The archaeological evidence for equestrianism in early Anglo-Saxon England, c.450-700 By Chris Fern Studies of the phenomenon of horse burial and of horse across the Rhine into post-Roman Francia; although a equipment, for the early medieval period on the Continent cluster of burials containing spurs west of the Seine is and in Scandinavia, have demonstrated that equestrianism noteworthy (Müller-Wille, 1970/71: Abb. 1; Oexle, was an important attribute of martial elites in these regions 1984: fig. 1; Rettner, 1997: Abb. 4). (Müller-Wille, 1970/71; Oexle, 1984; 1992; Rettner, 1997; Sundkvist, 2001). This is evidenced by the widespread In Scandinavia the situation is different. In the Roman practice of sacrificing valuable riding horses to accompany Iron Age great sacrificial deposits of horses and horse male burials equipped with weaponry, horse harness and equipment are evidenced in Denmark and eastern prestige goods, and by the related tradition of richly Sweden; yet, these suggest communal ceremonies of a decorating equestrian equipment. By comparison, the different kind to the individualistic burial of a horse and evidence for a parallel custom in early Anglo-Saxon rider (Müller-Wille, 1970/71: 180-185, Abb. 43). In England has been regarded as negligible and peripheral to Sweden the act of cremating horses and putting horse the main central European distribution, and thus reflective equipment in graves occurs rarely during the Migration of the relative unimportance of equitation, and by Period, but becomes more popular from the mid- to late extension the use of horses for warfare, in England in the sixth century, when also the specific act of inhuming period (Baldwin-Brown, 1915: 420-423; Härke, 1997). horses and their equipment with martial elites begins, a This study seeks to reassess the archaeological data for development that is attributed to central European early Anglo-Saxon England and to demonstrate in influence (Petré, 1984: 217; Ramquist, 1992: 66-88; opposition to this view that, while small, the archaeological Müller-Wille 1999: 10, 18). corpus provides definite evidence for an equestrian culture at the top level of society. This is suggested by a tradition In most cases of Continental horse inhumation a single of horse harness, which, while related to Continental individual was buried, though two, three and occasionally fashions, also demonstrates distinctly idiosyncratic traits. more animals were inhumed, sometimes accompanied by Furthermore, in line with European trends, on rare dogs (Müller-Wille, 1970/71: 127-128, 135-138, Abb. 4-5, occasions such equipment and/or a riding horse was 8; Prummel, 1992: 137). Usually, the horse was buried included in the funerary assemblages of Anglo-Saxon whole, though decapitated animals are a particular feature elites, in combination with weaponry and luxury goods. of Thuringian and Alamannic cemeteries, with only the The restriction of such rites to this class is interpreted here carcass or head buried (Kerth, 2000: 128). In the earliest as a deliberate act intended to signal and at the same time burials both horse and human could occur in the same guard equestrian privileges. large grave with the harness usually on the horse, but from c.600 the rite sees the separation of animal and human into Horse and harness burial different burials, with the horse equipment typically in the human grave (Oexle, 1984: 123, 139). Most of our evidence is drawn from the funerary record, and more specifically from the rite of horse inhumation, In England there are thirty-one1 instances of inhumed or the provision of horse equipment as a grave good. In horses (discounting disarticulated remains) and twelve sacrificing horses to accompany the dead the Anglo- cases of riding equipment2 deposited as a grave good Saxon elite were doubtless influenced by Continental without associated horse remains (Vierck, 1970/71; burial theatre, where the rite is to be observed at its English summary see Filmer-Sankey and Pestell, 2001: most explicit. In his study Müller-Wille catalogued over 256-259; Fern, forthcoming). Most of the horses and 750 examples of horse inhumation in Europe between the fifth and the eleventh centuries (Müller-Wille, 1970/71). More recently, Oexle’s study of Continental 1 Stone I, Bucks.; Little Wilbraham 44, Cambs.; Cornforth, Co. horse equipment has catalogued over 600 sets for the Durham; Great Chesterford I H1, Great Chesterford I 142/H2, Merovingian Period (Oexle, 1992: 17). The earliest Great Chesterford II H1, Great Chesterford II H2, Saffron Walden, horse burials are concentrated east of the Rhine amongst Springfield Lyons 8577, Essex; Fairford, Glouc.; Sarre 271, Saltwood 5, Kent; Wanlip, Wigston Magna, Leics.; Caenby, the Saxons, Thuringians and Lombards, though by the Lincs.; Sporle, Norfolk; Broughton Lodge 15/16/H1, Broughton seventh century the practice had become popular Lodge 69/H2, Broughton Lodge 88/H3, Broughton Lodge H4, foremost amongst the Rhineland Franks, Alamanni and Broughton Lodge 19/20, Notts.; Hardingstone, Marston St. Bavarians (Müller-Wille, 1970/71: Abb. 20). It is in Lawrence, Woodstone, Northants.; Eriswell 0355, Eriswell 4116, Icklingham, Snape 47, Sutton Hoo 17, Warren Hill (Mildenhall), these latter regions also that horse harness was most Suffolk; West Heslerton 19/186,Yorks. commonly deposited in burials (Oexle, 1984: fig. 1). 2 Chamberlain’s Barn II 45, Beds.; Edix Hill 88, Linton Heath 18, With a few exceptions, notably the grave of Childeric, Cambs.; Castledyke 18, Humber.; Bishopsbourne 3, Mill Hill 93, the rites of horse burial and bridle burial did not spread Saltwood 7, Sarre 28, Kent; Kirton-in-Lindsey II, Loveden Hill HB4, Lincs.; Alfriston 91, W. Sussex; Garton II 10, Yorks. 43 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 Figure 5.1 The sixth-century horse burial from Eriswell 104 (Lakenheath), grave 4116: 1. Sword 2. Sword-bead 3. Spearhead 4. Shield 5. Knife 6. Bridle 7.Bucket 8. Saddle fittings 9. Sheep remains sets of harness have been found buried with, or in and saddle equipment, and in one third of cases this association with, adult males with prestige items, such equipment was found in situ on the horse, confirming as swords and bronze bowls, and in some cases in that these were trained riding animals.3 After the end of graves marked by ring-ditches, posts or mounds horse burial in England, in the early seventh century, (Figures 5.1-5.3; Fern, forthcoming). horse harness continued to be buried in human graves, perhaps as a symbol of equestrian status (Figure 5.3; The Anglo-Saxon rite exhibits notable parallels with the Geake, 1997: 101). Continental custom. In the sixth century the human and harnessed horse were placed in the same grave, but from 3 On the horse: Little Wilbraham 44, Great Chesterford I 142/H2, the early seventh century the burials are separate. In all Springfield Lyons 8577, Hardingstone, Marston St. Lawrence, cases only a single horse was sacrificed, occasionally by Broughton Lodge 15/16/H1, Eriswell 0355, Eriswell 4116, Snape 47, In the horse grave: Broughton Lodge H3, Wanlip, West decapitation, with only the head buried (Ibid.). Around Heslerton 186, Wigston Magna In the human grave: Saltwood 5, half of the horse burials known include bridle Sutton Hoo 17 44  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST Figure 5.2 The late sixth or early seventh-century horse burial from Saltwood, grave 5 (1-5, 8-9. From x-ray): 1. Sword 2. Spearheads 3. Shield 4. Shield 5. Arrowheads 6. Playing pieces 7.Bronze bowl 8. Bridle 9. Saddle fittings 10. Horse 45 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 Figure 5.3 The seventh-century bridle burial from Kirton-in-Lindsey II: 1. Sword 2. Spearhead 3. Snaffle-bit 4. Seax 5. Knife 6. Knife In addition, bridle-bits (or parts thereof) and decorated of snaffles, all are probably common items from harness suites without a specific context are known from châtelaines (contra Hills, 1999: 153). It is, therefore, a further nine Anglo-Saxon cemeteries,4 and from six difficult to know if these were riding animals or less settlement sites within the British Isles.5 valuable draft agricultural animals, perhaps sacrificed more for totemic or even cultic reasons (Williams, A separate class of evidence is the several hundred 2001: 207). examples of horse cremation which cluster around the Humber and Wash estuaries, and north Norfolk (Bond, Horse equipment also occurs in burials reused as 1996; Fern, forthcoming). In contrast to the inhumation châtelaine items or brooches. The secondary reuse of rite, however, in these regions horse sacrifice is not a horse equipment in this way, particularly in female minority rite, but can occur with around 10 per cent of graves, is a rare phenomenon also evidenced on the the buried population, including both males and Continent (Oexle, 1992: 15-16). In England examples of females, and occasionally children (McKinley, 1994: broken snaffles found employed at the waist as a 66, 99, 123). However, no definite articles of horse châtelaine item include East Shefford 9, Berks., and equipment have been found with horse remains in a Bishop’s Cleeve 7, Glouc.; while Wallingford 12, Oxon., cremation, and the destructive nature of the rite means is an example of decorated harness fittings reworked as a that the skeletal assemblage can tell us little specifically pair of brooches (Figure 5.14; Peake and Hooton, 1915: about the horses themselves. Although some finds of 112-113; Leeds, 1938: 97, pl. 5; Dickinson et al, iron rings and bars have been suggested as the remains forthcoming). This reuse of decorated horse harness in particular is interesting, since it demonstrates that 4 Snaffles: Droxford, Hants.; Eastry I (Buttsole), Howletts 36, Kent; elaborate harness was more widespread than the few Market Overton I, Market Overton II, Rutland; Brixworth II, examples in horse and bridle burials attest. In addition, a Duston, Northants., Howick, Yorks. Harness sets: Eastry I growing number of decorative mounts have been (Buttsole), Faversham, Kent. 5 recovered by metal-detecting, which may represent either Lagore, Co. Meath (Ireland); Whithorn, Dumfries.; Wicken Bonhunt, Essex; Thwing, Humber.; Maxey, Northants.; casual losses, or destroyed or disturbed burials. Yeavering, Northum. 