when were the Danum shields used??

[gauis alexandrois]

Im making two shields and an oval one and a danum one but wanted to know when were the danum shields in use. ?? :?
Any help is much appreciated

[mcbishop]

Im making two shields and an oval one and a danum one but wanted to know when were the danum shields in use. ?? :?
Any help is much appreciated

The shield was found beneath the Antonine rampart and partially cut by a Flavian post trench that contained coins of AD 86–7. Whilst the stratigraphy seems sound enough, the interpretation of the shieldboard remains as having a vertically orientated handgrip is, at best, open to question (it was found at 35 degrees – or should that be 55 degrees? – to the vertical).

Mike Bishop

[Peroni]

Looking at the drawings in Paul Bucklands report, the iron grip looks to be way too long to be a horizontal grip. :?

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ ... shie-1.gif

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ ... recon2.jpg

When turned horizontally, on a 2ft wide board it would suggest that if it WERE horizontal, we are looking at a board nearly three feet wide at least.

[mcbishop]

Looking at the drawings in Paul Bucklands report, the iron grip looks to be way too long to be a horizontal grip. :?

When turned horizontally, on a 2ft wide board it would suggest that if it WERE horizontal, we are looking at a board nearly three feet wide at least.

When you have dismissed the impossible, what you are left with, however improbable, must be the truth.

...which is, as people often point out, merely CD's/SH's elaboration of Occam's Razor.

Mike Bishop

[Peroni]

Not saying impossible Mike, just that a shield that wide would be incredibly unwieldy and cumbersome. I know that the tombstone of ‘Annaius Daverzus’ of Cohors IIII Delmatarum (CIL 13, 07507) shows a very large rectangular shield, but it's difficult to see how wide it is on the stone. But from extrapolating the dimension from the boss to the front edge and applying it to mirror the unseen half of the board it still seems to be narrower than three feet!
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

So IMHO it makes sense to reconstruct using a vertical positioning, and use dimensions typically seen on sculptural reperesentations and from the tegimen fragments from Valkenburg and Roomberg.

[mcbishop]

I know that the tombstone of ‘Annaius Daverzus’ of Cohors IIII Delmatarum (CIL 13, 07507) shows a very large rectangular shield, but it's difficult to see how wide it is on the stone. But from extrapolating the dimension from the boss to the front edge and applying it to mirror the unseen half of the board it still seems to be narrower than three feet!
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

So IMHO it makes sense to reconstruct using a vertical positioning, and use dimensions typically seen on sculptural reperesentations and from the tegimen fragments from Valkenburg and Roomberg.

Annaius' tombstone cannot really be used to give accurate dimensions for that sort of thing (the sculptor didn't even bother putting on a rear edge), not least because of the problems the Romans had depicting perspective and foreshortening (the Rhineland tombstones are very good but they are still not 'photographically' accurate). When all the other excavated evidence and all but the dodgiest representational evidence indicates the use of horizontal handgrips, I would disagree that it 'makes sense' to use a vertical handgrip when the archaeological rationale for it is, in this case, so equivocal ;-)

Mike Bishop

[Tarbicus]

Has anyone tried a shield that wide, with a horizontal grip? Has anyone tried it in anger, and really hypothesised what it could be used for?

[sulla felix]

The shield was found beneath the Antonine rampart and partially cut by a Flavian post trench that contained coins of AD 86–7. Whilst the stratigraphy seems sound enough, the interpretation of the shieldboard remains as having a vertically orientated handgrip is, at best, open to question (it was found at 35 degrees – or should that be 55 degrees? – to the vertical).

Is there any reason why it could not have been fixed diagonally accross the shield (as found - unless I have completely misunderstood!). It would mean holding the shield at a bit of a strange angle, but still usable?

[Peroni]

I've used a reconstructed Danum shield to Bucklands suggested dimensions with the grip aligned vertically, and with the off-set hand hole (it's slightly higher than central) it balances beautifully, and is excellent for combat on foot, and would certainly be suited to cavalry use.


Mike wrote...

When all the other excavated evidence and all but the dodgiest representational evidence indicates the use of horizontal handgrips, I would disagree that it 'makes sense' to use a vertical handgrip when the archaeological rationale for it is, in this case, so equivocal ;-) )

You misunderstand.. I am trying to say that due to the grip bar's length it 'makes sense' for it to have been vertically aligned. Agreed it isn't what we normally see depicted, but surely you cannot say that vertical grip shields did not exist?

