducit asperginem).95 These old customs were a long living phenomenon. In the thirteenth century Vulgate Lancelot cycle, for TWO TWELFTH-CENTURY KITE SHIELDS FROM SZCZECIN, POLAND 23 example, a red shield is a sign to attack for Lancelot’s knights.96 King Edward III, before one of the decisive battles of the Hundred Years War ordered his troops to display red pennons as a sign that his army was ready for judicial combat before God as the supreme judge.97 It seems likely that in the decoration of the painted Szczecin shield, the old symbolic meaning of the colour red was merged with the strong talismanic properties of the Christian cross, which is the most prominent and obvious feature of the design. Kite shields with red crosses are often depicted in the hands of crusaders in twelfth century miniature paintings.98 However, it should be stressed that not every shield with a red cross must have belonged to a crusader. Although heraldic figures appear in the latter half of the twelfth century, it seems rather unlikely that the painting of the Szczecin shield had heraldic significance. Conclusions As early as the mid-twelfth century in Western Europe kite shields were being produced with straight rather than rounded tops; possibly as a measure to improve vision. Numerous examples can be found in contemporary illustrations and sculpture as can be seen on the figures from the doorway of the church of San Zeno in Verona, dated to c.1139. Around the same time, the length of the shield was slowly reduced, possibly due to the increasing use of leg protection in the form of mail chausses which until the last quarter of the twelfth century appear to have been restricted to wealthier and more elite individuals.99 This process led directly to the development of the classical triangular knightly or ‘heater’ shield of which the oldest representations carried not by mounted warriors but by those on foot, can be found on the mid-twelfth century cast-bronze doors of Płock Cathedral in Poland (the originals of which are now in Veliky Novgorod, Russia). This transition was a gradual process with a number of styles existing side by side; as can be observed on the famous Scandinavian ivory chessmen from the Isle of Lewis. Dating to approximately the third quarter of the twelfth century a range of kite shields are depicted including the older ogival form alongside more modern narrower straight sided examples. By the beginning of the 13th century though the popularity of the kite shield rapidly declined across Europe, save Italy, where it remained in use especially as a ceremonial shield until the end of the fifteenth century.100 Dating no later than the very end of the twelfth century, the Szczecin shields are distinguished by their pointed or triangular tops; therefore representing a less well known style of shield but one which nonetheless does appear in contemporary art. Fabricated from a series of alder planks laid side by side and probably originally joined together with an organic glue, this type of shield construction can be traced back to at least the Roman Iron Age and continued to be used throughout the medieval period. Despite their apparent thinness, the dimensions of the shield boards 24 K. DOWEN ET AL. conform to many other examples from the pre-Roman Iron Age and early medieval England and Scandinavia. There can be no reasonable doubt therefore that the Szczecin shields were indeed functional battlefield pieces. This is confirmed by the provision of holes for the placement of arm and neck straps which would otherwise be unnecessary. Although no traces remain, it is highly likely that both shields were covered either with rawhide or parchment in order to provide structural stability and strength. The decoration on the painted shield does not appear to have any heraldic significance, although the use of the cross and painted ovals and rosettes may have had some talismanic meaning. Both shields exhibit bevelled edges and a series of holes along the outer edge