46  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST Figure 5.4 The find locations of horse equipment in England, c.450-700 Bridle-bits comprised of paired loose rings linked by a horizontal mouthpiece. It has its origin in the Iron Age, was in use in Thirty-eight6 extant bridle-bits (Figure 5.4) are known for the Roman period, and is still the basic modern type the early Anglo-Saxon period, as well as three lost (Dixon and Southern, 1992: 63). Of the Anglo-Saxon examples: ‘horse furniture’ from Fairford, Glouc.; an examples all but one has a mouthpiece bar comprising ‘iron snaffle-bit’ from Sarre 271, Kent; and ‘something two single jointed elements (Figures 5.5-5.7). The like a snaffle-bit’ from Wigston Magna, Leics. (Nichol, exception is that from Chamberlain’s Barn II 45, Beds., 1807: 377; Smith, 1851/52: 79; Brent, 1868: 317). This which has an unbroken bar, a form unknown from figure builds significantly on the twenty examples Continental contexts (Hyslop, 1963: 184, fig. 15; assessed by Vierck in 1970/71; but excludes the Nawroth, 2001: 80). Vierck considered this to be possibly erroneous examples from Caenby, Lincs. (a fragment of a châtelaine, though I would not altogether exclude the bucket handle: Webster, pers. comm.), Gilton Ash 83, possibility that it is a bit (Vierck, 1970/71: 191). In Kent (‘doubtful’), and Linton Heath 47, Cambs. (a addition, two cheek-ring fittings from the Springfield châtelaine) (Vierck, 1970/71: 191). Lyons 8577 horse-head burial, Essex, were found without evidence for a conjoining mouthpiece bar (Tyler and The cheek-ring snaffle (Figure 5.5) is the most common Major, forthcoming). Possibly in this case the mouthpiece bridle-bit, occurring throughout Europe in the period had been made of organic material. (Oexle, 1992: 17-34; Nawroth, 2001: 77). The form is Twenty-two cheek-ring snaffles have been measured to 6 assess their size (Table 5.1.1). The results show that most This number is based in each case on individual formal examination, with the purpose to exclude examples of châtelaine have a mouthpiece measurement of between 110mm and equipment, which can comprise rings and bars that in appearance 130mm, with the smallest being the 100mm example are very similar to snaffle-bit components. 47 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 from Market Overton II, Rutland, and the largest at 160mm but does not appear to have existed in Britain in the Roman that from Marston St. Lawrence, Northants. (Table 5.1.1, period. There are twelve examples of this type, which dimension C; Dryden, 1885: pl. 25). These measurements although related to the equivalent Continental Knebeltrense accord well with those attained for contemporary (cheek-bar bit) form, demonstrate distinctly Insular traits in Continental and Scandinavian (Vendel and Valsgärde) their formal and decorative aspects. The three examples examples, and are not dissimilar to mouthpiece from Loveden Hill HB4, Lincs., Brixworth II, Northants., measurements from Roman snaffles (Hyland, 1990: 139- and Duston, Northants., are non-elaborate in their vertical 140; Nawroth, 2001: Abb. 37; Sundqvist, 2001: Tab. 6.1). bars, though the former has slightly flattened ‘wing’ While the correlation between the withers shoulder height of terminals (Figure 5.8; Fennell, 1964: fig. 14). The a horse and its mouth size, and hence fitted snaffle, is not Brixworth II and Duston bits have ‘egg-butt’ side joints to necessarily a direct one, it may serve as a rough guide: by their mouthpieces, a development still found in modern modern standards a 100mm mouthpiece apportions forms to prevent pinching to the corners of the horse’s approximately to a 13-13.2 hand (c.1.32-1.37m) horse and mouth (Figures 5.5, 5.8). These two bridles also have one of 110-120mm+ to an animal of 13.2 to 14.2 hands exceptionally large mouthpieces, which are 180mm and (c.1.37-1.47m) (Hyland, 1990: 140). Although as a 250mm in length respectively (Table 5.1.2). The only cautionary caveat the horse from Marston St. Lawrence, in explanation for the Duston measurement, which is whose mouth the largest bit was found, was described by its incongruously large even by modern standards, is that the excavator as ‘not above 14 hands high’ (Dryden, 1885: 330). bit was a symbolic object. In addition, there is the badly corroded example from Broughton Lodge H1, which now Following Vierck’s survey, the cheek-rings of the snaffles exhibits no obvious signs of formal elaboration (Kinsley, may be regarded as either small (<79mm) or large 1993; fig. 45). (>80mm) in diameter, with the former in the majority (Table 5.1.1; Vierck 1970/71: 191). The ring sizes of the Seven of the cheek-bar bits belong to a distinctive form English corpus are proportionate with examples of defined by a flattened peltaic-shaped lower bar with either Ringtrense (cheek-ring snaffle) from the Continent, where a lozenge-shaped upper bar or an off-set disc-head terminal the average diameter was between 40mm and 75mm, with (Figure 5.5). Examples with a lozenge-shaped upper bar a minimum of 20mm and maximum of 120mm (Oexle, are those from Little Wilbraham 44, Cambs., Great 1992: Abb. 3). The Scandinavian Vendel and Valsgärde Chesterford I 142/H2, Essex, and Eriswell (104) 4116 cheek-ring snaffles, by comparison, have mainly large (Lakenheath), Suffolk (Figures 5.9-5.11; Neville, 1852: rings over 80mm in diameter (Sundqvist, 2001: Tab. 6.1). 16, pl. 38; Evison, 1994: 111-112, fig. 54; Caruth and Anderson, 1999; Newman, forthcoming). The two The burial contexts of this bridle-bit type demonstrate its examples with an off-set disc-head to their upper bar are use throughout England in the early Anglo-Saxon period: the closely similar bits from Lagore, Co. Meath (Ireland), Alfriston 91, E. Sussex, is a fifth-century burial; those from and Sutton Hoo 17, Suffolk (Hencken, 1950: 101, fig. Wanlip, Leics., Broughton Lodge H3, Notts., Eriswell 36.354; Carver, forthcoming). In addition, a further fragment (046) 0355 (Lakenheath), Suffolk, and West Heslerton of cheek-bar, which combines the two features of the 186, Yorks., are sixth-century graves; while Bishopsbourne lozenge and off-set disc is that from Eastry I (Buttsole), Kent 3, Kent, Saltwood 7, Kent, Kirton-in-Lindsey II, Lincs., (Figure 5.12; Payne, 1894: 179-181, fig. 4).7 Although this Hardingstone, Northants., Snape 47, Suffolk, and Garton II bit type has been found predominantly in the eastern region 10, Yorks., are dated to the seventh century (Wright, 1844; of Anglian England, a further peltaic cheek-bar fragment Bateman, 1860; Mortimer, 1905: 250, pls. 86-87; Liddle, from Whithorn, Dumf./Gal., together with the examples 1979/80; Welch, 1983: 112, 376, fig. 38; Kinsley, 1993: from Kent and Ireland, suggest the type is representative of 48, 53, fig. 90; Haughton and Powesland, 1999: 28-29, an Insular, rather than a purely Anglo-Saxon tradition; with 331-333; Filmer-Sankey and Pestell, 2001: 102-111, figs. the Lagore bit a further example of strong Anglo-Saxon 75-76; Fern, forthcoming). Others are only datable broadly influence and contact at this ‘royal’ site (Whitfield, 2001; within the period, such as the uncontexted example from Hills, 1997: 421; fig. 49.1). Droxford, Hants., and those from Market Overton I and II (Meaney, 1964: 216-217; Aldsworth, 1979: 141, fig. 46). The cheek-bar bits may be divided further according to The examples from settlement sites at Hamwic, Hants., whether they are joined to the mouthpiece by an integral (Six Dials Site: SOU 169.974), Thwing, Yorks., ring, as at Great Chesterford I 142/H2 and Sutton Hoo 17, (sf87.194), Wicken Bonhunt, Essex, and Yeavering, or a D-form loop, as at Brixworth II and Eriswell 4116 Northum., are by comparison all dated between the seventh (Figures 5.5, 5.8-5.11). The D-form loop is well paralleled and ninth centuries (Hope-Taylor, 1977: 189, fig. 89.3; on the Continent and is a characteristic of the Knebeltrense Goodall and Ottoway, forthcoming; Southampton Museum Form I (the earliest of three types), like the example from Archaeological Object Database). Newel, Germany (Oexle, 1992: Tafn. 131). However, the Sutton Hoo-Great Chesterford ring form is almost The other form of bit employed in the period is the cheek- unknown outside Britain, with the only similar example bar bit, which has two vertical bars instead of, or in being Orsoy 8, Germany (Oexle, 1992: 44, Tafn. 194). addition to, paired rings (Figure 5.5; Oexle, 1992: 34-73.). This form is also of probable European Iron Age origin, 7 I am grateful to Dr Tania Dickinson for making this identification. 48  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST Figure 5.5 Schematic of early Anglo-Saxon bridle-bit forms (scale approx. ¼): 1. Cheek-ring Snaffle 2. Cheek-bar bit 3. Disc-head terminal 4. D-form loop 5. ‘Egg-butt’ joint Cheek-ring snaffle a (c.mm) b (c.mm) c (c.mm) Market Overton II 48 60 100 Bishops Cleeve 7 30 54 100-110 Droxford* 34 45 100-110 Eriswell 0355* 45 55 100-110 Wanlip 40 60 100-110 Chamberlain’s Barn II 45 55 70 100-110 Alfriston 91 60 50 110-120 Howletts 36 95 110 110-120 Garton II 10 (ii) 70 90 110-120 Saltwood 5 30 40 110-120 Wicken Bonhunt - 85 110-120 Broughton Lodge H3 55 70 120-130 Kirton-in-Lindsey II* 80 95 120-130 Snape 47 45 62 120-130 West Heslerton 186 35 50 120-130 Saltwood 7 35 50 120-130 Garton II 10 (i) 85 100 120-140 Hardingstone 45 60 130-140 Market Overton I 40 65 150 Marston St.Lawrence 48 75 160 Springfield Lyons 8577 20 29 - Yeavering 35 45 - Table 5.1.1 Dimensions of Anglo-Saxon cheek-ring snaffles in accordance with Figure 5.5. 