1 

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
OF
LATE MEDIEVAL COMBAT WITH THE COUCHED LANCE
By
Alan Williams, David Edge, Tobias Capwell
Abstract
The effectiveness of the lance in mounted warfare and tournaments has
been investigated by several riders attacking a target (of known weight)
arranged to function as a ballistic pendulum. The height to which the
target rose was measured by video recording and so the impact energy of
the lance under different circumstances has been calculated. The results
showed that while the use of stirrups showed some increase in energy,
the use of the lance arret (rest) and rigid breast plate showed a greater
increase. The maximum energies were limited by the lance breaking and
were up to around 250J.
Introduction
Combat on horseback with the couched lance seems to have appeared
in Europe in the mid-twelfth century. The earliest depictions of joust-like
encounters between horsemen appear to date from the 1120s, for example,
a fine relief representing Roland in combat with a Moorish warrior on
the façade of the cathedral at Angoulême (c. 1120-30). Here the two
armoured riders charge headlong towards each other, with Roland in the
process of transfixing his enemy through the body. Interestingly his spear
is still held low along the forearm- the spear has not yet been moved up
to be gripped tightly in the armpit. The same early form of semi-couched
charge is found again on another similar relief at San Zeno Maggiore in
Verona (c. 1139). It is not until the second half of the twelfth century
that artists began to clearly depict mounted knights charging into battle
or tournament with their spears carried high under the arm, legs braced,
leaning forward from the pelvis to strike with as much force as possible,
while the shield is dressed over the left side to receive a similar frontal
attack coming from the opposite direction. The earliest literary descriptions
of joust-like encounters also begin to appear at this time, in for example
the Arthurian Romances of Chrétien de Troyes (variously c.1170-80).
Until the middle of the twelfth century armoured horsemen are depicted
in art using their spears as stabbing weapons, wielded either overarm with
the point downwards, as found in many places on the Bayeux Tapestry,
or underarm in what might be called a ‘semi-couched’ position, with
the cue of the spear following the line of the forearm and often seen
projecting out behind the elbow. Initially this second grip appears simply
to have been an alternative stabbing technique, using the strength of the
 2

arm, rather than the speed of the horse, to drive the point into the target.
Couching the lance involved moving the horse into the canter or gallop,.
Couching the lance involved moving the horse into the canter or gallop,
before placing the butt of the spear or lance firmly under the arm, lowering
the point of the weapon towards the target on approach, and using the
speed and power of the horse to drive it home. Until perhaps the early
fourteenth century, it was only the strength of the rider’s hand and arm
which prevented the spear from being forced backwards upon impact.
Therefore, however strong and robust the construction of the weapon might
have been, there was an ultimate limit placed on its impact potential- the
physical strength of the person wielding it. This limitation was beginning
to be lifted by the early 1300s however, with the development of various
kinds of arresting devices. The first was the arrêt de la lance, a ring, disk
or sphere of leather or wood fitted to the spear behind the hand. This
device was designed to spread the arresting support for the weapon across
more of the body, the right pectoral and shoulder primarily, so as to take
pressure away from the hand, wrist and forearm. Then, c. 1370, the arrêt
de cuirasse or ‘lance-rest’ appeared. This short projecting metal arm on
the breastplate provided a more secure anchor-point to support the lance
while also, crucially, arresting it on contact with the target1. The accurate
and effective use of this lance-arresting system was technically challenging
for the user, as the surging movement of the galloping horse influenced the
behaviour of the spearhead much more directly2. Consistently successful
results required a great deal of practice and experience, much of which
was gained in jousts, tournaments and regular practice in the tiltyard.
The three present authors have previously published a study of jousting
armour and equipment3. But assessment of the effectiveness of such armour
in preventing death and injury must depend upon knowing the magnitude
of the attack upon it. This paper will describe our attempt to measure the
impact energy of lances in mounted warfare.
Method
A target acting like a ballistic pendulum was constructed in such a way
that a panel (backed by a box of variable weight) could be struck by a
lance, and its movement recorded on video. The vertical height risen is
measured against a scale on the video recording, and enables a calculation
of the energy, E, imparted to the target, since
Impact energy given by lance = potential energy acquired by the target
E = mgh
where m is the mass of the target, g the acceleration due to gravity,
and h the vertical height risen. The units of energy are Joules (J). Key
dimensions of the target are: Weight empty 24.7 kg. The distance from
the base to the centre of the axle is 102.5cm. The distance from top of
the target to centre of gravity is 20 cm when the target is empty. When a
 3 

12.5 kg weight is added to the target the distance from top of the target
to the centre of gravity is 17.5 cm. Detailed methods of calculation of the
results are in Appendix 1 and complete results are in Appendix 2 presented
as Table A2.1 and Table A.2.2 for the first and second day without and
with armour respectively.
After some preliminary experiments in 2008 the apparatus was
redesigned so that the movement of the target approximated the position
and likely direction of travel of an opponent, after impact, in a mounted
encounter with lances. Initially the target swung back on a line parallel
to the attacker’s direction of travel. This arrangement was not satisfactory,
because it allowed the attacker’s lance-point to remain in place on the
target for far too long, as the lance ‘pushed through’ the target, and thus
invalidating the results. In reality an armoured opponent, when struck,
would have been knocked backwards and out of range of the weapon
quite rapidly, and may also have been travelling in precisely the opposite
direction immediately before impact, magnifying the effect of a sudden,
forceful, but quite brief contact. Altering the target angle, so that it no
longer swung in the same plane as the horse’s motion, but rather in the
same plane as the lance attack, not only appeared to better approximate
(with a stationary target) the conditions of real encounters (against moving
or at least moveable opponents), it also seemed to raise the impact energy.
Altering the target weight, however, does not seem to alter the impact
energy significantly.
Where possible, the angle of movement of the target was kept below
90º to simulate this. The angle could be reduced by increasing the total
weight of the target. The target is shown in the images of jousting.
In the last fifteen years, modern competitive jousts and tournaments
have grown in popularity around the world. As the modern jousting culture
has grown, its quality and authenticity has also increased very rapidly.
Many modern jousters combine scholarly research and physical practice
to recreate the knightly fighting and riding arts of the late Middle Ages.
By 2012, all remaining modern inaccuracies had been eliminated by many,
with a small number of jousters beginning to compete in mounted lance
combats as they really were practiced in the late medieval period. The
essential elements are all now in place:
• high-quality replica armour, fitted with lance-rests;
• solid pine lances carrying steel spearheads and grapers (arrê ts
de la lance);
• fast, strong horses with breed and confirmation consistent with
their medieval forebears;
• custom-built medieval saddles providing the right kind of support
to the rider.
Modern jousting at the highest, most authentic level now has validity
 4

as a tool for historical/archaeological experimentation. It is this practical

expertise which has been recruited to create an experiment intended
to shed new light on the forces at work in knightly lance combat on
horseback. The experiment, employing the apparatus and test principles
described above, was carried out in August 2013. The test riders were
Tobias Capwell (T); Joram van Essen (J); Alix van Zijl (Ax); Dominic
Sewell (D); Arne Koets (A); Isak Krogh (I).
In the present experiment, the riders struck the target using the same
lances now used in modern competition. Each lance was 3.6 meters long,
54mm in diameter in front of the hand, tapering down to 30mm at the
point, and made of solid pine-wood.
Most of the surviving jousting lances are solid pine. These include a
group of various types at the Hofjagd –und Rüstkammer, Vienna (Inv.
nos. B.1 (analysed and found to be spruce4) B.8. B.13, B.15, B.50, B.84
, B.130; and a lance for the Gestech at the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum,
Munich (Inv. no. W1083). However, a notion persists, which much be
addressed, that lances employed in the joust were made hollow in order
to cause them to break with ease. This myth appears to originate largely
with three magnificent and extremely rare lances, richly decorated in
gold, dating from the reign of King Henry VIII and now in the collection
of the Royal Armouries (Inv. nos. VII.550-1 and .634)5. They are of a
remarkable size, the largest being an enormous 436 cm long and weighing
9.1kg, despite being hollow. Their hollowness has often been taken as
evidence that jousting lances were routinely made in this way; to lighten
them and allow them to break safely and easily. While this explanation
sounds convincing, it is wrong. Making hollow lances is difficult, time-
consuming, and expensive, and thus quite impractical for a jousting
culture which required mass-production, with individual events often
requiring hundreds of lances. Furthermore, the Royal Armouries lances
are needlessly and unreasonably large, at least from a practical jousting
point of view. Regardless of the fact that their hollowness somewhat
reduces their still considerable weight, making it possible simply to carry
them, their massiveness makes them excessively unwieldy. It is much
more likely that this trio of huge objects represent the lance equivalent of
the equally over-large (but purely ceremonial and non-functional) bearing
swords that played a central role in royal ceremonies throughout the Middle
Ages and Renaissance. It is almost certainly more correct to regard the
Royal Armouries examples as ‘bearing lances’, carried onto the field as
part of the spectacle and pageantry that accompanied and complimented
the combats in Tudor jousts and tournaments. The revels accounts of the
reign of Henry VIII refer to these huge costume accessories as ‘great
spears’ or ‘boordons’. In a joust at Greenwich on 7 July, 1517, held to
entertain visiting Flemish diplomats, Nicholas Carew appeared in the guise
 5 