suggesting they once had metal or leather rims. Whilst the origin of the shields cannot be precisely determined, it is certainly a possibility that they belonged to the Danish troops who periodically attacked the city during the second half of the twelfth century. Perhaps suffering some damage in combat, they were later discarded and used as in-fill in the construction of the city’s ramparts. However, it is equally possible they were of local manufacture. What is clear though, is that the two shields from Szczecin represent the only known surviving kite shields and thus are of immense importance in our understanding of medieval technology and warfare. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Sławomir Słowi
nski and Anna Uciechowska-Gawron for their contributions to the historical and archaeological context of the shields and to Dr El_zbieta My
skow for undertaking the wood analysis. Notes 1 E. Cnotliwy, Archeologia zamku Ksia˛_za˛t Pomorskich w Szczecinie (Szczecin: Muzeum Nadorowe z Szczecinie, 2014), pp. 163–164. 2 T. Białecki, Historia Szczecina (Wrocław, 1992) pp. 54–55. 3 B. Thordemann, ed., Vapen, Nordisk Kultur XIIb (Stockholm: Albert Bonniers, 1943), pp. 67–68; H. Nickel, Der mittelalterliche Reiterschild des Abendlandes (Berlin, 1958), p. 22 and J. Kohlmorgen, Der mittelalterliche Reiterschild (Wald-Michgelbach: Karfunkel, 2002), p. 30. 4 Faye Belsey, Assistant Curator at the Pitt Rivers Museum, email message to the author (K. Dowen) May 2, 2017. 5 Sale Catalogue, S. Maeder, et al. Fischer. Antike Waffen und Militaria. 11. und 12. September 2014 (Luzern: Fischer 2014), pp. 98–99. 6 H. Schneider, ‘Neues zum Reiterschild von Seedorf,’ Zeitschrift f€ ur Schweizerische Arch€aologie und Kunstgeschichte, 12/2 (1951), 118. 7 Nickel, 1958, p. 25. M. Senn and F. Moser, ‘Der Reitershchild von Seedorf UR: ein Unterschungs- und Restaurierungsbericht,’ Jahresbericht/Schweizerisches Landesmuseum Zurich (1991), 82. 9 See M. Głosek and A. Uciechowska-Gawron, ‘Wczesnorsredniowieczna tarcza z podgrodzia w Szczecinie,’ Materiały Zachodniopomorskie, 6/7 (2011), 272 and A. Kowalska and A. _ Uciechowska-Gawron, ‘Arma et Gloria, Zycie 8 w cieniu umoncnie
n obronnych,’ in Civitas et urbs Stetinum. Karty z dziej
ow p
ołnocnej cze R
sci miasta, ed. by A. Kowalska (Szczecin: Muzeum Narodowe w Szczecinie 2015), p. 33. 10 P. Grotowski, Arms and Armour of the Warrior Saints: Tradition and Innovation in Byzantine Iconography (843-1261) (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 231–234 and Kohlmorgen, p. 25. 11 Nickel, 1958, p. 10 and H. Nickel, Ullstein Waffenbuch. Eine kulturhistorische Waffenkunde mit Markenverzeichnis (Berlin, 1974), p. 22. TWO TWELFTH-CENTURY KITE SHIELDS FROM SZCZECIN, POLAND 12 Nickel, 1958, pp. 8–9 and Kohlmorgen, p. 27. Nickel, 1974, p. 21. 14 A. S. del Campo, La evolucion del armamento Medieval en el Reino Castellano-leones y Alandalus (siglos XII-XIV) (Madrid: Servicio de publicaciones del E.M.E, 1993), p. 228, fig. 32 and P. Martin, Waffen und R€ ustungen von Karl dem Grossen bis zu Ludwig XIV (Frankfurtam-Main: Umschau-Verl., 1967), p. 25, fig. 11. 15 K. Wachowski and J. Witkowski, ‘Henryk IV Prawy – homo oeconomicus, czy homo ludens,’ Wratislavia Antiqua t.8 (2005), 81. 16 Głosek and Uciechowska-Gawron, 274. 17 S. I. Stephanius, Saxonis Grammatici Historiae Danicae (Libri XVI) (Joachimi Moltkenii Bibliopolse, 1644), p. 337 ‘Fuere tamen ex juvenibus, qui gloriae studio summa moenium clypeis tantum protecti conscenderent.’ 18 Rospond, S. Słownik etymologiczny miast i gmin PRL (Wrocław, 1984), p. 380. 19 T. Dickinson and H. H€ arke, ‘Early Anglo-Saxon Shields,’ Archaeologia 110 (1992), 42–47. 20 The authors would like to express gratitude to Professor Saebjørg Walaker Nordeide from the University of Bergen for her kind assistance and for providing us with referrences and information on this unique shield. 21 Głosek and Uciechowska-Gawron, 274 and Kowalska and Uciechowska-Gawron, p. 33. 