49 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 Cheek-bar bit a (c.mm) b (c.mm) c (c.mm) Loveden Hill HB4 16 100 100-110 Little Wilbraham 44 15 135 110-120 Great Chesterford I H2 20 131 120 Sutton Hoo 17 25 136 120 Eriswell (104) 4116 18 174 140 Brixworth II 20 110 180 Duston* 30 110 250 Broughton Lodge H1 - 97 - Table 5.1.2 Dimensions of Anglo-Saxon cheek-bar bits in accordance with Figure 5.5. Normal = measurement estimated from examination Italicized = measurement estimated from scaled drawing or photograph Underlined = measurement estimated from x-ray * = measurement estimated from incomplete artefact This suggests that the Sutton Hoo-Great Chesterford type Liebenau, Germany, for which a date around c.500 has also represents an Insular development, with the possibility been suggested (Hässler, 1981; 77-80). that the Orsoy 8 snaffle, with its hint of a peltaic lower bar, is also of Anglo-Saxon manufacture or inspiration. Also of Decorated harness relevance, though probably late Anglian in date, is a cheek- bar fragment from York (3848). Its form is similar to that The fashion for decorating horse harness in Britain can be from Loveden Hill HB4, which argues for the continuity of traced back to the Iron Age and was prominent in the this local type (Ottoway, 1992: fig. 307). subsequent Roman period (Bishop, 1988). By comparison, until recently the decorative equestrian traditions of the On the Continent the Knebeltrense Form I is dated from early Anglo-Saxon period had appeared rather lacklustre the mid-fifth to the end of the sixth century, while the (for the last brief survey see Baldwin-Brown, 1915: 423). Orsoy 8 bridle is dated to the seventh century (Oexle, The two new finds from Eriswell 4116 and Sutton Hoo 17 1992: 44-46). These dates agree generally with the Anglo- have in particular served to alter this perception, as well as Saxon examples, with the Great Chesterford I 142/H2, our understanding of Anglo-Saxon horse harness (Carver, Eriswell 4116 and Little Wilbraham 44 burials all datable 2005; Newman, forthcoming). Combined with new metal- to the first half of the sixth century (Evison, 1994: fig. 104; detector finds and a reappraisal of existing material they Fern, forthcoming). The Lagore bridle-bit is datable to demonstrate further the existence of a distinctive equestrian the seventh century and the Sutton Hoo 17 example to its culture. first quarter (Hencken, 1950: 6-7, 101; Carver, forthcoming). At Eriswell 4116 the elaborate head harness comprised four cruciform strap-junction mounts, two slightly curved In addition, three of the cheek-bar bits are decorated: the rectilinear mounts set on the brow- and nose-band, two Eastry I fragment has two applied triangular copper-alloy similar rectilinear mounts set on the cheek-straps and two mounts, each with twin zoomorphic head terminals tipped strap-pendants (Figures 5.9, 5.18). All were cast in with gilding; the Eriswell 4116 bit is inlaid with metal copper-alloy, with chip-carved Style I animal ornament, strips and ringlets, and is also decorated with silver sheet; embellished with gilding and silver sheet in the Bichrome and the Sutton Hoo 17 bit has gilded chip-carved Style II Style. The reverses of these mounts demonstrate rivets animal ornament on its projecting disc and peltaic lower and sheet ‘washers’ for their attachment to, as well as bar (Figures 5.9, 5.12, 5.18; Carver, forthcoming; reinforcement of, the leather strap-junctions (Figure Newman, forthcoming). The fashion for decorated bridle- 5.17). Following this find it has now been possible to bits is well-attested on the central Continent and in identify many similar mounts, from both burials and stray Scandinavia, with both metal inlay and zoomorphic finds, often decorated with chip-carved Style I animal ornament evidenced, for example, at Niederstotzingen 6, decoration in bichrome fashion, which have previously Germany, and Högom 2, Sweden (Ramqvist, 1992: pl. been misidentified as shield-mounts, belt-fittings and 41; Oexle, 1992: Tafn. 44). brooches (Figure 5.13). Although not an exhaustive list, further examples are: single cruciform mounts from More specifically, the inlaid ringlet ornament on the Bishop’s Cleeve 13, Glouc., Wakerley 31/32, Northants., Eriswell strap-connectors is paralleled on Frankish and and pairs from Easington, Co. Durham, Eastry I, Saxon metalwork, such as the brass inlaid bit from Wallingford 12 and Cheesecake Hill 4, Yorks.; single 50  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST Figure 5.6 Hardingstone: 1. Iron snaffle-bit (scale ½) 2. Gilded copper-alloy disc mount (scale 1/1. After Speake, 1989) examples of strap-pendant mounts from Beckford B12, 52, figs .5.2, 10.5, 11; Evison and Hill, 1996: 10, fig. Glouc., Lechlade 180, Glouc., Bifrons 92, Kent, Eastry 8, 20; Boyle et al, 1998: 130-131, fig .5.102; Hawkes, I, and Easington 2; and single finds of rectilinear 2000: 61, fig. 36.4; Holbrook, 2000: 71, fig. 6.2; mounts from Beckford A3, Glouc., Faversham, Kent, Laing, forthcoming.a). In addition, two circular Collingham, Notts., Marston St. Lawrence, Loxton,8 mounts in Bichrome Style with Style I ornament, Somerset, and pairs from Eastry I (Figures 5.12-5.14; possibly originally from horse harness, are those from Payne, 1894: 179-181, figs. 1, 3; Mortimer, 1905: 288, ‘near’ Chichester, W. Sussex, and Hadleigh Road 124, fig. 843; Leeds, 1938: 97, pl. 5; Adams and Jackson, Suffolk (Welch, 1983:112-113, fig.127a; West, 1998: 1988/89: 158-159, fig. 31.6; MacGregor and Bolick, 55, fig. 66.1). 1993: fig 36.6; Hamerow and Pickin, 1995: 45-47, 51- 8 I am grateful to Elaine Howard-Jones of the Somerset Portable Antiquities Scheme for bringing this piece to my attention. 51 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 Figure 5.7 Saltwood 5: 1. Iron snaffle-bit, ancillary bridle fittings and copper-alloy rivet (scale ½. From x-ray) Figure 5.8 Brixworth II: 1. Iron cheek-bar bit (scale ½) It is possible that the Eastry I mounts and cheek-bar et al, forthcoming). These modifications can clearly be fragment represent a single assemblage from either a seen on the illustrated examples from Cheesecake Hill 4 bridle or horse burial, though few contextual details and Wallingford 12, but is also true for the mounts from survive of this find (Figure 5.12; Meaney, 1964: 113). Beckford A3 and B12, Bishop’s Cleeve 13, Hadleigh However, many of the other mounts have been found Road 124, Lechlade 180, and Wakerley 31/32 (Figure reused as costume accessories in female burials. The 5.14). I would also suggest that the pair of cruciform original purpose of these mounts and their subsequent mounts from the reverse of a shield at Westgarth Gardens adaptation is shown on their reverse by filed-down rivets 41, Suffolk, may also be an example of the reuse of and evidence for secondary alterations, such as drilled mounts that initially decorated horse harness (Dickinson holes and soldering for pin hinges and catches (Dickinson and Härke, 1992: 29, fig. 89d). 52  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST The bichrome fashioning of many of these mounts and A change in decorative harness fashions is evidenced their burial contexts suggest that most were produced and between the late sixth to early seventh century, when the probably buried in Hines’ Phase III (c.530-570 AD) cruciform mount was replaced by the disc mount, or (Hines, 1997: 230-234, 240). In support of this date are phalera (Figures 5.6, 5.15, 5.16). This change was the Lechlade 180 and Wakerley 31/32 examples, which accompanied by the transition from Style I to Style II were buried with herringbone reticella beads. Likewise, animal art as the decorative aspect. The new style the Bifrons 92 mount is from an assemblage with paired copper-alloy mounts are typified by those from the keystone disc brooches that date the burial to Brugmann’s Sutton Hoo 17 burial, which are heavily gilded, with Kentish Phase III (c.530/40-560/70) (Brugmann, 1999; central Meerschaum settings and associated, but Hawkes, 2000: n.76). However, in these graves the separately cast, peltaic mounts (Carver, 2005). Similar mounts occur in a context of secondary usage. Only in the mounts are the well-known examples from the horse Eriswell 4116 burial have such mounts been found burial at Hardingstone and uncontexted examples from unequivocally fulfilling their primary function, as Allington Hill, Cambs., and Spelsbury, Oxon. (Figures decoration and reinforcement for horse harness. Final 5.6, 5.15). Like those from Sutton Hoo 17, all dating for this grave is not yet known, though the demonstrate evidence for attachment rivets arranged at combination of a low-cone carinated shield-boss, large the cardinal points on their reverse, though only the iron-bound bucket and bichrome metalwork suggest a Sutton Hoo examples also preserve the leather strap- date for burial in the second quarter of the sixth-century arrangement (Figures 5.15-5.17; Bateman, 1860; (East, 1983: 587; Dickinson and Härke, 1992; 13-14; MacGregor, 1993: figs. 47.1, 47.3). Interestingly, like Hines, 1997: 230-234, 240).9 One cruciform mount which the cruciform mounts, the examples from Allington Hill is earlier than this date is the recent find from Breamore, and Spelsbury both demonstrate evidence for secondary Hants., which is a probable Mediterranean import dated adaptation, in the latter case, probably as a brooch to the second half of the fifth or early sixth century, (Figure 5.15). Other peltaic mounts are the well-known though this mount has little in common with the true examples from Barham and Coddenham, Suffolk, as Anglo-Saxon harness pieces apart from its cruciform well as more recent metal-detected finds from shape (Eagles and Ager, forthcoming). Dorchester, Dorset, and from an unknown provenance (Figure 5.15; West, 1998: figs. 7.70, 21.9; The A less elaborate form of decoration are circular rivets of Searcher, October 2001). These mounts typically either iron or copper-alloy, which like those from Great demonstrate a triangular arrangement of rivets on their Chesterford I 142/H2 and Little Wilbraham 44 were reverse (Figure 5.17). Also worthy of note are the Mote embellished with tinning and applied silver-sheet of Mark, Dumf./Gal., mould fragments, evidence for the (Figures 5.7, 5.10, 5.11, 5.18). Like the decorated production of disc and peltaic mounts with interlace cruciform mounts they served the functional purpose of ornament, that may also be suggested as harness mounts reinforcing the orthogonal strap-junctions of the head (Speake, 1989: 79, fig. 69; Laing and Longley, harness, as the preserved leather with the Little forthcoming.b). Furthermore, a stray fragmentary mount Wilbraham 44 rivet attests. Less certain, but intriguing, is from ‘near’ Ipswich10 may have been part of a rectilinear- the possibility of the use of Roman coins as decorative peltaic fitting, of a type attested from eighth-century Irish mounts. One possible example was found at Gilton Ash harness (Figure 5.15; Compare with no.113-114 in Youngs 83, Kent, which exhibits three drilled holes positioned to 1989: 117, 157). In addition, strap-pendants continued in suggest it had been attached to a strap-junction. It is use, such as the examples from Sutton Hoo 17 and alleged to have been found with other elements of a Fincham, Norfolk (Geake, 2001: fig. 1d). bridle, although the accompanying illustration of this antiquarian find does not appear to show any other A development from the Sutton Hoo 17 type mounts is identifiable piece of equestrian equipment (Faussett, represented by the suite of four or five mounts from 1856: 7, 26-28; Baldwin-Brown, 1915: 422, pl. 100). Faversham and a new metal-detected find from Cowbridge, V. Glam. (Figures 5.15, 5.16; Speake, 1989: 77-79, fig. 68; Portable Antiquities Scheme, 2003: 30, fig. 32). On these mounts the peltaic fitting is no longer attached separately, but is cast as one object with the disc 9 The dating of this burial is based on published chronological mount, together with the addition of three supporting schemes. However, new work on the chronology of Anglo-Saxon arms. The inspiration for the addition of the three arms grave goods, particularly in the area of weaponry forms, is currently being undertaken by Karen Høilund Nielsen and Birte can be seen in the development of similar mounts on the Brugmann. Preliminary results have suggested that the Continent (see below). Stylistically the Cowbridge, combination of Swanton’s Type H spearheads and Dickinson’s Faversham and Hardingstone mounts are later than and Härke’s Group 1/2 shield-bosses may be earlier than Sutton Hoo 17, probably dating to around the mid- previously thought, which may lead to an early sixth-century date for the Eriswell 4116 grave and others. Such a conclusion would, seventh century (Speake, 1980: 64-65). therefore, also necessitate a re-evaluation of the dating of the Bichrome Style, based on the finds from this burial. This work has been undertaken in combination with a programme of high- 10 precision radiocarbon dating funded by English Heritage, which This artefact was identified on the internet and its ‘find spot’ will include the Eriswell 4116 horse and rider. ascertained from the owner. 53 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 Figure 5.9 Eriswell 4116: 1. Iron cheek-bar bit and ancillary bridle fittings (scale ½) 2. Bichrome copper-alloy cruciform mount (scale 1/1) 3. Bichrome copper-alloy rectilinear mount (scale 1/1) 4. Bichrome copper-alloy pendant mount (scale 1/1) 5. Gilded rivet (scale 1/1) 54  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST Figure 5.10 Great Chesterford I H2: 1. Iron cheek-bar bit, ancillary bridle fittings and tinned copper-alloy rivet (scale ½. After Evison, 1994) Figure 5.11 Little Wilbraham 44: 1. Iron cheek-bar bit, ancillary bridle fittings and silver-plated copper-alloy stud (scale ½) 55 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 Figure 5.12 Eastry I (Buttsole): 1. Iron cheek-bar fragment with gilded copper-alloy mounts (scale ½) 2. Gilded copper-alloy cruciform mount (scale 1/1) 3. Gilded copper-alloy rectilinear mount (scale 1/1) 4. Gilded copper-alloy strap-ends and pendant mount (scale 1/1) Harness Reconstruction mounts have Style II rather than Style I ornament (Oexle, 1992: Tafn. 20). When addressing the question of harness reconstruction it is important to bear in mind that horse equipment By comparison, the Sutton Hoo 17 harness was not found could include both a head bridle and a body harness: the on the horse, but in the separate accompanying human former is concerned principally with preventing the grave, a situation which is notable also in the Saltwood 5 snaffle-bit from falling out of the horse’s mouth and burial (Figures 5.2, 5.7). It is, therefore, difficult to with the ability to control the horse; and the latter with reconstruct accurately the placing of the decorative keeping the saddle in position on the horse’s back, by mounts on seventh-century harness. Evans’ forthcoming means of either a breast girth or crupper, or both reconstruction places all the disc mounts on a head bridle (Figure 5.18). As well as the decorative mounts, dealt (Carver, 2005). Critically, however, this reconstruction with above, there are also a series of iron ancillary ignores important ancillary body harness fittings also fittings that occur with harness assemblages in graves. present in the assemblage (see below) and the fact that the peltaic adjuncts to the disc mounts act as strap No significant problems are presented by the terminals (Figure 5.17). I would instead suggest that reconstruction of the positions of the decorative mounts these mounts, with the exception of the brow mount, on the Eriswell 4116 harness, which was found in situ on decorated the breast girth and crupper of a body harness the horse’s head (Figures 5.1, 5.9, 5.18; Newman, (Figure 5.18). The large size of the related Faversham forthcoming). Suites of cruciform, rectilinear and pendant and Hardingstone mounts also suggests that these pieces mounts from head harness are well-attested on the decorated a body harness. This suggested reconstruction Continent, such as Pfahlheim 20, Germany, though these also finds support from the Continental evidence, where 56  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST from the late sixth-century in Frankish-Alamannic their position in the Snape 47 grave as comprising part of regions similarly large disc mounts, which exhibit the the reins (Figures 5.7, 5.18). Their design suggests that same triple arm extensions of the Faversham mounts, they were concerned to prevent the twisting of the reins appear for the ornamentation of the breast girth, such as and to aid their articulation respectively, though those from Olk 18, Germany (Oexle, 1992: Tafn. 21-22, admittedly this is not an altogether satisfying explanation. 69, 75, 110, 133-135; Quast, 1993: Abb. 9, Liste 1b; Nawroth, 2001: 100-102). Parallels for these fittings abroad are difficult to find. The exception are the two bridles from Högom 2, Sweden, both As well as the decorative mounts the assemblages from of which include ring-link fittings similar to the English horse and bridle burials include an assortment of other examples, and perhaps also a rein-slider with the cheek- purely functional buckles and strap-connectors (Table ring snaffle (Ramqvist, 1992: plate 43.26, 44). These 5.2). From the position of the buckle in the Eriswell Scandinavian parallels in a late fifth-century grave raise 0355 burial it seems that one buckle fastened the head the possibility that some of the technical features of bridle at the back of the horse’s head (Figure 5.18; Anglo-Saxon harness were not necessarily of Insular Newman, forthcoming). Additional buckles, like those on invention. the Sutton Hoo 17 and Eriswell 4116 harnesses presumably functioned to allow for the greater adjustment Saddles of the head or body straps, or of the length of the reins (Figure 5.18). Of the other functional fittings six different On the Continent two types of wooden framed saddle types are identifiable from twelve assemblages (Table have been identified for the period (Figure 5.18; 5.2). The three-way connector from Saltwood 5 and Nawroth, 2001: 106-113). One is the Prunksättel (parade Sutton Hoo 17 may be identified as the central junction saddle) type with a high front bow, or board, adorned fitting for the breast girth (Figures 5.7, 5.18). Although with decorative metal fittings, typified by that from uncommon this fitting is known on the Continent, Wesel-Bislich 446, Germany (Oexle, 1992: Vol. 1, 237- particularly in Frankish-Alamannic regions (Oexle, 1992: 238; Vol. 2, Tafn. 171-173). The other is without metal Tafn. 48-50; Quast, 1993: Liste 1c; Nawroth, 2001: decorative fittings, such as that from Oberflacht 211, fig.45. RV5, RV7). It is possible that the simple metal Germany, which had a low front bow (Quast, 1993). rings from five of the assemblages fulfilled a similar role, Finds of the ornate high bowed variety occur in wealthy though alternatively they may have functioned as the burials from the mid- to late fifth century in Ostrogothic ring-link, rein-slider, or as strap-junctions. Italy, east Francia and east Scandinavia, such as the examples from Krefeld-Gellep 1782, Germany, and The Snape 47 horse-head burial provides our best Högom 2: it continued to be used throughout the sixth evidence for how many of the other fittings functioned. In and seventh centuries in all these regions (Arrhenius, this instance the animal’s decapitated head, with its 1980: fig. 13; Oexle, 1992: Vol. 1, 247-248; Vol. 2, Tafn. harness still in place, was buried in a separate pit 184-185; Ramqvist, 1992: fig. 48; Quast, 1993: 445-446). immediately adjacent and above the human burial, with The type was probably first introduced to south-east the reins found extended and leading down into the grave Europe in the late Roman period by steppe nomads, the (Filmer-Sankey and Pestell, 2001: figs. 75-76). In the so-called Huns (László, 1943). By analogy to later light of this and illustrative evidence from Insular medieval war-saddles, its form gave a firm seat to the sculpture, Evans’ reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo 17 rider, necessary in the period before the use of stirrups,11 harness places the remaining, figure-of-eight, double- and served to protect the lower abdomen in combat link, ring-link and rein-slider fittings on the reins (Figure (László, 1943: 156-157; Hyland 1999: 61-62). 