of ‘the Blue Knight’ and, as the revels accounts state, ‘ran with the great
boordon’.6 This seems to have been a solo act performed by Carew, as
some kind of parade or riding demonstration, perhaps even running at the
ring, rather than a joust. No one else, armed with a similar weapon, seems
to have been involved. Philippe de Commines, an important eyewitness to
many significant events in French history during the late fifteenth century,
states that at the battle of Fornovo in 1495 (at which he was present), many
of the Italian men-at-arms opposing the invading French forces were armed
with colourful lances that he calls ‘bourdonasses’- undoubtedly something
similar to the Tudor ‘boordon’. After the Italians were defeated, with 3500
Italians laying dead on the field, Commines tells us that their lances “…
lay very thick upon the field, and especially the bourdonasses; but they
were good for nothing, for they were hollow and light, and weighed no
more than a javelin, yet they were finely painted.”7
It would appear than that a ‘boordon’ or ‘bourdonasse’ was specifically a
lance that was hollow and gorgeously decorated, although why the Italians
chose to carry such flimsy weapons into battle is not clear. Exactly how
they were used in jousts and tournaments is also unclear. There remains no
definite evidence that they were ever used to strike opponents in the joust.
When a spearhead was used, it took the form of a steel coronel, a
three-pronged ‘safety head’ typical of the kind used in ‘jousts of peace’
in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries. The coronel allowed
the opponent’s face-plates to be struck in comparative safety, since the
spearhead could not pierce the helmet sight. Furthermore, in strikes to
the opponent’s shield, the coronel ‘grabbed’ the first point of contact,
preventing hazardous slipping or skating8, while also being incapable of
penetrating through the full thickness of the shield or armour, as might
a single-pointed war-spear.
The skating lance was one of the greatest dangers in the joust. A
skilled opponent could usually be relied upon to strike the shield or the
helm with accuracy; however if his lance point did not gain purchase, it
could slip, travelling sideways in an unintended direction, with the potential
to cause injury. A number of such “misfortunes” occurred at the Passo
Honroso held on the Orbigo Bridge in Northern Spain in 1434. This
joust, run with a tilt but without shields in field armour and using war
spears, was unusually well-documented by Pero Rodriguez de Gena, who
was not only present, but was also party to the discussion and analysis of
the judges. He witnessed numerous accidents, many caused by skating
lances. These included a right pauldron being ripped off9 and a blow
glancing off the left besagew, piercing the right biceps and exiting at the
back of the arm. On other occasions, a strike on the left pauldron slipped
up into the face, and another blow skated off the plackart onto the stop-
rib of the breastplate, ripping it off; transfixing the right shoulder above
 6

the armpit. The Passo Honroso also witnessed a war spear striking the
left gauntlet, and after passing through it, driving into the plackart and
the breastplate underneath.
Thus in several different ways the coronel was highly effective in
preventing injury in friendly tournament engagements, although it had
little effect in the impact energies determined in our experiments.
Results
On the first day, the riders ran at the target without armour, with lances
both with and without coronels. A variety of saddles were used:
T used a replica Italian war saddle of c. 1460
J used a replica Burgundian war saddle of c. 1460
Ax used a replica English war saddle of c. 1400-40
D used an modern English saddle
A used a modern Portuguese saddle
I rode bareback
The complete results recorded on the first test day (without armour)
are presented in Appendix 2 Table A2.1 and are summarised below. It
is significant to note the high impact energies recorded by the bareback
rider without either saddle or stirrups, I.

Rider Saddle Impact Energies J Average

T Replica Italian war saddle 66, 122, 110, 163, 127
of c. 1460 145, 151, 118, 131,
118, 131, 118, 154,
148,113, 131, 105
J Replica Burgundian war 157, 203, 213, 211, 202
saddle of c. 1460 220, 157, 225, 232

A Replica English war 142, 65, 172, 151, 125, 97

saddle of c. 1400-40 140
Ax Modern English saddle 142, 65, 172, 151, 125, 133
140
D Modern Portuguese saddle 113, 59, 71, 95 85
I Bareback 128, 86, 104, 128, 113, 100
98, 83, 98, 101, 57
Table 1. Summary of First Days Results, Without Armour
On the second day, four of the riders completed a second set of runs at
 7 

the target, this time clad in full plate armour of the mid-fifteenth century.
Crucially, each of the riders’ breastplates carried an arret or lance-rest,
designed to engage a steel graper fitted to the lance just behind the hand-
grip. This lance-arresting system, as described above, increases the impact
energy of a couched lance attack by locking the weapon into the user’s
body, taking the stress of impact away from the hand and focusing it on
the body armour.
However it has previously been impossible to determine the size of that
increase in striking power. One of the primary aims of this experiment
was to gather data which would help to address this question. How much
harder could a knight strike his opponent, using an arret, than without?
During the armoured runs at the target, the impact energy was increased
to the point at which some of the lances themselves were broken. When
this happened, the impact energy recorded was lowered, as some of that
energy was lost in the breaking of the lance.
The results recorded on Day Two during the armoured test runs are
given in Appendix 2 Table A2 and summarised below:

Rider Saddle Impact Energies J Average

T (ignoring 2 Replica Italian 230, 125, 208 and 206
lance breaks) war saddle of c. 262 J
1460
J Replica 64, 242, 254 J No average
Burgundian war determined
saddle of c. 1460
A Replica English 242, 208, 162 and 217
war saddle of c. 257 J
1400-40
D Modern 242, 194, 211, and 216
Portuguese saddle 218 J
Table 2. Summary of Second Days Results, With Armour

Discussion of overall results

Without an arret, the riders were able to impart an energy of 90 – 200
J to their target. Even without a saddle, 100 J was possible. Many of
the comments previously made about the importance of stirrups and the
drawbacks inferred by historians based on their absence in pre-medieval
riding, especially military riding, may need to be rethought10. Stirrups
appear to play an insignificant role, if any at all, in determining the striking
power of a horseman armed with a spear or lance. No doubt they were
a crucial innovation for other reasons, but they do not seem to provide a
 8

clear advantage in the lance-strikes themselves. The support provided by

the saddle is probably a more significant consideration, although, as I’s
bareback results show, the skill of the rider is paramount.
With an arret, over 200 J was regularly attained, and 250 J in some
cases. It is quite possible that 300 J was being reached but this was
breaking the lances and therefore not being registered by the target. This
may be compared with the typical impact energies for swords and axes of
between 60 and 130 J, and arrows of up to 100 J.11 The coronel seemed
to make little difference the impact energies observed.
Representative photographs of the experimental arrangement and
jousting experiments are shown figures 1-7.
Fig.1.
The target, with
vertical scale
attached, and
the video camera
to the right.
The jousters
travel along the
opposite side of
the barrier.

Fig. 2.
About
to strike
the target
(jouster
without
armour)
 9 

Fig. 3.
After
striking
the
target

Fig. 4.
Jouster
riding
bareback
(without
saddle or
stirrups)

Fig. 5.
Typical
still image
from video
showing
target
against
scale. There
is a white
marker on
the lower
corner of
target.
 10

Fig. 6.
Target – from observer’s
view

Fig. 7.
Target – from Jouster’s
view

Effect of lances upon armour – did it do its job?