22 W. Boeheim, Meister der Waffenschmiedekunst vom XIV. bis ins XVIII. Jahrhundert (Berlin: W. M€ oser, 1897), p. 71. 23 There is a noticable discrepancy between the measurments taken by the authors (K. Dowen and L. Marek) while examining the object and the dimensions published in the literature (Głosek Uciechowska Gawron, 271: strap length – 42, the distance between pairs of holes for strap attachment – 28 and 24 cm. The previous authors counted 5 holes while we were able to identyfy only 4). 24 J. Illerup Ilkjaer, ‘Ådal-die Schilde,’ Jutland Archaeological Society Publications, 25/9 (2001), 356–357. 25 Ilkjaer, 18. 26 V. A. Urtan, ‘Drevnie shchity na territorii Latviiskoe SSR,’ Sovietskaia Arkheologia (1961), 222–223. 27 Ilkjaer, 347. 28 Dickinson and H€ arke, 49. 29 I. P. Stephenson, The Anglo Saxon Shield (Stroud: Tempus Publishing, 2002), p. 44. 30 A. Alt, ‘Zwei mittelalterliche Schilde – Technologische Untersuchungen zum Aufbau im Vergleich,’ Waffen und Kost€ umkunde, 55.2 (2013), 78. 31 Stephenson, p. 39. 13 32 25 arke, 48–49 and Senn and Dickinson and H€ Moser, 81. 33 Ilkjaer, 349, 355–356 and 358 and P. M. Rudzi
nski, ‘Tarcza we wczesno
sredniowiecznej Polsce na tle europejskim. Od plemienia do pa
nstwa,’ Acta Militaria Mediaevalia, 5 (2009), 25. 34 H. Bullock et al. ‘Evidence for Shield Construction from the Early Anglo-Saxon Cemetery Site of Tranmer House, Bromeswell, Suffolk,’ The British Museum Technical Research Bulletin, 5 (2011), 18. 35 N. Nicolaysen, The Viking Ship Discovered at Gokstad in Norway (Christiana: Cammermeyer, 1882/2003), p. 62. It has been suggested that the term ‘white pine’ is not specific. On the other hand, ‘Norway Spruce’ is sometimes known as ‘White Pine.’ Based on the latest views of the Museum of Cultural History, Oslo, the majority are of Spruce, though some may be pine. See K. Hjardar and V. Vike, Vikings at War (Oxford: Casemate, 2016), p. 185. 36 Senn and Moser, 81. 37 I. Jagielska, ‘Badania i konserwacja drewnianej tarczy ze szczeci
nskiego Podzamcza,’ Materialy Zachodniopomorskie, 6/7 (2011), 287. 38 Ilkjaer, 350 and Bullock et al., 18. 39 M. Rakoczy and E. My
skow, ‘Drewniane naczynia toczone z Ostrowa Tumskiego we Wrocławiu wybrane zagadnienia technologiczne,’
Sla˛skie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, 56 (2014), 209 and 220–224 and E. My
skow and M. Rakoczy, ‘Identyfikacja rodzaju drewna wykorzystanego do wyrobu zabytk
ow drewnianych z bada
n archeologicznych przy ulicy
sw. Idziego,’ in Kształtowanie sie R grodu na wrocławskim Ostrowie Tumskim. Badania przy ul.
sw. Idziego, ed by A. Limisiewicz and A. Pankiewicz (Wrocław: University of Wrocław, 2015), pp. 363–372, p. 363. 40 See P. Greguss, The identification of Central European Dicotyledonous Trees and Shrubs based on Xylotomy. Hungarian Museum of Natural History (Budapest: Museum of Natural History, 1945) and F. H. Schweingruber, Anatomy of European Woods (Bern: Paul Haupt, 1990). 41 F. Kaul, ‘Shields,’ in Hjortspring: A Pre-Roman Iron-Age Warship in Context, ed. by O. Crumlin-Pederson (Roskilde: Viking Ship Museum, 2003), p. 152. 42 Ilkjaer, 359. 43 M. I. Rostovtzeff, F. E.Brown, and C. B. Wells, The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Preliminary Report of the Seventh and Eighth Seasons of Work, 1933–1934 and 1934–1935 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939), p. 328. 44 Rostovtzeff et al., 1939, pp. 456–457. 26 45 K. DOWEN ET AL. € W. Kimming, ‘Ein Keltenschild Aus Agypten,’ Germania, 24 (1940), 110. The shield was interpreted as originally belonging to Celtic mercenaries. This is why the find is sometimes referred to as coming from the Celtic period (see: Ilkjaer, 2001, 359). 46 E. T. Leeds and H. Shortt, An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Petersfinger, Near Salisbury Wilts (Salisbury: South Wilts and Blackmore Museum, 1953), pp. 55–56. 47 H. H€arke, ‘Anglo-Saxon laminated shields at Petersfinger, a myth,’ Medieval Archaeology, 25 (1981), 141–142. 