5.18; Carver, 2005). In particular, the Repton sculpture supports the placing of the ring-link fitting, found with Examples of Oberflacht type saddles are less well known, seven harness assemblages, at the mid-reins (Table 5.2; since the lack of decorative fittings means that generally Ibid.). The evidence for the role of the rein-slider comes little evidence of them survives. However, though the principally from the surviving Great Chesterford I organic remains of the frame have usually disintegrated, 142/H2, Little Wilbraham 44, Snape 47 and Sutton Hoo Quast has demonstrated for the Continental corpus that 17 snaffles, where this fitting was found corroded to, or the original presence of wooden framed saddles can be in proximity to, the rein-connectors attached to the inferred from remaining iron girth buckles and other body snaffle’s cheek-rings, indicating that it was intended as a harness fittings; but in such circumstances it is impossible slide adjustment, presumably to facilitate the alteration of to know if originally the saddle had a low or high front the reins’ length (Figures 5.10, 5.11, 5.18; Ibid.). The bow (Quast, 1993: Abb.1, 3 and 6; Listen 4, 5). deliberate shortening of the reins may have been appropriate when entering combat, so as to allow the 11 There is no evidence for the widespread use of the iron stirrup in rider’s hands to be free for using both weapon and shield, England before the eleventh century, excepting two possible with the ring-link used to anchor the reins to the saddle in Scandinavian imports of the ninth century. While leather stirrups some way, a function suggested by some Vendel-period remain a possibility they are not demonstrable in the material or saddles (Arrhenius, 1980: 63-64). The remaining figure- literary record (Seaby and Woodfield 1980). Similarly, the use of the horseshoe cannot be unequivocally demonstrated before the of-eight link and the double-link are again suggested by late Anglo-Saxon period (Clark, 1995). 57 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 Figure 5.13 The find locations of decorated harness fittings in England, c.450-700 By applying Quast’s method to the smaller Anglo- brackets secured the girth strap to the seat of the Saxon corpus a saddle can be identified as part of the saddle (Figure 5.18). A comparable pair of fittings was original horse equipment in six burials. In the two found close to a large oval buckle, to the left of the horse graves from Eriswell a girth buckle was found deceased, in the Saltwood 5 burial, which may be all on the horse’s ribs and at Marston St. Lawrence ‘on that survives of a wooden saddle (Figures 5.2, 5.19). the rump’ of the animal, indicating that saddles had This rich weapon grave also contained a horse’s been placed on the horses before burial (Dryden, 1885: harness and is to be associated with an unbridled horse 332). The excavator of the horse burial at Warren Hill buried in a separate aligned pit five metres to the east. also remarked on the presence of ‘a small buckle’ A similar situation existed in the case of the separate found with the horse, but mentioned no other bridle burials of a human and horse, under a single mound, at equipment, suggesting a possible girth buckle (Prigg Sutton Hoo 17, with the saddle placed in the north- and Fenton, 1888: 57). With the Eriswell 4116 burial west corner of the human grave (Carver, 1993: fig. 3). was found also on the ribs three or four iron clamp- Here too an iron clamp-bracket and a large iron oval brackets with preserved wood between them (Figures girth buckle were found. In addition, the excavator of 5.1, 5.19). A very similar fitting, identified as from a the Great Chesterford I cemetery suggested a saddle in saddle, was found on a horse’s back together with a the burial of Horse 1, from the evidence of copper-alloy girth buckle in the ship-burial at Valsgärde 8, Sweden, edge strips and a buckle that had been burnt in situ at the a grave datable to the late sixth century (Arwidsson, horse’s hindquarters (Evison, 1994: 29). 1954: 75-76; Abb. 51). It seems probable that such 58  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST Figure 5.14 Sixth-century gilded copper-alloy harness mounts (scale 1/1): 1. Cheesecake Hill 4 2. Lechlade 180 (After Boyle et al, 1998) 3. Wallingford 12 4. Loxton 59 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 Figure 5.15 Seventh-century decorative gilded copper-alloy harness fittings (scale 1/1, except 5 for which the scale is unknown): 1. Allington 2. Cowbridge 3. Spelsbury 4. ‘Near Ipswich’ 5. Unprovenanced 60  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST Figure 5.16 Faversham (scale 2/3. After Speake, 1989): 1. Gilded copper-alloy disc mount with integrated peltaic and arm appendages Regarding the form of these Anglo-Saxon saddles, the Insular wooden saddle traditions could have existed example from Hillquarter, Ireland, is apposite; as is the independently of the forms prevalent in the rest of elaborately carved wooden saddle bow fragment with Europe, which appear to have reached as far as Ireland silver studs from York (Tweddle et al, 1999: 258-259; by the seventh century (Figure 5.18). fig. 81; Kelly, 2001). The latter is of ninth-century date, but is significant as it demonstrates the use of the high No examples of saddle blankets, a necessary accessory bowed saddle in England in the subsequent period. The to prevent injury to a horse’s back, have survived from early seventh-century Hillquarter saddle has been Anglo-Saxon England, though the remnants of one was reconstructed with the high front bow of Prunksättel type found on the back of a horse at Ammerbuch-Entringen, from its surviving decorative metal fittings. A possible Germany, demonstrating their use in the period (Hald example of this type of saddle in a seventh-century and Laux, 1999: 148). Anglo-Saxon context may be represented by the gilded copper-alloy and silver mounts attached to a degraded Prick-spurs wooden object, found collapsed over the body in the burial at Caenby, a ‘princely’ weapon grave, which also In Europe the prick-spur is of Iron Age origin, though in contained horse remains (Jarvis, 1850: 37-38). Another Britain they are first attested from the Roman period, may be suggested from the gilded disc mounts, found such as the late fourth or early fifth-century examples riveted to wood, together with lengths of pinned and from Bitterne, Southampton (Shortt, 1959). On the swaged silver strip, from the Sutton Hoo Mound 2 Continent and in Scandinavia their continued use in the burial (Bruce-Mitford, 1975: figs.115-117; Carver post-Roman period is attested by finds in burials and 2005). Ultimately, there are no conclusive statements cremations, though they do not occur in fifth-century that can be made about the form of the Anglo-Saxon Anglo-Saxon contexts (Saggau, 1986: 61-62; Ramqvist, saddle in this period, though it would seem unlikely that 1992: 86-87; Hässler, 1994: 48, Abb. 22; Rettner, 1997). 61 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 Fitting Type/Burial Triple-link Figure-eight Double-link Ring-link Rein-slider Ring Buckle Broughton Lodge H3 ? ? x Bishopsbourne 3 x x Eriswell 4116 x ? x Eriswell 0355 x x Garton II 10 x x Great Chesterford I H2 x x Howletts 36 x Little Wilbraham 44 x Marston St. Lawrence x x x x Saltwood 5 x x x x Saltwood 7 x x x x Snape 47 x x x x Sutton Hoo 17 x x x x x x Table 5.2 Ancillary harness fittings Horse Burial Sex Age (years) Withers (cm) Trauma Reference Broughton Lodge H1 ƃ 3.5 135-139* - Harman, 1993 Broughton Lodge H3 ƃ 6 130-134* - Harman, 1993 Broughton Lodge H4 - >3.5 - - Harman, 1993 Eriswell (046) 0355 - 9 130-135 - O'Connor, Unpublished Eriswell (104) 4116 ƃ 5 140-145 x O'Connor, Unpublished Great Chesterford I H1 ƃ <2.5 126 - Serjeantson, 1994 Great Chesterford I H2 ƃ 4-7 140-144 - Serjeantson, 1994 Marston St.Lawrence - - c.140 - Dryden, 1885 Saltwood 5 Ƃ 4-6 - - Bendrey, 2002 Snape 47 ƃ 20-30 - - Davis, 2001 Sutton Hoo 17 ƃ 5-6 140-144 - O'Connor, 1994 West Heslerton 186 Ƃ 3 - - Haughton and Powesland, 1999 * Estimates calculated using Kieswalter and Boesneck (Müller 1955). All others are reproduced as given in the relevant literature. Table 5.3 Physical characteristics of horses from Anglo-Saxon burials Two forms of spur were employed between the fifth and for the period up to c.600 AD, only seven possible spurs seventh centuries in Europe: the Bügelsporen (bow-spur), are recorded from early medieval burials in England, of a derivative of late Roman forms, characterized by a which three survive only as cursory notes for the shallow heel form and integral goad; and the simple cemeteries of Pangbourne, Berks., Milton-Next- Plattensporen (disc-spur), which comprises a simple rivet Sittingbourne, Kent, and Woodstone, Northants.