The authors have found that while a typical battlefield armour might
have a breastplate around 2 mm thick, armour for the joust of peace
incorporate a breastplate and helm 6 or 7 mm thick at the front12. If this
was a typical medieval iron, or a low-carbon steel, then the energy required
to defeat it when striking at an angle of 30º would have been much more
than 600 J 13, without taking account of the additional precaution of the
multi-pronged coronel. So it would seem that such armour offered a wide
safety margin in jousts involving typical blows of around 300 J . However,
this relates only to an ideal encounter in which both jousters strike the
other. If one of the two misses, then his kinetic energy is added to the
impact. Therefore 600 J might well be delivered in the event of a miss.
The lance would probably break, and reduce the impact energy available
(as happened in several of our experiments). However, if the lance were
sufficiently robust, as they were in the Rennen and heavier Stechen classes
of joust popular in the German Lands (c. 1450-1550), then enough energy
 11 

might be available to threaten a defeat of the armour. The armour for

such a joust would have had to meet more stringent demands, while at the
same time never becoming too heavy to be worn. This may well account
for the improved metallurgical quality of the jousting armours made by
Lorenz Helmschmied and Conrad Seusenhofer for the Emperor (and keen
jouster) Maximilian I.14 The impact energies that stouter lances might
impart in such jousts is a topic that we hope to investigate in the future.
Acknowledgements
These experiments have been partially supported by the Arms and
Armour Society of Great Britain. Past experiments have been supported
by the British Academy. We would like thank Joram van Essen, Dominic
Sewell, Arne Koets, Isak Krogh and Alix can Zijl, who attacked the target
enthusiastically, Adam Schuh-des Forges, project cameraman, rigger and
post-production technician, and our colleagues Francesca Levey and Keith
Dowen who supplied the necessary manual labour.
Appendix 1. Definitions for calculation of results

Fig. A.1.
Target
displacement
with respect
to its axle.

As will be seen from Figure A.1, the pivot from which the target is
suspended is A. The distance from the axle (A) upon which the target
pivots to the top corner (C) of the target is R. The rise of the corner of
the target from B to B’ (which is the vertical distance measured) is X.
If the centre of gravity (C) is in fact a distance Z vertically below the
corner (B), then the height that it rises (from C to C’) is in fact Y which
is not quite the same as X. We need to find Z from the measurements.
Suppose the target rises through an angle θ then from Figure A.1

cos θ = R – X
R
 12

The measurement of the distance desired (Y) is R + z but AQ is R +

z cos θ. Ignoring the thickness of the target and rearranging the equation
above gives:
Y = R + z – [R + Z cos θ]
Or
Y = R + Z – [1 – R – X ]
R
In every case R (the distance from the base to centre of axle) = 102.5
cm.
When the target weight is 24.7 kg then Z (the distance from top of
target to the centre of gravity) is 20cm; when the target weight is increased
to 37.2 kg then Z is 17.5cm.
In some cases the target was struck so hard that it rotated to the
horizontal, (rising vertically 60 cm). From the diagram figure A.2

Fig. A.2.
Target
displacement
above the
axle.

X + Z = y – d where d = Z sin θ
For small angles, sin θ  1 so:
Y=X+Z
Appendix 2. Complete Results
Table A2.1. First Day Results
 13 
jouster

saddle

armour

lancehead

video number

X measured

below/above horiz

weight (kg)

Z (cm)

R (cm)

mgh
T js no cor 1 23 below 24.7 20 102.5 66
T js no cor 2 42 below 24.7 20 102.5 122
T js no cor 3 38 below 24.7 20 102.5 110
I none no no cor 4 44 below 24.7 20 102.5 128
T js no cor 5 56 below 24.7 20 102.5 163
T js no cor 6 50 below 24.7 20 102.5 145
I none no cor 7 30 below 24.7 20 102.5 86
T js no cor 8 52 below 24.7 20 102.5 151
T js no cor 9 41 below 24.7 20 102.5 118
I none no no cor 10 36 below 24.7 20 102.5 104
T js no cor 11 45 below 24.7 20 102.5 131
T js no cor 12 41 below 24.7 20 102.5 118
T js no cor 13 45 below 24.7 20 102.5 131
I I none no cor 14 44 below 24.7 20 102.5 128
I I none no cor 15 39 below 24.7 20 102.5 113
A saddle no no cor 16 41 below 24.7 20 102.5 118
A saddle no no cor 17 40 below 24.7 20 102.5 116
A saddle no no cor 18 41 below 24.7 20 102.5 118
J js no cor 19 54 below 24.7 20 102.5 157
J js no cor 20 64 above 24.7 20 102.5 203
J js no cor 21 68 above 24.7 20 102.5 213
T js no cor 22 41 below 24.7 20 102.5 118
J js no cor 23 67 above 24.7 20 102.5 211
T js no cor 24 53 below 24.7 20 102.5 154
T js no cor 25 51 below 24.7 20 102.5 148
Ax js no cor 26 X 24.7 20 102.5
Ax js no cor 27 49 below 24.7 20 102.5 142
A saddle no no cor 28 41 below 24.7 20 102.5 118
 14
jouster

saddle

armour

lancehead

video number

X measured

below/above horiz

weight (kg)

Z (cm)

R (cm)

mgh
A saddle no no cor 29 31 below 24.7 20 102.5 89
I none no no cor 30 34 below 24.7 20 102.5 98
D Esaddle no no cor 31 39 below 24.7 20 102.5 113
A saddle no cor 32 35 below 24.7 20 102.5 101
Ax js no no cor 33 23 below 24.7 20 102.5 65
I none no no cor 34 29 below 24.7 20 102.5 83
Ax js no cor 35 59 below 24.7 20 102.5 172
I none no no cor 36 34 below 24.7 20 102.5 98
Ax js no cor 37 52 below 24.7 20 102.5 151
T js no no cor 38 39 below 24.7 20 102.5 113
T js no no cor 39 45 below 24.7 20 102.5 131
J js no no cor 41 71 above 24.7 20 102.5 220
J js no no cor 42 54 below 24.7 20 102.5 157
J js no no cor 43 73 above 24.7 20 102.5 225
Ax js no no cor 44 43 below 24.7 20 102.5 125
D Esaddle no no cor 45 20 below 24.7 20 102.5 59
D Esaddle no no cor 46 25 below 24.7 20 102.5 71
I none no no cor 47 35 below 24.7 20 102.5 101
D Esaddle no no cor 48 33 below 24.7 20 102.5 95
T js no cor 49 25 below 37.2 17.5 102.5 105
J js no cor 50 55 below 37.2 17.5 102.5 232
A saddle no cor 51 33 below 37.2 17.5 102.5 140
Ax js no cor 52 32 below 37.2 17.5 102.5 140
I none no no cor 53 13 below 37.2 17.5 102.5 57
 15 

Table A2.2. Second Day Results.

jouster

saddle

armour

lancehead

video number

X measured

below/above horiz

weight (kg)

Z (cm)

R (cm)

mgh
J js armour cor breaks 35 below 37.2 17.5 102.5 150
T js armour cor breaks 32 below 37.2 17.5 102.5 137
D js armour cor 80 above 24.7 20 102.5 242
J js armour cor 22 below 24.7 20 102.5 64
A js armour cor 80 above 24.7 20 102.5 242
J js armour cor 80 above 24.7 20 102.5 242
A js armour cor 66 above 24.7 20 102.5 208
D js armour cor 60 above 24.7 20 102.5 194
T js armour cor 75 above 24.7 20 102.5 230
J js armour cor breaks 85 above 24.7 20 102.5 254
D js armour cor 67 above 24.7 20 102.5 211
A js armour cor 56 below 24.7 20 102.5 162
T js armour cor 42 below 24.7 20 102.5 125
D js armour cor 70 above 24.7 20 102.5 218
A js armour cor 86 above 24.7 20 102.5 257
T js armour cor 66 above 24.7 20 102.5 208
T js armour cor breaks X 24.7 20 102.5
T js armour cor 88 above 24.7 20 102.5 262
 16

NOTES
1. For both types of arret, see Buttin, François, ‘La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse’,
Archaeologia, 99 (January 1965), 77-178.and see also Fallows, N. “Jousting in
Medieval and Renaissance Iberia” (Woodbridge, 2010) .
2. Scoble, A.R.ed. “The memoirs of Philip de Commines, Lord of Argenton, containing the
Histories of Louis XI, and Charles VIII, Kings of France, and of Charles the Bold, Duke
of Burgundy, 1489-98. (London, 1906).
3. ‘A Technical Note on the Armour and Equipment for Jousting” (A.Williams with
D.Edge, T.Capwell & S.Tschegg) Gladius, 32 (2012), pp. 139 – 184.
4. Williams et al. (2012) 183.
5. Rimer, G. Richardson, T. and Cooper, J.P.D. “Henry VIII; Arms and the Man” exhibition
catalogue (Leeds, 2009) 136-7.
6. Ffoulkes, C. “Jousting Cheques of the Sixteenth Century” Archaeologia, 63 (1911-12) 31-50.
7. Scoble (1906) 215-216.
8. Anglo, S.”The Great Tournament Roll of Westminster (Oxford, 1968)
9. Fallows, op.cit. (2010) 406, 415, 421, 422 and 471.
10. ‘Military Technology and Social Change’ L.White (Oxford, 1962)
11. Williams (2003) 918-921.and see also Whetham, D. & Bourke, P. “A report of the
findings of the Defence Academy warbow trials” Arms & Armour , 4,1 (2007) 53-74.
12. Williams et al. (2012) 143-4.
13. Williams, op.cit. (2003) 928.
14. Williams et al.(2012) 151-156 and 169-171.
 17 