48 Waltharius Manus Fortis. http://www. thelatinlibrary.com/waltarius2.html lines 668 and 733 [accessed May 16, 2018] ‘Sic ait et triplicem clipeum collegit in ulnam et crispans hastile micans vi nititur omni ac iacit’ and ‘Constitit opponens clipei septemplicis orbem, Saepius eludens venientes providus ictus.’ 49 S. A. Nordeide, ‘“ … de beste bønder i Kiøbstaeden … ”: En funksjonsog aktivitetsanalyse basert på gjenstandsmaterialet,’ in Meddelelser fra prosjektet Fortiden i Trondheim bygrunn, ed. by K. Skaare (Trondheim: Riksantikvaren, 1989), p. 157, fig. 29. 50 Nordeide, p. 157; and A. Christphersen and S. W. Noreide, Kaupangen ved Nidelva: 1000 års byhistorie belyst gjennom de arkeologiske undersøkelsene på folkebibliotekstomten i Trondheim 1973–1985 (Oslo: Riksantikvaren 1994), p. 35. 51 Thordeman, 1943, pp. 72–73, fig. 10. 52 Compare: F. Warnecke, Die mittelalterlichen heraldischen Kampfschilde in der St. ElisabethKirche zu Marbug (Berlin: H.S. Hermann, 1884), pp. 21–35; Nickel, 1958, pp. 27–53 and Kohlmorgen, pp. 53–109. 53 Alt, p. 77. Among these shields only those of the finest workmanship had their planks additionally reinforced by wooden dowels (Ibidem). Of course, this technique could only be effectivly utilised if the planks were of a considerable thickness, as those used for pavises. 54 G. J. Hawthorn and C. Stanley Smith (trans). Theophilus On Divers Arts. The Foremost Medieval Treatise on Painting, Glassmaking and Metalwork (New York: Dover Publications, 1979), p. 26. 55 Senn and Moser, 81. 56 Hawthorn and Stanley Smith (trans), pp. 26–27. 57 Hawthorn and Stanley Smith (trans), pp. 26–27. 58 Senn and Moser, 82. 59 Alt, pp. 84–85. 60 Alt, p. 84. 61 Ilkjaer, 19 and 361; Ibid. Moreover, the experiments proved that without such a covering, even of very thin material, a shield constructed of planks glued side by side and reinforced only with edge mounts, would have been easily shattered by spear or sword-blows. 62 Nicolaysen, pp. 62–63. 63 Alt, 82. 64 Urtan, 222. 65 Compare Alt, 79. 66 Ilkjaer, 18. 67 Stephenson, p. 48. 68 A. C. Evans, The Sutton Hoo ship burial (London: British Museum Press, 1997), p. 49. 69 Nicolaysen, p. 62 70 Rudzi
nski, 26 and Hjardar and Vike, pp. 183–185. 71 Ilkjaer, 358–360 and Urtan, 222. 72 Rudzi
nski, 35. 73 Głosek and Uciechowska-Gawron, 271. 74 J. Bumke, H€ ofische Kultur. Literatur und Gesellschaft im hohen Mittelalter (Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1992), quoted p. 229 ‘da man die riemen heften siht bi den nageln uf dem schilt, dar wart ze rame vil gezilt mit ritterlichem sinne’ (verses: 7340–7343). 75 Nickel, 1974, p. 24. 76 R. Wegeli, Inventar der Waffensammlung des Bernischen historischen Museums in Bern I. Schutzwaffen (Bern: K. J. Wyss Erben, 1920), pp. 4–5. 77 S. R. Meyrick, A critical enquiry into antient armour: Volume III (London: Bohn, 1842); Glossary. 78 Nickel, p. 8, fig. 6 and Kohlmorgen, p. 32. 79 G. S. Burgess, The history of the norman people. Wace’s Roman de Rou (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2004), p. 163. 80 Głosek and Uciechowska-Gawron, 278, fig. 5. 81 Głosek and Uciechowska-Gawron, 271. 82 Glosek and Uciechowska-Gawron, 271 and Kowalska and Uciechowska-Gawron, p. 33. 83 I. Jagielska, ‘Badania i konserwacja drewnianej tarczy ze szczeci
nskiego Podzamcza,’ Zachodniopomorskie, 6/7 (2011), 287–288. 84 L. Broecke, ed. Cennino Cennini’s Il Libro dell’Arte (London: Archetype Publications, 2015), p. 73 ‘e buono molto adipingnere in palvesi e in lancie.’ 85 Ilkjaer, 358–359. 86 Rudzi