(Urban, pushed through the reverse of a boot or strap to form a 1838: 650; Walker, 1899: 345; Smith, 1908: 374; Rettner, goad (Rettner, 1997). Manufactured in both copper-alloy 1997: 134).12 The best known surviving example of and iron, they normally occur singularly in male weapon purported early Anglo-Saxon date is the iron spur from graves (though pairs are known), although with no Linton Heath 18, Cambs., said to have been found in a apparent preference for the right or left foot (Ibid.; Tab. female burial with a cruciform brooch of late fifth or 1). In this period, the spur was probably employed to sixth-century date (Figure 5.20; Neville, 1854: 99-100). quickly turn the horse, allowing the rider to attack with This spur has long ankle stems and an integral prick goad, his weapons or missiles, and then to retreat from danger a form known in the Roman period in Britain, but which (Baldwin-Brown, 1915: 421). 12 The examples identified by Baldwin-Brown from Pakenham, Compared to the seventy central European spur examples Suffolk, and Richborough, Kent, are of late Anglo-Saxon date (Baldwin-Brown, 1915: 422). 62  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST did not re-emerge in central Europe in the form of seventh-century Continental types, alone it is sparse Schlaufensporen (loop-spur) until the seventh century evidence for the use of Schlaufensporen in early Anglo- (Shortt, 1959; Koch, 1982: 65). Furthermore, the buckle- Saxon England, and it could be a Roman object, or loop terminals of the Linton Heath spur are a intrusive. More convincing are two recently identified characteristic best paralleled by examples from late Plattensporen from male weapon burials at Edix Hill Anglo-Saxon settlement contexts and Carolingian 88, Cambs., and Mill Hill 93, Kent (Parfitt and Europe, particularly the uncontexted example from Brugmann, 1997: 153-154, fig. 50, 73; Malim and Kingston-upon-Thames (Boon 1959: 95. Koch, 1982: 68. Hines, 1998: 79-80, figs. 3.59-3.60, 3.81; Parfitt et al, Ellis, 1984. Ottoway, 1992: Fig. 304). Hence, it would 2000). The former is a sixth-century grave and the latter appear that the Linton Heath spur is an intrusive find dates to the end of the same century. Ultimately, within its early Anglo-Saxon cemetery context, since it is however, the fact of the rarity of this item of equestrian typologically considerably later than the grave in which equipment and, moreover, its absence from the English it is alleged to have been found. corpus of bridle and horse burials, suggests that it was not commonly used in England before at least the eighth Another, recent spur find, is that from Castledyke 18, century, the date of two prick-spurs from Hamwic Lincs., which occurred with an unremarkable double (Andrews, 1997: 226; Southampton Museum burial of two adolescents (Drinkall and Foreman, 1998: Archaeological Object Database: SOU 32.20, SOU 251, figs. 14, 59). While it bears comparison with 169.2184). Figure 5.17 Schematic demonstrating the method of attachment for harness mounts (scale approx. 1/1): 1. Sixth-century cruciform mount 2. Seventh-century disc and peltaic mounts 63 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 Figure 5.18 Reconstruction of horse harness (adapted from Bishop, 1988): 1. Head harness with rivet fittings, cf. Saltwood 5 2. Sixth-century head harness with decorative mounts, cf. Eriswell 4116 3. Seventh-century harness with decorative mounts, cf. Sutton Hoo 17. 64  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST Figure 5.19 Iron saddle brackets and girth buckles (scale ½): 1. Eriswell 4116 2. Saltwood 5 (from x-ray) Figure 5.20 Iron prick-spur (scale ½): 1. Linton Heath 18 The Horse13 under 14 hands (Crabtree, 1989: table 37). The records for twelve horses from burials provide details of the types Remains of horses from contemporary settlements have of animals that were chosen for sacrifice (Table 5.3; demonstrated a normal withers height in this period for Dryden, 1885: 330; Harman, 1993; O’Connor, 1994; mature animals of around 13 hands, with a minority of Serjeantson, 1994; Haughton and Powesland, 1999: 331; individuals as small as 11.2 hands (1.18m), and some just Davis, 2001; Bendrey, 2001; O’Connor, unpublished). The size of eight individuals shows that over half were 13 By modern standards anything below 15 hands is a pony. The term between 13.2 and 14 hands (c.1.37-1.44m) at the withers ‘pony’ is not used here, however, since the Anglo-Saxon and of a robust build. They are the horses from vocabulary has no equivalent word, that first came into use in the Broughton Lodge H1, Eriswell 4116, Great Chesterford I eighteenth century and comes from the French poulenet, a H2, Marston St. Lawrence and Sutton Hoo 17. Smaller derivative of the word for a foal which probably came into use to denote a horse of small stature. animals of between 12.2 and 13 hands (1.26-1.32m) are Broughton Lodge H3, Eriswell 0355 and the immature 65 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 individual from Great Chesterford I H1. It may be of between 13 and 14 hands (Lundholm, 1949: Tabn. 7- concluded from this evidence, therefore, that the horses 8). Similarly, the study of over fifty central European selected for burial were often the largest available in horses from cemeteries has also shown that most were of society, though it has been suggested that the animal from this size, with a few larger individuals of between 14 to Eriswell 4116 might have had a partially limp, and so 15 hands, and occasional evidence of lameness (Müller, was perhaps a preferable sacrifice (O’Connor, 1980: 150, Tab. 1). Stallions and geldings were also unpublished). Furthermore, of nine individuals for which favoured for burial in Europe (a preference for males is sex has been determined, seven were males and two also apparent for dog burial), though mares are known, females (based on the absence of canine teeth), although and indeed make up a significant proportion of the horses it has not been possible to differentiate stallions from from funerary contexts in Vendel-period Sweden (Ibid.; geldings. This preference may be due to the generally Oexle, 1984: fig. 11; Prummel, 1992: 143; Kerth, 2000; larger stature of male horses, though a symbolic Götherström 2002). dimension may also be possible. In terms of age, most were between 3½ and 7 years at death, indicating that Empirical observation of the animals from cemetery they were killed in their prime. The exception is Snape contexts thus creates the impression that the horse burial 47, where the animal was between 20 and 30 years. rite in Europe in this period was very concerned with the visual quality of the animal, with its size, sex and perhaps These findings from the admittedly small corpus of pedigree, all important aspects, though it was not Anglo-Saxon horse burials compare favourably with necessarily the best riding animal available, and probably horses from burials elsewhere in Europe (Figure 5.21). not the personal steed of the deceased. Obviously, the The surviving horse remains from the great ship-burials more impressive was the animal, however, the greater the at Vendel and Valsgärde, Sweden, also suggest animals statement of status. Figure 5.21 Withers estimates for central and north European horses from funerary contexts in the early medieval period. 66  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST Conclusion particularly to Tania Dickinson for her advice and incisive observation of the pre-published manuscript. The very fact of the rarity of the sacrifice of a riding Illustrations are by the author except where stated. horse and of horse equipment in the inhumation rite in early Anglo-Saxon England may be interpreted as a statement on the value of equestrianism in contemporary References society. Indeed the riding horse is much rarer than the prized sword as a grave good. This may ultimately be a Adams, B. and Jackson, D. (1988/89). ‘The Anglo-Saxon reflection of the fact that in the period after Roman rule in cemetery at Wakerley, Northamptonshire. Britain, the diminished institutions of land, labour and Excavations by Mr D Jackson, 1968-9’, agriculture, provided only an elite minority with the Northamptonshire Archaeological Journal, 22, 69- considerable economic resources necessary to breed, train 178. and feed quality riding animals. In addition, the value of an Aldsworth, F. (1979). ‘Droxford Anglo-Saxon cemetery, equestrian status is suggested by the tendency for such Soberton, Hampshire’, Proceedings of the groups to decorate their horses’ harness with rich materials Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society, and in the elite animal styles of the period (Hedeager, 35, 93-182. 