IDENTIFICATION OF A NEW VLFBERHT SWORD BY MEDICAL

RADIOLOGY
By
Robert A Hill
Abstract
“Vlfberht” is the most commonly found inscription on Viking Era
swords and approximately 170 swords with this inscription or variants
have been identified. There has been considerable debate about the origin
of these swords but it is generally considered that genuine swords have
high quality blades. There is increasing use of X rays in the identification
of hitherto unknown examples and a newly discovered Vlfberht sword
is described in which both digital medical X Rays and Computerised
Tomography were used to carry out non destructive analysis. Despite the
energy limitations of medical, as compared to industrial, radiology in the
examination of metal artefacts modern medical radiology can provide very
useful information. A limited metallurgical analysis was also undertaken.
Introduction
The use of X Rays in Archaeology is well established and is part of
the routine investigation of metallic artefacts.1 X Rays can reveal the
presence and nature of an artefact when this is hidden in a concretion of
soil and rust. X Rays have also been used to investigate the structure of
swords, including the blade, as in the study of pattern welded swords by
Lang & Ager 1989.2 Computerised X Ray tomography, (CT), is now a
routine medical technique that was developed by Sir Godfrey Hounsfield
in the UK in 1967 and by Dr Allan Cormack in Massachusetts at about
the same time. A CT scanner also uses X Rays but in a CT scanner the
X Ray tubes and detectors are mounted inside a circular housing, the
object or patient to be scanned lies on a table that is gradually slid into
the scanner. X Rays of the object are taken from 360 degrees and as the
object is moved slowly into the scanner a series of cross sectional images
is obtained which are then processed by a computer to produce the final
images. CT scanning is principally used to produce cross sectional imaging
but advances in medical technology and the processing of the images
means that any plane of image as well as 3 D images can be produced
together with other advantages such as the subtraction of areas of the
same radiological density. For example it is not only possible to identify
metal artefacts incarcerated in a soil block3 but by subtracting the areas
corresponding to the radiologically less dense soil to produce 3 D images
that can be rotated and viewed from any angle. This is ‘virtual excavation’.
The most well known heritage use of medical CT scanning is in the
analysis of Egyptian Mummies for which they are particularly suitable
 18

because the radiological density of the mummy is almost identical to the

intended use of the scanner. The radiological density of metal artefacts is
much greater than animal or human tissue and the energy of the X Rays
produced by a medical scanner is in the region of 140 keV whereas a
typical industrial scanner, used for example to image car engine blocks
for cracks, produces X Rays with an energy in excess of 300 – 400 keV.
Obviously the limited energy of medical CT scanners places a limitation
on what might be achieved but provided the metal object is not too thick
and more importantly is composed of materials of different radiological
density such as hollow areas, wooden grips and even cracks then useful
information can be obtained. Medical CT scanners also have the advantage
of availability and sophisticated processing packages.
Vlfberht inscribed swords were probably produced between approximately
800 and 950 AD4 At about this time there was both a change in the shape
of sword blades5 and metallurgy with the use of better steel of consistent
quality. Williams6 reported a metallurgical study of specimens from 44
swords with Vlfberht or related inscriptions and concluded, in the swords
studied, that swords with the inscription +VLFBERH+T were made of
hypereutecoid steel, (greater than 0.8% Carbon), or eutecoid steel, (0.8%
Carbon), as were some with the inscription +VLFBERHT+. Swords with
other variants of the spelling had variable metallurgy ranging from medium
carbon steel to iron or very low carbon steel. The suggestion is that some
of these swords were contemporary copies made with inferior steel and
not made by the Vlfberht Smiths. Forging high carbon steel, quite apart
from requiring a source of consistent quality, would have been difficult
and presumably the techniques were known to only a few smiths. The
hilting of these swords probably took place elsewhere as a variety of hilt
types are known on Vlfberht blades
Material and Method
The radiology department at the Portland Hospital is engaged in a
study of the value of digital medical X Rays and medical CT scanning
in the imaging of a range of archaeological artefacts including swords.
In this study a Siemans Somatom Definition AS + CT scanner is used.
This machine produces an initial topogram of the object and then self
calibrates the settings appropriately. However, in most cases these settings
were adjusted manually for each object to maximise image quality. For
metal artefacts the X Ray energy was usually set at around 120 - 140
keV with a tube current of in the range 36 -74 mA. The slice interval
was set at 0.6mm. The images were processed with the Osirex 32 and
subsequently 64 bit version post processing package. The post processing
packages were used to reduce the radiological artefact and maximise
image quality, carry out cross sectional analysis, measurements and 3 D
 19 

reconstructions. Artefacts were also X Rayed using a standard digital X

Ray machine with adjustment of the keV and mA to produce the best
image. As the images are digital further manipulation such as magnifying
the image, inverting the image etc are subsequently possible.
One of the swords in this study, which is reported here, was a
Viking Era sword, probably dating from 850 – 900 AD, from a private
collection. This sword has a number of interesting features from the point
of view of radiological investigation which demonstrate the possibilities
of medical imaging. The sword is believed to have been found in the
Danube together with a cooking pot. When found there was a concretion
of silt, rust and pebbles around the pommel which was cracked and the
concretion opened in the manner of two halves of a shell to reveal the
pommel inside. This concretion was also available for examination. The
sword is described below.
The sword was examined by digital X Ray and also by CT scanning
using the protocol described above. An initial topogram was obtained.
Scans and X Rays were carried out with the concretion both on and off
the pommel. The concretion was also separately scanned as it was apparent
some remnants of the pommel had remained attached to the inside of the
concretion. CT images were processed as described above to obtain cross
sectional, longitudinal and coronal images of the upper sword in particular
as well as 3 D reconstructions.
Two small samples, one from the exposed pommel and one from a
cutting edge half way along the blade were taken for metallurgical analysis.
Samples were mounted in epoxy resin and then prepared and polished in a
standard manner. The samples were etched with Nital and then examined
under reflected light microscopy.
Results

Fig. 1.
Sword appearance. Note probable scabbard remnant upper third of blade

The sword is in corroded condition with both the blade and pommel
affected. The overall length of the sword is 96cms with the blade measuring
80 cms long. The blade has considerable edge losses but is double-edged and
gently tapering with a shallow central fuller approximately 1/3 of the width
of the blade in the upper portion. The maximum blade width is 5.5cms.
 20

There is a mineralised wooden scabbard remnant below the lower guard

with a probable separate remnant 1/3 of the way down the blade. No
inscriptions were visible.
The thick lower guard is ovoid or boat shaped with remnants of fine
vertical latten or brass strip decoration, (repeated on the upper guard),
with a superimposed chequer pattern in places.7 The tang is enclosed in
a mineralised wooden grip remnant composed of two halves. The upper
guard, although discrete, appeared continuous with the pommel. On one
side there was no residual decoration but on the other there was a remnant
of fine vertical latten or brass lines as described above. The pommel is of
the tea cosy type8 and of the earlier Petersen type X form.9 On one side
there is no remaining decoration but on the other there are vertical fine
latten and possibly silver lines but at the margin of the pommel the lines
are arranged obliquely.
This arrangement may
refer back to a previous
tri lobed pommel style
as in the Petersen type
V pommel where this
arrangement would have
marked out the different
lobes. The lobes are
absent in type W but the
arrangement of oblique
and vertical lines
continued.10 Where the Fig. 2.
decoration is missing Pommel with remnants of decoration, mineralised
both the upper guard wooden grip and decorated lower guard.
and pommel have coarse
horizontal ridges. (Figure 2)
The concretion, (Figure 3), is composed of rounded pebbles of different
sizes in a matrix of what
appears to be dark silt or
sand. It is heavily rusted
particularly on the interior
where adherent vertical
strips corresponding to the
upper guard can be seen
Fig. 3.
The concretion of pebbles,
silt and rust that encrusted
the pommel when sword was
found.
 21 