We only have very few surviving shield boards of the tens of thousands that must have existed. I think we will have to agree to differ in opinion on this one Mike!

I still think that a shield of over 3ft in width of this period would likely have a curved face. Which would mean a bent grip bar. The iron grip itself is 85cm in length! I still think it's too wide to be fitted horizontally.

Buckland stated The shield was “flat and rectangular with rounded ends, being 1.25 metres long by 0.64 metres wide, the shallow segmental boss lying 0.65 above the base of the board.â€

[mcbishop]

Agreed it isn't what we normally see depicted, but surely you cannot say that vertical grip shields did not exist?

Exactly that! Without plausible, verifiable evidence (not just speculation), I would have to say just that.

We only have very few surviving shield boards of the tens of thousands that must have existed. I think we will have to agree to differ in opinion on this one Mike!

Agreed (that we disagree!)...

I still think that a shield of over 3ft in width of this period would likely have a curved face. Which would mean a bent grip bar. The iron grip itself is 85cm in length! I still think it's too wide to be fitted horizontally.

As one of Mel Gibson's better scriptwriters put it, 'there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so'. For me, I'm afraid, the integrity of the evidence is more important (and this lacks it).

Mike Bishop

[Robert Vermaat]

We only have very few surviving shield boards of the tens of thousands that must have existed. I think we will have to agree to differ in opinion on this one Mike!

Make that millions. The Roman army had hundreds of thousands of soldiers, who would in all likelyhood would have used up several shields in every campaign (not counting wear & tear), to say the least. Shields are not something you pass on to your sons and grandsons - you make new ones!

[Peroni]

Peroni wrote:
I still think that a shield of over 3ft in width of this period would likely have a curved face. Which would mean a bent grip bar. The iron grip itself is 85cm in length! I still think it's too wide to be fitted horizontally.


As one of Mel Gibson's better scriptwriters put it, 'there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so'. For me, I'm afraid, the integrity of the evidence is more important (and this lacks it).

OK! last post from me on this I promise! D

I've had the chance to do a drawing which demonstrates the size and impracticalities of a horizontal grip on the Doncaster shield.

1. It's HUGE! You could hide TWO men behind it!

2. The off-set boss means that the shield would be very unbalanced.

(The vertical grip negates the off-set boss due the way the shield is held. With the grip positioned horizontally, the larger lower portion of the shield would swing in toward the man's legs).

3. The weight factor. The board is 10mm Alder and oak ply with applied metal decorations to the face. My reconstruction weighed about 7kg. You can virtually double that if it were a horizonatl grip. The shield would be very unwieldy and even possibly a bloody hinderance to not just the poor soldier who has to carry it around, but also to the men next to him in battle!

Here's the drawing..
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ ... zontal.jpg

[Caballo]

If I've understood the archaeological argument here, its that unless it is found in situ with handle attached vertically, it shouldn't be accepted.
This is because we do have tangible evidence of shields with a horizontal hand hold. Sculptural evidence is a very definite second- an "artist's impression" rather than a photograph.

In the case of the Danum shield (and UK shield remains are few and far between), the in situ evidence is ambiguous as regards vertical or horizontal. If all other evidence were neutral, a horizontal hand hold would make sense. But the practical dimensions point to either a vertical handhold or a shield built for two (or I suppose, a Celtic giant).
Practical reconstructions confirm that this "works".

Secondly, the chances of the survival of a shield in situ in UK with enough evidence to support either direction of hand hold is surely improbable? In which case, Mike, are you asking for an unattainable level of proof?

So, on balance, IMHO the evidence points to the vertical handhold as being more likely. Not 100% proven, but the simplest explanation?

Cheers

[Peroni]

OK! last post from me on this I promise! D

I broke my promise... (Ifound a photo of my old reconstruction) :wink:

But the practical dimensions point to either a vertical handhold or a shield built for two (or I suppose, a Celtic giant).
Practical reconstructions confirm that this "works".

Here's my reconstruction and, secondly what it would look like if horizontally positioned scaled-up to the dimensions in my earlier drawing..
(Yes, the star pattern is from Trajan's Column)
Normal..(after Buckland)


With the 85cm grip bar positioned horizontally on a flat board... If it WERE horizontal it would Have to be a curved shield. Like the typical scutum.

[Quintus Julius Furius]

For complément :

http://www.viaromana.com/auxilia.nsf/Pa ... 10005AA687