Bolts From The Grave

[caldrail]

Yesterday I was trawling through the archaeological archives in Swindon Library. I found a mention of a saxon burial in Devizes, Wiltshire, which included amongst the various goods - a ballista bolt.

 

This is of interest to me. Clearly the ballista was still in use after the Roman withdrawal, albeit somewhat less common, but in a saxon burial? You would expect that in a Romano-British grave more likely. The Saxons aren't noted for artillery at all and were recognised as lacking in siege warcraft (their advance up southern England was delayed by earthworks built by the Romano-British defenders).

 

A captured weapon? At the time, a ballista would have been a prize worthy of an important warrior and nowhere else have I seen evidence of Roman-style artillery for this period. Whether the skill to use it existed amongst the Saxons is another matter.

[Klingan]

Was there any description/picture of the find? Could it possibly be a misinterpretation?

[Melvadius]

Was there any description/picture of the find? Could it possibly be a misinterpretation?

 

I have similar concerns about this find's interpretation.

 

Contrary to what may be assumed from the wording of the 'Rescript of Honorius', in recent years there has been a siginificant re-interpretation of the period of interplay between the late Romano-British and the early Saxon cultures. Several graveyards have provided evidience for continuity of Romano-British burial practices into the seventh century AD, sometimes in conjunction with 'Saxon' burial practices in the same or adjoining cemeteries.

 

This shows an overlap of the two cultures so, even if correctly identified as a ballista bolt, the 'bolt' may not have come from an actively manned ballista. Several other interpretations are possible; including that it was inserted as a family heirloom or else separately added as a grave good as an old weapon which someone attending the funeral rites felt had needed a 'proper' burial at that particular time.

 

Melvadius

Edited May 25, 2009 by Melvadius

[caldrail]

The find from a dig in the 90's was identified as a ballista bolt. I have no reason to doubt it.

 

The idea that it might be a symbolic possession has occured to me. The thing is, Saxons were not known for having any skill in siegecraft. Only Aella in 477/478 had tackled a Roman fort, and that was probably not in the best condition or with motivated defenders. The other Saxons were challenged by ditches and palisades which the Roman-celtic people of southern England made frequent use of. So is there any likeliehood that the Saxons imported artillery? Remotely possible, but these Saxons were of a piratical sort and not the types to buy Roman siege weapons .

 

Did the Romano-Britiish defenders have ballista's? Possibly. The knowledge to build and use them may well have survived two or three hundred years but such things must have been rare in post Roman Britain with the legions called away to Gaul. Once the Saxons had conquered the Wessex area and announced the kingdom in 560, any such weapons still survivng would have fallen into their hands anyway.

 

There is one interesting possibility. To the Saxons, the Roman towns were something exotic and mysterious, which indicates they hadn't much experience of Roman settlement. They regarded these towns as places built by giants - and given the disease that is thought to have emptied them at the beginning of the dark ages, very little reason to control them, and since they wouldn't have bothered with sieges, attacks weren't likely. Now, if a ballista bolt had happened to be hanging around, it may have been mistaken for an arrow of these city-building giants, and would become something of a token to these superstitious warriors. That doesn't mean I thing that to be the case, I just forward that as a possibility.

 

My own personal feeling is that a few ballistas were in use during the conquest of Wessex and that fell out of use with the disinterested Saxons coming into control of the area. The thing is, for a ballista bolt to be buried in a Saxon grave meant that he was to use it in the afterlife. As a mere momento, it had no value.

[Melvadius]

The find from a dig in the 90's was identified as a ballista bolt. I have no reason to doubt it.

 

The idea that it might be a symbolic possession has occured to me. The thing is, Saxons were not known for having any skill in siegecraft. Only Aella in 477/478 had tackled a Roman fort, and that was probably not in the best condition or with motivated defenders. The other Saxons were challenged by ditches and palisades which the Roman-celtic people of southern England made frequent use of. So is there any likeliehood that the Saxons imported artillery? Remotely possible, but these Saxons were of a piratical sort and not the types to buy Roman siege weapons .

 

Did the Romano-Britiish defenders have ballista's? Possibly. The knowledge to build and use them may well have survived two or three hundred years but such things must have been rare in post Roman Britain with the legions called away to Gaul. Once the Saxons had conquered the Wessex area and announced the kingdom in 560, any such weapons still survivng would have fallen into their hands anyway...

 

<SNIP>

 

...My own personal feeling is that a few ballistas were in use during the conquest of Wessex and that fell out of use with the disinterested Saxons coming into control of the area. The thing is, for a ballista bolt to be buried in a Saxon grave meant that he was to use it in the afterlife. As a mere momento, it had no value.

 

 

It may not be evidence for the full period up to the Saxon siezure of the West country but there is good evidence for late Rroman town garrison at several sites including Cirencester (Coronium Dobunnorum) where Romano-British occupation continued until at least the early fifth century (C.440AD). The town defences there include several towers datingg from the early fourth century which are of a size that could easily have held some form of defensive weapons including balliasta.

 

In my view the argument is a bit stronger for a single bolt coming from a site like that. I would agree that the thought of the source being a previously unsuspected 'putative' Saxon siege weaponry unit does seem a lot less likely

 

As to why a Saxon had a weapon buried with him the evidence is not as clear cut as is often suggested. There have been cases where the weapons being placed into graves appear to have been broken or worn out while in other case perfectly functional weapons have been placed in a woman's or childs graves.

 

The interpretation of why weapons are placed into graves is therefore open to some (aand continuing) debate, usually depending where you stand on the position/value of anthropological comparisons - I admit to being unconvinced by some arguments. However I do have some sympathy for the view that in some cases 'weapons' may not have been intended for the occupant of a grave to use but rather for them to act as the 'medium' carrying something of possibly 'spiritual' value into the afterlife.

 

Unfortunately it is another case where an 'authentic' beginners guide to Anglo-Saxon burial practices would come in really useful

 

Melvadius

Edited May 26, 2009 by Melvadius

[caldrail]

Devizes isn't mentioned in the Domesday Book and the earliest origin is from a castle built there in 1080 (a motte and bailey that burned down in 1113, rebuilt in stone thirty years later). Whatever settlement existed there before the Normans was essentially rural in character abd apparently unimportant in Saxon terms.

[Kosmo]

Maybe the saxon was killed by that bolt.

[caldrail]

The report didn't mention that possibility.

[sylla]

There's a famous skeloton from Maiden Castle (Dorset) with the head of a ballista bolt embedded in its backbone; however, this finding comes from the Roman invasion; the bolt was presumably from Legio II Augusta.

 

There are many reports of "bolts" in Anglo-Saxon burials, including the Wiltshire area; however it's clear most if not all of them are talking about other kind of iron devices and not ballista balls.

[caldrail]

There is a great deal of difference between balls and bolts. I'm sure the archaeologist at the site knew that. The Maiden Castle find is something spectacular but there's no mention in the report that such an incident occured - the bolt was simply there along with other burial goods.

 

It seems the Saxons have an interesting attitude toward burying their dead. Although a superstitious people (we know that - they found a neolithic barrow on the Ridgeway and named it Waylands Smithy, the residence of one of their own gods) they also have little regard for spiritual beliefs other than their own, be it pagan or christian. Barrows are known to have been re-used by Saxons as burial sites, and with the Devizes find, there remains a possibility that the gentleman was buried in such a way to enforce Saxon authority over their Romano-Celtic subjects.

 

Unfortunately no date is given for the find. Unless it represents a mercenary (unlikely in that region) or an early settler (even less likely in the central uplands of Southern England), then we're looking at a burial something post AD550.