together with some corrosion

scales possibly including
decoration apparently from
the pommel. (Figure 4) The
two halves of the concretion
fit almost exactly back onto
the pommel.
X Ray analysis.
For organisational reasons
the sword was initially
scanned in the CT scanner
as described below (3.3). Fig. 4.
It was apparent from the
Interior of one half of the concretion, note
CT topogram, (Figure 5), impression of pommel and some retained
that there was an inscription decoration top right.
that was totally invisible
to the naked
eye and
a number
of X Rays
were then
carried in the
k n ow l e d g e Fig. 5.
an inscription
CT Topogram demonstrating presence of an inscription.
was present.
Several exposure settings
were tried but it was found
that the best pictures were
obtained with an X Ray
energy of 100 keV and
a tube current of 50 mA.
Xrays were obtained of the
pommel and upper blade
(Fig 6) with additional
views being centred on
the inscription identified Fig. 6.
on the CT topogram (Fig X Ray of Pommel, tang and lower guard
7).
The blade is corroded but the X Rays suggested that cutting edges
had been welded onto a central core, the blade demonstrated longitudinal
streaking consistent with hand forging but there was no evidence of
any pattern welding. The X Ray of the inscription was enhanced with
 22

standard digital photography software (i photo)

to demonstrate an inscription that was read as
+VLFBERH+T The X Ray of the pommel
demonstrated what appeared to be a separate
upper guard with a U shaped metal support for
a hollow pommel. (Fig 6) CT scanning gave
more precise information.
CT analysis.
Both the sword and the concretion were
scanned separately and then the concretion was
placed back on the pommel and the upper part
of the sword re scanned. The intention was to
compare the images of the pommel with and
without the concretion to see how useful CT
is in a ‘virtual excavation’. Post processing of
the CT scan produces 3 main types of useful
images, an initial whole length topogram, 2D
images in a variety of planes, and 3D volume
rendered images. Other forms of reconstruction
are available but whilst these may be useful in
clinical practice they were less helpful in the
analysis of the sword.
The initial topogram shows the entire length
of the sword as the scanner can accommodate
objects up to 2 metres in length. In clinical
practice X Ray cassettes of this length are
Fig. 7. rarely used and many hospitals, including the
X Ray of blade showing Portland, do not have them available. Whilst
inscription – compare to
CT scanogram Figure 5
the image on the topogram is a little blurred
it can be used for accurate measurements as
the X Ray beam does not diverge. Distances
and angles are easily measured using post processing software and the
image can be magnified to ensure accurate placement of the cursor. The
CT topogram makes it much easier to see the fuller compared to naked
eye facilitating classification of the blade into for example the Geiberg
classification. A best fit line can be drawn along each blade edge, the
angle between the two lines was 1.09 degrees, indicating a gentle taper
in the blade in the upper ¾ at least.
The subsequent CT scan consisted of more than 1600 cross sectional
images of the sword at 0.6mm intervals. These images can be reconstructed
in any plane by the post processing software and in addition 3 D volume
rendering images can be produced. Varying the window levels manually
 23 

is used to reduce artefact

and obtain good images. 3
D images can be rotated to
view the sword from any
angle. Multi planar 2 D
image reconstruction, (MPR),
permits the simultaneous
display of cross sectional,
coronal (longitudinal) and
sagittal (from the side)
images. Moving a cursor on Fig. 8.
any of the three projections Cross section of pommel inside concretion

will show the other projections

at this point. It was found that
MPR was particularly useful in
examination of the pommel to see
details of the construction. Good
images of the pommel could be
obtained even when encased in
the concretion. (Figure 8)
The MPR images showed that
the tang was inserted into the
upper guard but did not extend
Fig. 9.
2D MPR scan of pommel with
measurement of “legs” of U ring

into the hollow pommel. The legs

of the “ U Ring” were inserted into
the upper guard with the hollow
pommel sitting on top without
obvious attachment. As with the
CT topogram measurements can be
taken and for example the width of
the legs was approximately 5 mm.
(Figure 9)
With appropriate windowing
of the images it is possible to
obtain good 3 D images of the Fig. 10.
sword. (Figure 10) The windowing
3D CT VR images at different
permits visualisation of structures window levels demonstrating “virtual
of different radiological density excavation” of the pommel.
 24

such as the mineralised wooden grip

and as the window level is altered the
wood will start to ‘disappear’ to show
the underlying tang. By altering the
window level of scans of the encased
pommel the radiologically less dense
concretion started to disappear to
show the denser ferrous pommel.
Careful windowing of the scans of the
concretion alone revealed a ghostly
outline of the pommel because there
were metal remnants adherent to the
inside of the concretion. (Figure 11)
With a CT scanner it is possible to
measure the radiological density of a
voxel in Hounsfield units, unfortunately
the radiological artefacts associated
Fig. 11.
with scanning metal cause considerable
distortion and the absolute values 3D CT VR image of concretion
windowed to demonstrate pommel
can be very inaccurate. It is not yet remnants inside.
possible to determine the type of metal
eg. iron or brass by measuring the radiological density. However, on a
cross sectional 2D scan on the pommel in the concretion the Hounsfield
unit value for the surface of the pommel and the adjacent high density area
on the inside of the pommel were almost the same strongly suggesting
the metal remnants on
the concretion came
from the pommel. In
this case this is of
course self evident
from inspection alone
h ow ev e r, h a d t h e
concretion been found
alone this would have
been evidence that
it once contained a
metal pommel shaped
structure.
Fig. 12(i) Metallurgical analysis.
Specimen from blade edge. The microstructure The sample from
consisted of bands of ferrite and pearlite with the blade demonstrated
numerous slag inclusions in the ferrite. This that the microstructure
corresponds to an air-cooled steel of around 0.6%C
in places. consisted of bands of
 25 

ferrite and pearlite with numerous slag inclusions in the ferrite. This
corresponds to an air-cooled steel of around 0.6% carbon in places. In
other areas of this sample ferrite predominated and the considerable
variation in the carbon content of the blade is perhaps due to a steel edge
having been welded
onto an iron core but
without sectioning the
blade it is impossible
to confirm this
hypothesis. The sample
taken from the pommel
consisted of ferrite
and a little divorced
pearlite with no visible
slag inclusions. This
corresponds to an iron
of less than 0.1% C
which has had a good
Fig. 12(ii)
deal of hot-working.
(Figure 12) Blade another area. Note difference in microstructure
– possibly from an iron core.
Discussion.
Vlfbehrt inscribed
swords of the Viking
Era have been the
subject of a number
of publications, as
below, and a further
example is presented.
Vlfbehrt swords are
generally considered
to be of high quality
on the basis of
metallurgical analysis
since blades inscribed
with the inscription
+VLFBERH+T or
+VLFBERHT+ have
been found to be made Fig. 12(iii)
of a high carbon steel Specimen from pommel. The microstructure
– more than 0.8% C;11 consisted of ferrite and a little divorced pearlite
or to be more precise with no visible slag inclusions. This corresponds
to an iron of less than 0.1%C which has had a
the cutting edges are good deal of hot-working.
 26

made of high carbon steel12.Swords with variant spellings of Vlfbehrt,

(classified by Stalsgerg13), have variable but generally poorer quality steel
cutting edges ranging from hardened steel to iron 14 The full metallurgical
picture remains unknown in the majority of swords, 15 although at least
one sword blade from Stuttgart reported by Williams 16 seems to have
been made entirely of hypereutectoid steel, (more than 0.8% C), but it is
possible that perhaps even the best quality Vlfbehrt blades had an iron
core. The metallurgical analysis of this sword would support this concept,
the cutting edges are made of steel but of medium quality steel of 0.6%
carbon making this a reasonable quality sword, metallurgically speaking,
but there is evidence of an iron core. There is great variety of pommel
styles associated with Vlfbehrt swords perhaps reflecting regional styles
or change in fashion over the 200 years Vlfbehrt swords were being
manufactured. Pommels can also be exchanged and may well have been
fitted in different geographical locations from the site of blade manufacture.
Perhaps inscriptions were also added to the blade later as the reverse
inscriptions of variable vertical lines and X marks do not occur on all
Vlfberht swords and their significance seems unknown. Similar inscriptions
are found on non Vlfberht blades. 17 Stalsberg 18 lists some different
pommel types found on Vlfberht swords but there is no clear analysis
of the numbers of the different types of pommels although Petersen type
X, as on this sword, seems quite frequent. The metallurgical sample of
the pommel of this sword was consistent with iron that had undergone a
considerable amount of hot working. This is logical as the pommel would
have required a lot of work to shape it, it was an advantage for the metal
to be relatively soft as it needed to be scored for the application of latten
inlays and on the basis of the CT scan the hollow pommel had to fit
closely over the U ring attached to the upper guard. This sort of pommel
construction has been described by Biborski et al 19 but only on the basis
of detached specimens. Further studies are needed but as demonstrated by
this sword and by other Viking Era swords scanned in our hospital, and
presented at the 34th Interdisciplinary Viking Symposium in Copenhagen
by the author, 20 it is possible to determine the nature of the construction
of pommels in a non destructive manner in intact swords by CT. All the
current classifications are based on appearance and shape – CT permits a
complementary classification of the mode of construction and may also be
able to determine whether there is evidence of replacement. The pommel
of this sword is Type 2 Fd in this CT classification.
The superiority of Vlfbehrt sword blades may not be just confined to
their metallurgy, the shape and balance are also likely to be important.
The extent and size of the fuller in relation to the geometry of the blade
needs to be studied. Leaving aside fanciful notions of a ‘blood channel’
the fuller served to lighten the blade and improve flexibility. It can be very
 27 