2000: 45, 50-51). Andrews, P. (1997). Excavations at Hamwic Volume 2: excavations at Six Dials (Council for British Finally, the association of horse inhumation with the rite Archaeology Research Report, 109, York. of weapon burial raises inevitably the question of whether Arrhenius, B. (1980). ‘The chronology of the Vendel or not horses were employed in warfare in this period in graves’, in P. Lamm, and H. Å. Nordström, (eds) England. This is difficult to conclude from the Vendel Period Studies, Stockholm, Statens Historika archaeological record alone, though Continental, and to a Museum Studies, 2, 39-70. lesser extent Anglo-Saxon and British, historical sources Arwidsson, G. (1954). Die Gräbfunde von Valsgärde, 3: detail the limited use of horses in battle, even if the Valsgärde 8, Uppsala. concept of cavalry warfare is premature before the late Arwidsson, G. (1977). Die Gräbfunde von Valsgärde, 1: Anglo-Saxon period (Bacharach, 1985; Hooper, 1993; Valsgärde 7, Uppsala. Halsall, 2003: 180-188). Concerning the method of Bachrach, B. S. (1985). ‘Animals and warfare in early fighting from horseback in the period, both the historical Medieval Europe’, Settimane di Studio, 31, 1: 707- and pictorial evidence, such as the famous Sutton Hoo 751. helmet rider-motif, depict the use of the spear in an over- Baldwin-Brown, G. (1915). The Arts in Early England – arm fashion, as a thrusting or throwing weapon, a Saxon Art and Industry in the Pagan Period, Vol. 3, technique that was also employed by Roman cavalry London, John Murray. (Cessford, 1993; Hyland, 1993: 142-143; Gaimster, 1998: Bateman, T. (1860). ‘Anglo-Saxon antiquities in the fig. 47). The option of fighting from horseback, in a possession of T. Bateman, Esq.’, Reliquary, 1, 189- period when most combatants fought on foot, would have 190. provided elite warleaders with obvious advantages in Bendrey, R. (2002). ‘Assessment of the animal bone’, in battle, a prerogative which archaeologically, it may be Archaeological Investigations at Saltwood Tunnel, argued, we find expressed in the burial record. Near Folkstone, Kent. Detailed Archaeological Works Assessment Report, Vol. 3, Unpublished Acknowledgements Report. Bishop, M. C. (1988). ‘Cavalry equipment of the Roman The author would like to thank those individuals who army in the first century AD’, in J. C. Coulston (ed.) provided unpublished material to the benefit of this study, Military Equipment and the Identity of Roman together with staff at museums and other institutions that Soldiers, Oxford, British Archaeological Reports allowed me to examine and draw artefacts in their International Series 394, 67-196. collection. They are Sue Anderson, Robin Bendrey, Bond, J. (1996). ‘Burnt offerings: animal bone in Anglo- Chris Chippendale, Angela Evans, Elizabeth Hartley, Saxon cremations’, World Archaeology, 28,1, 76-88. Kevin Leahy, John Newman, Arthur MacGregor, Boon, G. C. (1959). ‘A bronze spur from the Thames at Jacqueline Minchinton, Terry O’Connor, Phil Rainer, Kingston’, The Antiquaries Journal, 39, 95. Ian Riddler, Susanne Ryder, Fleur Shearman, Sue Tyler Boyle, A., Jennings, D., Miles, D. and Palmer, S. (1998). and Leslie Webster. Particular thanks are due to Martin The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Butler’s Field, Carver, Annette Roe, Suffolk County Council Lechlade, Gloucestershire, Vol. 1, Thames Valley Archaeological Service and Union Railways South, for Landscapes 10, Oxford, Oxbow books. allowing examination of records, reports and artefacts Brent, J. (1868). ‘Account of the Society’s researches in relating to the Sutton Hoo, Eriswell (046 and 104) and the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Sarr’, Archaeologia Saltwood cemeteries respectively. Also, special Cantiana, 7, 307-321. gratitude is extended to Malin Holst for her invaluable Bruce-Mitford, R. (1975). The Sutton Hoo Ship-burial, assistance with German translations, to Dieter Quast for Vol. 1, London, British Museum Publications. his assistance with the Continental corpus and Brugmann, B. (1999). ‘The role of Continental artefact- 67 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 types in sixth-century Kentish chronology’, in J. Evison, V. I. and Hill, P. (1996). Two Anglo-Saxon Hines, K. Høilund Nielsen and F. Siegmund (eds), Cemeteries at Beckford, Hereford and Worcester, The Pace of Change: Studies in Early-Medieval York, Council for British Archaeology Research Chronology, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 37-64. Report, 103. Caruth, J. and Anderson, S. (1999). ‘RAF Lakenheath Fennell, K. R. (unpublished). The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery Saxon Cemetery’, Current Archaeology, 163, 244- at Loveden Hill (Hough-on-the-Hill) Lincolnshire 250. and its significance in relation to the Dark Age Carver, M. O. H. (1993). ‘The Anglo-Saxon cemetery: an settlement of the East Midlands, Nottingham, interim report’, Bulletin of the Sutton Hoo Research University of Nottingham Ph.D. Thesis. Committee, 8, 11-19. Fern, C. (forthcoming). ‘Early Anglo-Saxon horse burials Carver, M. O. H. (2005). Sutton Hoo: A Seventh-century of the fifth to seventh centuries AD ’, in S. Semple princely burial ground and its context, London, and H. Williams (eds) Anglo-Saxon Studies in British Museum Publications. Archaeology & History, 14. Cessford, C. (1993). ‘Cavalry in early Bernicia: a reply’, Filmer-Sankey, W. and Pestell, T. (2001). Snape Anglo- Northern History, 29, 185-187. Saxon Cemetery: Excavations and Surveys 1824- Clark, J. (1995). ‘Horsehoes’, in J. Clark (ed.) The 1992, Gressenhall, East Anglian Archaeology Medieval Horse and its Equipment c.1150-c.1450: Report, 95. Medieval finds from excavations in London, 5, Gaimster, M. (1998). Vendel Period Bracteates on London, Museum of London, 75-123. Gotland: on the Significance of Germanic Art, Lund, Crabtree, P. J. (1989). West Stow, Suffolk: Early Anglo- Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, 8, 27. Saxon Animal Husbandry, Gressenhall, East Anglian Geake, H. (1997). The Use of Grave-Goods in Archaeology Report, 47. Conversion-Period England c.600-850, Oxford, Davis, S. (2001). ‘The horse head from grave 47’, in W. British Archaeological Reports British Series, 261. Filmer-Sankey and T. Pestell, Snape Anglo-Saxon Geake, H. (2001). ‘Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Cemetery: Excavations and Surveys 1824-1992, Medieval Archaeology, 45, 236-251. Gressenhall, East Anglian Archaeology Report, 95, Goodall, I. H. and Ottoway, P. (forthcoming). 231-232. Excavations at Wicken Bonhunt, Gressenhall, East Dickinson, T. M. and Härke, H. (1992). Early Anglo- Anglian Archaeology Report. Saxon Shields, London, The Society of Antiquaries Götherström, A. (2002). ‘The value of stallions and mares of London, Archaeologia, 110. during the Early Medieval time in upper-class Dickinson, T. M., Fern, C. and Hall, M. A. Svealand’, Journal of Nordic Archaeological (forthcoming). ‘An early Anglo-Saxon bridle fitting Science, 13, 75-78. from South Leckaway, Forfar, Angus, Scotland’, Hald, J. and Laux, U. (1999). ‘Zwei Pferdebestattungen Medieval Archaeology. im alamannischen Gräberfeld von Ammerbuch- Dixon, K. R. and Southern, P. (1992). The Roman Entringen, Kreis Tübingen’, Archäologische Cavalry. From the First to the Third Century AD, Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg, 147-149. London, Routledge. Halsall, G. (2003). Warfare and Society in the Barbarian Drinkall, G. and Foreman, M. (1998). The Anglo-Saxon West, 450-900, London, Routledge. Cemetery at Castledyke South, Barton-on-Humber, Hamerow, H. and Pickin, J. (1995). ‘An early Anglo- Sheffield, Sheffield Excavation Reports, 6. Saxon cemetery at Andrew’s Hill, Easington, Dryden, H. (1885). ‘Excavation of an ancient burial Co.Durham’, Durham Archaeological Journal, 11, ground at Marston St. Lawrence, co. 35-66. Northamptonshire’, Archaeologia, 48, 327-339. Harman, M. (1993). ‘The animal burials: discussion’, in Eagles, B. and Ager, B. (forthcoming). ‘A mid-5th to mid- A. G. Kinsley, Excavations on the Romano-British 6th century bridle-fitting of Mediterranean origin Settlement and Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Broughton from Breamore, Hampshire, England, with a Lodge, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, Nottinghamshire discussion of its local context’, in M. Lodewijckx 1964-8, Long Eaton, Nottingham Archaeological (ed.), Bruc ealles Well: Archaeological Essays Monographs, 4, 58-61. concerning the Peoples of North-west Europe in the Härke, H. (1997). ‘Early Anglo-Saxon military First Millennium AD, Leuven. organisation: an archaeological perspective’, in A. East, K. (1983). ‘The tubs and buckets’, in R. Bruce- Nørgård Jørgensen and B. L. Clausen (eds), Military Mitford The Sutton Hoo Ship-burial Vol. III Part II, Aspects of Scandinavian Society in a European London, British Museum Publications, 554-594. Perspective, AD 1-1300, Copenhagen, The National Ellis, B. (1984). ‘Spurs’, in A. Rogerson and C. Dallas, Museum Studies in Archaeology and History, 2, 93- Excavations in Thetford 1948-59 and 1973-80, 101. Gressenhall, East Anglian Archaeology Report, 22, Hässler, H-J. (1981). ‘Inlaid metalwork of the late 101-104. Migration period and the Merovingian period from Evison, V. I. (1994). An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Great Lower Saxony’, in V. I. Evison (ed.) Angles, Saxons Chesterford, Essex, York, Council for British and Jutes. Essays presented to J. N. L. Myres, Archaeology Research Report, 91. Oxford, Clarendon Press: 72-95. 68  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST Hässler, H-J. (1994). Neue Ausgrabungen in Issendorf, Knight (eds) Pattern and Purpose in Insular Art, Ldkr.Stade Niedersachsen, Hannover, Studien zur Oxford, Oxbow Books, 261-274. Sachsenforschung, 9. Kerth, Von K. (2000). ‘Die Tierbeigaben aus vier Haughton, C. and Powesland, D. (1999). West Heslerton. frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfeldern in Unterfranken’, The Anglian Cemetery, Nottingham, Landscape Germania, 78, 1, 125-138. Research Centre Archaeological Monograph Series, Kinsley, A. G. (1993). Excavations on the Romano- No. 1, Vol. 1. British Settlement and Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Hawkes, S. C. (2000). ‘The Anglo-Saxon cemetery of Broughton Lodge, Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, Bifrons, in the parish of Patrixbourne, East Kent’, Nottinghamshire 1964-8, Long Eaton, Nottingham Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 11, Archaeological Monographs, 4. 1-94. Koch, R. (1982). ‘Stachelsporen des frühen und hohen Headeger, L. (2000). ‘Migration Period Europe: the mittelalters’, Zeitschrift für Archäeologie des formation of a political mentality’, in F. Theuws and Mittelalters, 10, 63-83. J. L. Nelson (eds), Rituals of Power: From Late Laing, L. (forthcoming.a). ‘Some Anglo-Saxon artefacts Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, Leiden, Brill: 15- from Nottinghamshire’, in S. Semple and H. 57. Williams (eds) Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology Hencken, H. (1950). ‘Lagore crannog: an Irish royal & History, 14. residence of the 7th to 10th centuries AD’, Laing, L. and Longley, D. (forthcoming.b). The Mote of Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 53, 1-247. Mark. A Dark Age Hillfort in South-West Scotland, Hines, J. (1997). A New Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Great Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph. Square-Headed Brooches, Woodbridge, Reports of László, G. (1943). ‘Der Grabfund von Koroncó und der the Research Committee of the Society of altungarische Sattel’, Archaeologica Hungarica, 27, Antiquaries, 51, Boydell Press. 