nski, 37. 87 Hjardar and Vike, p. 187. An interesting paint stratigraphy of the Seedorf shield was recorded by M. Senn and F. Moser (1992, 82). Initially, layers of ground gypsum paint and gesso were applied directly to the parchment surface. Then the entire surface was painted with imprimitura composed of white lead and an organic black compound. After that the shield was painted TWO TWELFTH-CENTURY KITE SHIELDS FROM SZCZECIN, POLAND with fine powdered azurite giving a light-blue background for another layer of coarse grained azurite of an intense deep blue shade. The heraldic lion was modelled out of gesso and coated with leaf-silver. The reverse of the shield has a similar stratigraphy. The only difference is in the copper-green priming paint for this area. 88 Kohlmorgen, p. 34. 89 Nickel, 1958, p. 14. 90 K. Bauch, Das mittelalterliche Grabbild. Fig€ urlich Grabm€aler des 11. bis 15. Jahrhunderts in Europa (Berlin, 1976) p. 91, fig. 137 and V. V. Filip, ‘Die Wappenbilder der Stifterfiguren in Naumburger Dom,’ in Der Naumburger Meister – Bildhauer und Architekt im Europa der Kathedralen, Vol 2 ed. by H. Krohm and H. Kunde (Petersberg, 2011), fig. 3.12. 91 Kohlmorgen, p. 79 and V. V. Filip, ‘Wappenschild der Herren von Weingarten oder Raron,’ in Der Naumburger Meister – Bildhauer und Architekt im Europa der Kathedralen, Vol 2, ed. by H. Krohm and H. Kunde (Petersberg, 2011), p. 1026. 27 92 L. Marek, ‘
Sredniowieczne uzbrojenie Europy łaci
nskiej jako Ars Emblematica,’ Wratislavia Antiqua, 22 (2017), 44. 93 Rudzi
nski, 37. 94 Kohlmorgen, p. 11. 95 Mistrza Wincentego Kronika Polska (Lw
ow: A Bielowski, 1872), p. 138. 96 J. Wiesiołowski, ‘Przenysł-Lancelot, czyli Stra_znica Radosci nad Warta˛,’ Kronika Miasta Poznania, 2/95 (1995), 128–129. 97 C. Rogers, War Cruel and Sharp. English Strategy under Edward III, 1327–1360 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000), p. 254. 98 D. Breiding, ‘Harnisch und Waffen des Hochund Sp€ atmittelalters,’ in AufRuhr 1225! Ritter, Burgen und Intrigen (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2010), p. 131, fig. 2. 99 D. LaRocca, ‘Notes on the Mail Chausse,’ Journal of the Arms and Armour Society. XV.2 (1995), 69–70 and K. DeVries and K. D. Smith, Medieval Military Technology (North York: University of Toronto Press, 2012), p.70. 100 Nickel, 1958, p. 17. Notes on contributors Keith Dowen is the Assistant Curator of Armour at the Royal Armouries. Prior to joining the Armouries in 2014 he worked as a volunteer conservation department assistant and arms and armour researcher at the Wallace Collection in London. In 2012 he was appointed Honourary Deputy Editor of The Journal of the Arms and Armour Society and in 2016 joined the editorial board of the Polish arms and armour journal Acta Militaria Mediaevalia. Lech Marek is a lecturer in Mediaeval archeology at the University of Wrocław, Poland. He specialises in mediaeval and early modern arms and armour studies. His archaeological research also includes the study of mediaeval conflict and castellology. He has led several archaeological campaigns, mainly at castles and motte and bailey sites as field supervisor. He is also a member of the editorial board of Acta Militaria Mediaevalia. El_zbieta My
skow is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Experimental Biology, University of Wrocław, Poland. She is a lecturer in plant anatomy and development. Specifically, her area of expertise is the structure, functioning and development of trees. As an expert able to identify wood remains to the level of plant genera, she cooperates with other research workers from various scientific disciplines. 28 K. DOWEN ET AL. Sławomir Słowi
nski is an archaeologist employed at the Archaeological Department of the National Museum in Szczecin. He specialises in the archaeology of mediaeval and early modern towns of Western Pomerania, with special focus on Szczecin. He is one of the founding members of the West Pomeranian branch of the Scientific Association of Polish Archaeologists. Anna Uciechowska-Gawron is employed at the P.P. PKZ Archaeological Department of the Castle of the Pomeranian Dukes, National Museum in Szczecin. Her research is focussed on the history of West Pomerania, and specifically on the development of mediaeval towns. She has been an archaeological supervisor at sites dating from the neolithic to the modern periods. ORCID Keith Dowen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2541-1629 Correspondence to: Keith Dowen. Email: keith.dowen@armouries.org.uk.