difficult in a corroded sword to visually assess the shape of the blade and
the fuller but a CT topogram can show these features much more clearly
and the ability to measure lengths and angles is potentially valuable in
the study of blade geometry.
Although the inscription was identified on the CT topogram it is much
more clearly seen on a digital X ray and this is currently our preferred
method for the identification of inscriptions. High quality X Rays can also
show weld lines and the flowing streaks of worked iron or steel because
of the slight differences in radiological density and perhaps the presence
of thin layers of slag or oxide. X Rays are known to be useful for this
reason in the identification of pattern welded swords. On this sword the
inscription was only on one side of the blade, had there been an inscription
on the other side then the two would have been superimposed on an X
Ray making identification more difficult particularly in the presence of
corrosion. Both 2D and 3D CT scanning can separate the sides of the
blade so this superimposition does not occur.
One of the major advantages of CT over X ray is the possibility of
‘virtual excavation’ which in this sword was demonstrated by imaging
of the pommel inside the pebble concretion. As the concretion is of
different radiological density to the sword it is possible to window the
X Rays and subtract areas of lower radiological density from the image.
2 D MPR images can demonstrate the sword within the concretion and
with careful post processing a 3 D image largely freed from the encasing
concretion could be produced. This image can then be viewed from
any angle on the computer screen. The greater the difference in density
between the sword and the encasing material the easier it is to produce
these images. For example a sword stuck in a wooden scabbard is very
easy to visualise in this way because of the large difference in radiological
density between wood and iron. It is worth pointing out that even if the
artefact has corroded away to a rust shadow inside soil it may still be
possible to obtain an image whereas any attempt to excavate the artefact
would result in a pile of dust. The images of the concretion alone did
show the ghostly outline of the pommel (Fig 10).
3 D images are the most dramatic but in a curious parallel to clinical
medicine may not be the most useful because they do not demonstrate the
interior of the artefact. In this sword a 3 D image of the pommel does not
give as much information as the 2 D sectional images. If the artefact can
be examined visually then the 3 D image is of less value. It is important
to remember that the images produced are not photographs although they
may look like them. The images demonstrate radiological density and a
hole may not be nothing but merely an area of low radiological density.
CT is a different way of looking at the artefact and often a way of looking
 28

within the artefact.

Summary
A newly identified +VLFBERH+T marked sword is described together
with the role of medical radiology including CT in its identification and
analysis. The sword is now quite corroded but shows evidence of a finely
decorated pommel and lower guard. Unusually there is a mineralised
wooden grip still present.
In the author’s opinion, as demonstrated in the analysis of this sword, a
CT topogram is useful for a general assessment of blade shape and form
and permits the measurement of length and simple angles. Inscriptions and
fine detail of blade construction are best assessed by high quality digital
X Rays but 2 D CT scans in various planes are very useful for assessing
internal structure of the pommel. 3 D scans are valuable in ‘virtual
excavation’ and for an overview of the sword. The principal limitation of
the use of medical as opposed to industrial radiology, particularly CT, is the
limited energy of medical X Ray machines and the problem of radiological
artefact. Nevertheless medical CT is valuable in the assessment of selected
artefacts as it can demonstrate internal structure and construction.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr Alan Williams, Archaeometallurgist at
the Wallace Collection, London for his advice and assistance in providing
the metallurgical analysis.
At the time of the analysis the sword was in a private collection and
the author would like to thank the anonymous owner for loaning the
sword for investigation.
NOTES
1. Fell, V, Mould, Q and White, R. 2006. Guidelines on the X-radiography of Archeological
Metalwork. Swindon: English Heritage.
2. Lang, J., and Ager, B., 1989. Swords of the Anglo Saxon and Viking Periods in the
British Museum: a Radiographic Study. Chapter 7 in Weapons and Warfare in Anglo
Saxon England. Ed. Hawkes S.C. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.
ISBN 0947816216.
3. Ebinger-Rist, N, Peek, C., Stelzner, J., Gaub, F., 2010. Computed Tomography: A
Powerful Tool for Non-Destructive Mass Documentation of Archaeological Metals.
Proceedings of Metal 2010 Charleston USA. 458-465
4. Gorman M. R., 1999. Catalogue of the 16th Park Lane Arms Fair pp 7 - 12
5. Oakeshott 1960. The Archaeology of Weapons. Boydell Press 2008 Reprint
ISBN 978-0-85115-738-2
6. Williams, A. 2009. A metallurgical study of some Viking Swords. Gladius XXIX pp.
121-184. ISSN: 0436-029X
7. Similar decoration is described in Pierce, Ian. 2002. Swords of the Viking Era. Boydell
Press. 2009 reprint. ISBN 978-1-84383-089-4. Pages 55 & 111
8. Oakeshott op. cit.; p. 137
9. Pierce. op. cit.; pp 18 – 19
10. Ibid see page 114 for similar examples and description of Petersen types V and W
 29 

11. Williams op. cit.

12. Astrup, E., Martens., I. 2011. Studies of Viking Age Swords: Metallography and
Archaeology. Gladius XXXI pp. 203 – 206. ISSN 0436-029X
13. Stalsberg, A. Accessed on line 2014. The Vlfberht sword blades reevaluated - Jenny-
rita.org jenny-rita.org/Annestamanus.pdf
14. Williams, A. 2012. The Sword and the Crucible. Page 118. Brill ISBN 97890 04 22783 5
15. Astrup E., & Martens I. op. cit
16. Williams 2012 op. cit.; p 123
17. Pierce I., op. cit.; pp 60 – 62
18. Stalsberg, A. op. cit.
19. Biborski et al. Accessed on line 2014. Sword Parts from a Viking Age Emporium
of Truso in Prussia. Piotr Pudlo Papers-Academia.edu independent.academia.edu/
PiotrPudlo/Papers
20. Hill, R. 2015 “Digital Medical X Rays and CT scanning in the investigation of Viking
Era Swords.” 8th May 2015 34th Interdisciplinary Viking Conference. University of
Copenhagen. (Proceedings in Press)
 30

A SUTTON BRIDGE PUNT GUN

By
David Williams and Darren Clark
This short piece describes a humble muzzle loading Wash punt gun
from Sutton Bridge owned by the Watson family, its context and story,
and its links with some well-known wildfowlers in particular Peter Scott
to epitomise the social history of wildfowling.
Introduction
Lincolnshire and North Norfolk coasts and the Wash have always
been known for their wild birds and now bird reserves. One of the
most distinctive of these is the RSPB reserve at Snettisham famous for
viewing the winter dawn flights of tens of thousands of pink-footed geese
as they come off the Wash to feed inland. That this sight is possible
is a consequence of the UK’s careful approaches to the protection and
conservation of wildlife and to game shooting thorough the work of
WAGBI (founded by the east coast wildfowler Stanley Duncan) and
subsequently by its successor BASC. Wildfowlers are still active on the
Lincolnshire and North Norfolk Coasts but not at the scale that there was
when Wells-next-the-Sea in Norfolk was the destination of choice for the
Victorian and Edwardian gentleman wildfowler travelling by train to the
pink-foot and his sport.1
This short piece describes a humble muzzle loading Wash punt gun
owned by the Watson family, its context and story, and its links with
some well-known wildfowlers including Peter Scott to epitomise the social
history of wildfowling.
Wildfowling
Wildfowlers used both shoulder guns and punt guns, often in combination
with a shoulder gun as a “cripple stopper” to deal with wounded birds
not cleanly killed with a punt gun. There were two sorts of wildfowler
and punt gunner – the gentlemen and the others, both professional and
less well organised. The latter made a living selling wildfowl for the table
and the unusual to bird collectors2 or legally or illegally put something on
the table in hard times. Wildfowling ranged all around the UK coastline,
on the east coast from the Essex marshes through East Anglia to Solway
Firth and was described on the south coast by Colonel Hawker. 3
Overshooting however often caused the birds to move on, from the
1930’s birds were scarce at Wells perhaps driven away by shooting from
scrapes, see figure 1, (effectively in the back position4) on the shoreline5
leading to a focus on conservation after the Second World War.
 31 