107-191. Hills, C. (1999). ‘Did the people of Spong Hill come Leeds, E. T. (1938). ‘An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at from Schleswig-Holstein?’, Studien zur Wallingford, Berkshire’, Berkshire Archaeological Sachsenforchung, 11, 145-154. Journal, 42, 93-101. Hills, P. (1997). Whithorn and St. Ninians: The Liddle, P. (1979/80). ‘An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Excavation of a Monastic Town, 1984-91, Stroud, Wanlip, Leicestershire’, Trans. of the Leicestershire Sutton Publishing. Archaeol. and Hist. Soc., 55, 11-21. Hirst, S. M. and Clark, D. (forthcoming). Excavations at Lundholm, B. (1949). ‘Abstammung und Domestikation Mucking, Vol. 3: The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries, des Hauspferdes’, Zoologiska Bidrag Från Uppsala, London. 27, 1-287. Hope-Taylor, B. (1977). Yeavering: an Anglo-British MacGregor, A. and Bolick, E. (1993). Ashmolean Centre of Early Northumbria, London, Department Museum, Oxford: A Summary Catalogue of the of the Environment Archaeological Report, 7. Anglo-Saxon Collections (Non-ferrous metals), H olbrook, N. (2000). ‘The Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Oxford, British Archaeological Reports British Lower Farm, Bishop’s Cleeve: excavations directed Series, 230. by Kenneth Brown, 1969’, Transactions of the Malim, T. and Hines, J. (1998). The Anglo-Saxon Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, cemetery at Edix Hill (Barrington A), 118, 61-92. Cambridgeshire, York, Council for British Hooper, N. (1993). ‘The Aberlemno Stone and cavalry in Archaeology Research Report, 112. Anglo-Saxon England’, Northern History, 29, 188- McKinley, J. (1994). Spong Hill Part VII: The 196. Cremations, Gressenhall, East Anglian Archaeology Hyland, A. (1990). Equus: The Horse in the Roman Report, 69. world, London, Batsford. Meaney, A. (1964). A Gazetteer of Early Anglo-Saxon Hyland, A. (1993). Training the Roman Army: from Burial Sites, London, Unwin. Arrian’s Ars Tactica, London, Sutton. Mortimer, J. R. (1905). Forty Years’ Researches in Hyland, A. (1999). The Horse in the Middle Ages, British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire, Trowbridge, Sutton. London. Hyslop, M. (1963). ‘Two Anglo-Saxon cemeteries at Müller, H-H. (1955). ‘Bestimmung der Höhe im Widerist Chamberlain’s Barn, Leighton Buzzard, bei Pferden’, Jahresschrift fürMitteldeutsche Bedfordshire’, Archaeological Journal, 120, 161- Vorgeschichte, 39, 240-244. 200. Müller, H-H. (1980). ‘Zur Kenntnis der Haustiere aus Jarvis, E. Rev. (1850). ‘Account of the discovery of Völkerwanderungszeit im Mittelelbe – Saale- ornaments and remains, supposed to be of Danish Gebiet’, Zeitschrift für Archäologie, 14, 145-172. Origin, in the Parish of Caenby, Lincolnshire’, Müller-Wille, M. (1970/71). Pferdegrab und Pferdeopfer Archaeological Journal, 7, 36-44. im frühen Mittelalter, Berichten van de Rijksdienst Kelly, E. P. (2001). ‘The Hillquarter, Co. Westmeath voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek Jaargang, mounts: an early medieval saddle from Ireland’, in 20-21. M. Redknap, N. Edwards, S. Youngs, A. Lane and J. Müller-Wille, M. (1999). ‘Das Frankenreich und der 69 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR EQUESTRIANISM IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND, C.450-700 Norden. Zur Archäologie wechselseitiger of some Antiquities dug up at Gilton, Kingston, Beziehungen während der Merwinger- und frühen Sibertswold, Barfriston, Beakesbourne, Chartham, and Karolingerzeit’ in U. von Freeden, U. Koch and A. Crundale, in the County of Kent, from AD 1757 to AD Wieczovek (eds), Völker au Nord- und Ostee und die 1773, ed. by C. Roach-Smith, London. Franken, Bonn, 1-18. Saggau, H. E. (1986). Bordesholm. DerUrnenfriedhof am Nawroth, M. (2001). Das Gräberfeld von Pfahlheim und Brautberg bei Bordesholm in Holstein, Neumünster, das Reitzhubehör der Merowingerzeit, Nürnberg, Offa-Bücher, 60. Germanisches Nationalmuseum. Seaby, W. A. and Woodfield, P. (1980). ‘Viking Stirrups Newman, J. (forthcoming). Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries at from England and their Background’, Medieval RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk, Gressenhall, East Anglian Archaeology, 24, 87-122. Archaeology Report. Serjeantson, D. (1994). ‘The animal bones’, in V. I. Neville, R. C. (1852). Saxon Obsequies, London. Evison, An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Great Neville, R. C. (1854). ‘Anglo-Saxon Cemetery on Linton Chesterford, Essex, York, Council for British Heath, Cambridgeshire’, Archaeological Journal, 11, Archaeology Research Report, 91, 66-70. 95-115. Shortt, H. de. S. (1959). ‘A provincial Roman spur from Nichols, J. (1807). The History and Antiquities of the Longstock, Hants., and other spurs from Roman County of Leicester, Vol. 4, 1, London. Britain’, The Antiquaries Journal, 39, 61-76. O’Connor, T. (1994). ‘A horse skeleton from Sutton Hoo, Smith, C. R. (1851/52). ‘Notes on Saxon sepulchral Suffolk, U.K.’, Archaeolzoologia, 7, 1, 29-37. remains found at Fairford, Gloucestershire’, O’Connor, T. (unpublished). ‘Animal bones from Archaeologia, 34, 77-82. Lakenheath, Suffolk (ERL046, 104, 114)’, Archive Smith, R. A. (1908). ‘Anglo-Saxon Remains’, in W. Page report to Suffolk CC Archaeology Unit. (ed.), The Victoria History of the County of Kent, Oexle, J. (1984). ‘Merowingerzeitliche Vol. 1, London, 339-387. Pferdebestattungen – Opfer oder Beigaben?’, Southampton Museum Archaeological Object Database: Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 18, 122-172. http://sccwww1.southampton.gov.uk/archaeology/sea Oexle, J. (1992). Studien zu merowingerzeitlichem rch.asp Pferdegeschirr am Beispiel der Trensen, Mainz, Speake, G. (1980). Anglo-Saxon Animal Art and its Germanische Denkmäler der Völkerwanderungszeit, Germanic Background, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Serie A, 16. Speake, G. (1989). A Saxon Bed Burial on Swallowcliffe Ottoway, P. (1992). Anglo-Scandinavian Ironwork from Down, London, Historic Buildings and Monuments 16-22 Coppergate, York, The Archaeology of York, Commission for England Archaeological Report, 10. 17: The Small Finds, Fascicule 6, Council for British Sundkvist, A. (2001). Hästernas Land: Aristokratisk Archaeology. hästhållning och ridkonst I Svealands yngre Parfitt, K and Brugmann, B. (1997). The Anglo-Saxon järnålder, Uppsala, Uppsala universitet. Cemetery on Mill Hill, Deal, Kent, Leeds, Society for Quast, D. (1993). ‘Das hölzerne Sattelgestell aus Medieval Archaeology Monograph, 14. Oberflacht Grab 211: Bemerkungen zu Parfitt, K, Brugmann, B. and Rettner, A. (2000). ‘Anglo- merowingerzeitlichen Sätteln’, Funderberichte aus Saxon spur from the Mill Hill, Deal, Cemetery’, Kent Baden-Württemberg, 18, 437-464. Archaeological Review, 140, 229-230. Tweddle, D., Moulden, J. and Logan, E. (1999). Anglian Payne, G. (1894). ‘Note’, Proceedings of the Society of York: A Survey of the Evidence, York, The Antiquaries of London, 15, 178-183. Archaeology of York, 7 Fascicule 2, Council for Peake, H. and Hooton, E. A. (1915). ‘Saxon graveyard at British Archaeology. East Shefford, Berks.’, Journal of the Royal Tyler, S. and Major, H. (forthcoming). The Early Anglo- Anthropological Institute, 45, 92-130. Saxon Cemetery and Late Saxon Settlement at Petré, B. (1984). Arkeologiska undersökningar på Lovö Springfield Lyons, Essex, Gressenhall, East Anglian Del 4, Studies in North-European Archaeology10, Archaeology Report. Stockholm, Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Urban, S. (1838). ‘Discovery of Roman skeletons’, The Prigg, H. and Fenton, S. (1888). ‘The Anglo-Saxon graves, Gentleman’s Magazine, 10, New Series, 650.Vierck, Warren Hill, Mildenhall’, Proceedings of the Suffolk H. (1970/71). ‘Pferdegräber im angelsächsischen Institute of Archaeology, 6, 57-72. England’, in M. Müller-Wille, Pferdegrab und Prummel, W. (1992). ‘Early medieval dog burials among Pferdeopfer im frühen Mittelalter, Berichten van de the Germanic tribes’, Helinium, 32, 132-194. Portable Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Antiquities Scheme Annual Report 2001/02-2002/03 Bodemonderzoek Jaargang, 20-21, 189-199. (2003), Re:source: The Council for Museums, Welch, M. (1983). Early Anglo-Saxon Sussex, Oxford, Archives and Libraries. British Archaeological Reports British Series 112. Ramqvist, P. H. (1992). Högom. The Excavations 1949- West, S. (1998). A Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Material from 1984. Neumünster, Högom, 1, University of Umeå. Suffolk, Gressenhall, East Anglian Archaeology Rettner, A. (1997). ‘Sporen der Ältern Merowingerzeit’, Report, 84. Germania, 75, 1, 133-157. Williams, H. (2001). ‘An ideology of transformation: Faussett, B. (1856). Inventorium Sepulchrale: an Account Cremation rites and animal sacrifice in early Anglo- 70  NEW PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS IN THE HISTORICAL PAST Saxon England’, in N. Price, The Archaeology of Wright, T. (1844). ‘An account of the opening of barrows Shamanism, London, Routledge, 193-212. in Bourne Park, near Canterbury’, Archaeological Whitfield, N. (2001). ‘The earliest filigree from Ireland’, Journal, 1, 253-256. in Redknap, N. Edwards, S. Youngs, A. Lane and J. Youngs, S. (1989). ‘The Work of Angels’: Masterpieces of Knight (eds), Pattern and Purpose in Insular Art, Celtic Metalwork, 6th-9th Centuries AD’, London, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 141-154. British Museum Publications. 71