Shooters ranged from

pot hunters, poachers and
professionals to gentlemen, and
from killers and collectors to
latterly shore shooters, naturalists,
conservationists and sometimes
artists. Peter Scott was perhaps
the most significant example of
the transition to the latter, we
will return to Scott and his links
to the Wash. Fig. 1.
Early wildfowlers historically Shooting from a scrape on a
seem to have shot anything and shingle beach, Fallon 1907
everything but now shore shooters legally take duck, waders and geese in
the season.6 Birds were taken on the water and overflying from roost to
feeding ground and back on morning and evening flights, the favourite,
on the tide and under the moon but not during the full moon when the
birds are less likely to fly. Payne Gallwey7 comments that the best day
for duck, geese and shore-bird shooting on the coast is “when there is a
gale at sea and a hard frost”.
That this east coast world of wildfowling, wild goose chasing and punt
gunning was already one of nostalgia was shown by two publications at
the end of the 1920’s. Arthur Patterson dictated Wild-fowlers and Poachers,
Fifty Years on the East Coast8 to Ted Ellis, the future radio naturalist9
capturing a lost world of characters and ways of life. As his title suggests,
Patterson describes the two world worlds of wildfowling – that of the
gentleman wildfowler and the harder world of the ordinary marsh men
as they fought for a living from the water. Hugh Pollard, the forensic
scientist and firearms historian – and Vice President of the Arms and
Armour Society, also published Wildfowl & Waders, Nature & Sport in
the Coastlands in 1928.10 Pollard described the watery and reflective world
of the wildfowler and used the illustrations of the late Frank Southgate to
show the birds and the world of the shooter and punt gunner. Southgate
was a Wells based artist who had died in 1916 at 42 after a two mile
run back to the front line when serving in the Sportsman’s Battalion of
the Royal Fusiliers, he much influenced Peter Scott.11 Southgate had also
illustrated some of Arthur Patterson’s books for example his Notes of an
East Coast Naturalist published in 1904.
Many publications focus on the higher-end guns of the gentleman
wildfowler, both shoulder guns and punt guns (See for example Dallas12on
guns of the Victorian hey-day, Credland13 on Colonel Hawkers guns
and Owens14 on Irish Tom now at the BASC headquarters but once
 32

owned by Stanley Duncan

and James Robertson Justice).
Figure 2 shows an advert for
workmanlike shoulder guns by
W W Greener of Birmingham,
and figure 3 instances of high
end breech loading punt guns
including a spring mounted
stanchion gun, both are
from Fallon15 and reflect the
ambitions of the early 20 th
Century fowler. Thomas Bland
and James and William Tolley
both of Birmingham were
well known as wildfowling
and punt gun makers and had
branches in London. Fig. 2.
However many wildfowling W W Greener’s advertisement from
the end paper of Fallon 1907
guns tend to be from the more
rugged end of the gunmakers
art – and some, in particular muzzle loading punt guns are of humble
origins, as that of the armoury of professional wildfowler Snowden Slights
of Yorkshire.16 Both Ralph Payne Galloway17 and Stanley Duncan18 were
happy with (safe) inexpensive muzzle loaders given that the punt gunner
might only be shooting up to three shots a day.

Fig. 3.
High-end breech loading stanchion punt gun’s to suit the early 20th Century
gentleman’s pocket. The upper gun is by Bland and the two lower guns by Holland
and Holland, the right being to the design of Payne Gallway. Notice the recoil
arrestors, Fallon 1907.
 33 

Peter Scott, Kenzie Thorpe, the Watsons and Bella Waybridge

Peter Scott, the 20th Century naturalist and son of the great Antarctic
explorer, first began wildfowling as a Cambridge undergraduate (see his
autobiography Eye of the Wind19 first published in 1961). In November
1927 he turned to wildfowling from hunting with the Trinity Beagles,
after his first trip to the Washes at Earith and the Bedford Levels.20 The
Christmas vacation saw him at Wells-next-the-sea looking for pink-foot
and he shot his first goose, a rare Bean Goose, in Terrington Saltings on
the Wash proper on Feb 6th 1928.21
He quickly embraced punt gunning, early outings with a percussion
gun brought some success but taught him caution with a breech explosion,
“The gun went off with a terrific roar and burst of flame] [half the nipple
holder in the breach (sic) had blown out sideways – a piece of metal about
the size of a wine cork”22 and an incident with a flying hammer.23 Later
photographs taken at Wigton in 193124 and Morecambe Bay in 193425 show
a confident Scott and fellow undergraduates with single and double punts
and big bore punt guns. He left Cambridge in 1930 to train in Munich
as a painter and subsequently to paint exhibiting his work first in 1933,
to sail and to work with birds.
He kept returning to the Wash to shoot, inland and at sea, and decoy
and increasingly to think about “keeping birds alive”26 In 1933 he rented
the East Lighthouse at Sutton Bridge and began to paint and rescue
wounded birds there, his first wild pink-foot, Anabel, joining him in 1936.27
Scott the gentleman shooter was turning into the conservationist that was
to found the Wildfowl Trust at Slimbridge after the Second World War.
Slimbridge was based upon his work at the Lighthouse at Sutton Bridge
and with the support of shooters including his friend, the well-known
actor, James Robertson Justice.
In his biography Scott28 comments on his time at Sutton Bridge in
1938. “The lighthouse was very comfortable and pleasant in those days.
Bella, the buxom and good natured wife of a neighbouring farm worker,
came in with the mail in the morning, cooked my breakfast, put out a cold
lunch and a tray of tea things, and returned in the evening to cook the
supper”. [] “Kenzie Thorpe fed the birds, painted pictures in the basement
and was ready to be taken for me by casual visitors when I was away”.
Members of the Watson family were Sluice Keepers at Sutton Bridge.
The first of the Watson Sluice Keepers was Isaac (Ike) (c 1848-1927)
followed by his son Stephen (1896-1987), his 12th child with Eliza Harrison
(c 1851-1937). Bella Waybridge, friend of the Watson family, is thought
to be Peter Scott’s “buxom and good natured” housekeeper. Stephen’s
wife, Jessie, also spent some time as Peter Scott’s housekeeper,and their
son Herbert Isaac (Bill) (1922-2010) was his paperboy before becoming
 34

the third generation Watson Sluice

Keeper. The Watson family and
their descendants are the owners of
our humble punt gun, see figure 5.
Isaac, Eliza and Stephen are shown
in figure 4 below. Eliza and Bella
are together in figure 6.
(Mac) Kenzie Thorpe was
a well-known Sutton Bridge
character whose biography was
written in 1962. 29 Kenzie was
punt gunner, poacher, wildfowler
and guide to gentlemen, and small
time villain who helped Scott at
Fig. 4. Sutton Bridge before the Second
World War. He first encountered
Isaac Watson and his wife Eliza
Scott as an undergraduate in 1928
while poaching30 and subsequently first met James
Robertson Justice (“Jimmy Justice”) 31 while
acting as a guide to a party of three Cambridge
undergraduates. After working with Scott in
1936 as his assistant maintaining the wildfowl
collection32 he became something of a naturalist and
painter. Family legend has it that Stephen Watson
and Kenzie Thorpe both rescued James Robertson
Justice when he got stranded on the Wash.

Fig. 5.
Issac’s son Stephen Fig. 6.
with the Family Gun
and his Cripple Bella Waybridge (right) – one of Peter Scott’s
Stopper housekeepers – her grandson Martin, Eliza Watson in
her later years and the dog Scamp.
 35

The Watson gun and punt

The Watson punt gun is
shown on a period punt and
trailer in figure 7. It appears
to be a drum and nipple
percussion conversion of a
flintlock (figure 8 and 9) or
a reuse of a flintlock plate
with a percussion and drum
and nipple ignition. When
the interior of the lock is
examined the remains of Fig. 7.
a flintlock reinforce is still The Watson punt gun and the view to Sutton
visible, see figure 10. It has Bridge. The Cross Keys Bridge at Sutton
a 256 cm 8’ 6” long barrel Bridge is in the background to the left of
the last (new) windmill. Note that the trailer
of 32.6cm 1.28” (~3) bore. is constructed to allow the gun to travel
With its tapered/swamped underneath the punt and that the recoil
barrel it appears of higher cushion is in the back of the punt.
quality than some homemade
muzzle loading punt guns. For
example the Royal Armouries
has on exhibition a Scottish
percussion locked gun (XII.1793)
built on a piece of industrial
steam pipe. However the Watson
gun uses an inexpensive “boot
jack” or “slipper” device (figure
11) used to absorb the recoil as
an alternative to the stanchion Fig. 8.
or breeching rope.33 The gun is The drum and nipple
likely to have been restocked and
rebuilt a number of times in its
life reflecting its more humble
origins when compared to the
guns of gentlemen visitors.
The gun comes with two
wrenches, one for the nipple
and one for the drum (Figure 12
with an old powder tin and two
horn chargers). Such guns were
notoriously difficult to ignite – Fig. 9.
important when every shot had The lock. The trigger is reversed to as
to count – because of the size when used by Stephen Watson.
 36

of the charge, necessitating the

use of both wrenches to recover.
Some guns used double nipple
designs to overcome this issue.34
Duncan and Thorne comment
“The recoil board may be varied
in length. [] The longer the
board the less the recoil will
be felt [] The padding of the
cushion is best of horsehair
covered in leather. [] The boot Fig. 10.
jack is attached to the gun
Lock interior showing the reinforce and pan
stock by a through pin with a witness and the side nails.
nut. [] Most boot jack recoil
punt gunners use a charge of
seven to ten ounces of shot with
two ounces of powder”. The
Watsons no doubt made short
work of a pound tin of powder.
The gun was owned and
used by both Ike and Stephen
Watson and it is suggested that
it was owned by Ike’s father,
also Isaac (born ~1802), with
perhaps a first use in the mid- Fig. 11.
1850’s and was last used on The Boot Jack or Slipper Recoil Device
the Wash in the 1960’s (figure bolted to the gun stock..
13). It remains in the family.
As will be noted from the images it has been preserved with a coat of
lurid green paint as used to paint the fences adjacent to the sluice gates
thus preventing deep detailed examination. The photographs show the gun
in a locally built punt.
Draining the fens, the drainage men and the wildfowler-poachers.
Sutton Bridge is in Lincolnshire on the river Nene some 9 miles west
of Kings Lynn and close to the Norfolk and Cambridge county boundaries.
Much of the land in this area has been recovered from the sea progressively
over the centuries with significant steps being made in 1775, 1910, 1917,
1925 and 1953. These reflected in the positions of the dykes and sea
defences. The “Lighthouses” (they have no lights) were built on the East
(used by Scott) and West banks of the Nene in the 1830’s to act as beacons
to show where the Nene was bridged and the navigable waters of the Nene
began for those approaching from the Wash. As the land was drained the
 37

community divided into two

kinds of people, wildfowlers,
fishermen and others who
l ive d o ff t h e m a r s h e s ,
and drainage men and the
farmers who benefitted from
their work. This tension
and the resistance to the
drainage men is captured
in a well-known folksong,
“The Fowlers Complaint” or
Fig. 12. “The Powtes Complaint”35
The two wrenches, powder tin and other (a powte is a sea-lamphrey),
necessary accoutrements, two horn chargers. opposing the draining of the
Fens.
The Watsons had to manage this
tension as they bridged the two worlds.
Life at Sutton Bridge was hard almost
necessitating the life of poacher – the
choice often between putting a bird
on the table or selling it. Many of
Stephen’s older siblings emigrated
to the USA because of struggles to
make a living and the consequences
of poaching.
Conclusion
This short paper has allowed us to
look at the world of the wildfowler
in the 19th and 20th century and to
understand a little more of its social
history, context and the linkages
Fig. 13.
between the privileged and the less
fortunate. Also as the Watson gun from The Watson gun in action on
the Wash
the Wash shows, not all punt guns
were high end guns intended for gentlemen, there were work-a-day guns
put together for more ordinary people as they won a hard living at the
coast. This particular gun and its connections bridge the social history of
wildfowling spanning from the drainage men and the wildfowler-poachers
to the gentleman turned conservationist.
Some level of harmony has now been achieved between wildfowlers
and naturalist conservationists and people have forgotten about the old
rivalry between the drainage men and the fowlers. Fortunately the birds
 38

have now returned to Snettisham, not too far from Wells and Sutton Bridge,
encouraged by the work of conservationists and the habitats preserved in
North Norfolk. They behave as they did in the wildfowlers hey-day, the
sight and sound of their overflying in their tens of thousands in the winter
dawn and dusk remain as dramatic for us – and today’s shooters – as
they did at the end of the 19th Century.
Acknowledgements
Our thanks are due to Brian Kilbon for his work in preparing the
Lawson punt and hosting the punt and gun photograph session and to
David Penn for directing us to the Booth Museum. David Williams wishes
particularly to acknowledge the importance of the “Wildfowling at Wells”
publication of the Wells Local History Society for pointing him in the
direction of many of the sources and for emphasising the importance of
the work of Frank Southgate and his influence on wildfowl artists. The
authors also thank Keith Dowen for his help in improving to the paper.
The authors would be pleased to hear from those who can add to our
knowledge of the gun, contact darren.clark1@btinternet.com.

NOTES
1. Kevin Thatcher, Richard Shelton, Ian Collins, Keith Leesmith, and David Waterhouse,
Wildfowling at Wells, The World of Frank Southgate, Wells Local History Group, 2011.
2. See for example the Booth Museum at Brighton
http://www.brighton-hove-rpml.org.uk/Museums/boothmuseum/Pages/home.aspx
3. Lt Col P Hawker, Instructions to young sportsmen, 8th Edition, Spottiswoode, London,
1838.
4. W. J. Fallon, Practical Wildfowling: A complete guide to the art of the fowler, Upcote
Gill, London, 1907, p 109
5. Peter Scott, The Eye of the Wind, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1961, p 95)
6. Ed Jeffrey Olsted, BASC Handbooks, Wildfowling, Quiller, Shrewsbury, 2008.
7. Ralph Payne-Gallway, Wildfowl and Wildfowl Shooting with Shotgun and Punt Gun,
Longmans Green, London,1896 (Reprint), p 95
8. Arthur Patterson, Wildfowlers and Poachers, Fifty Years on the East Coast, Methuen
London, 1929.
9. Eugene Stone, Ted Ellis, The People’s Naturalist, Jarrold, Norwich, 1988, p 40
10. Frank Southgate and Hugh Pollard, Wildfowl and Waders, 1928 and Country Life,
London, 1940.
11. Southgate’s characteristic picture “The old wildfowler” can be found at
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5136639
12. Donald Dallas, The British Sporting Gun and Rifle: The pursuit of perfection 1850-1900,
Quiller, Shrewsbury, 2008.
13. Arthur G Credland, Colonel Hawker and Durs Egg: an unrecorded wildfowling gun, his
famous two-barrelled punt gun and a passion for fowling, Arms and Armour, Vol 3 No1,
Spring 2006, pp. 91-103.
14. Alan Owens, The Restoration of Irish Tom ~ the World’s largest Punt Gun,
Black Powder, Summer 2013, 60, pp 30-32.
15. Fallon 1907 op cit op. cit.,
16. Arthur Credland, Snowden Slights, Wildfowler, Royal Armouries Yearbook, 5, 2000,
pp 58-67.
 39

17. Ralph Payne Galloway op cit op. cit., p 471

18. Stanley Duncan and Guy Thorpe, The Complete Wildfowler, 1911 and 1950,
London, Herbert Jenkins, 1950 (1911 edition https://archive.org/details/
completewildfowl00duncrich ), 1911 and 1950, p 180
19. Peter Scott, Eye of the Wind, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1961
20. Scott, op. cit., p 70.
21. Scott, op. cit., p 77.
22. Scott, op. cit., p 80
23. Scott, op. cit., p 81
24. Scott, op. cit., fp 8
25. Scott, op. cit., fp 170
26. Scott, op. cit., p 169
27. See http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/museum_to_celebrate_the_life_of_wildfowl_and_
wetland_trust_founder_sir_peter_scott_to_open_at_sutton_bridge_lighthouse_in_
lincolnshire_1_1002623
28. Scott op. cit., p 268
29. Colin Willock, Kenzie, The Wild-Goose Man, Andre Deutsch, London, 1962.
30. Willock op. cit., p 46
31. Willock, op. cit., p 47
32. Willock, op. cit., p 53
33. Duncan and Thorne op. cit., 177-179, and Humphreys 1986:19. John Humphreys,
Hunter’s Fen, David and Charles, London, 1986, p 19
34. Payne Galway, op. cit., p 473
35. http://www.literarynorfolk.co.uk/Poems/powte’s_complaint.htm and http://
threeacresandacow.co.uk/2014/07/the-fowlers-complaint-the-powtes-complaint-1611-
the-fens-trad/

Journal of the Arms and Armour Society, Vol. XXII, No.1, March 2016.