Horse shoes? Tied on not nailed?

[Ulfwin]

Mr. Petrovszky, the Sammlungsleiter Römische Zeit, was so kind to provide this answer on my request about the Roman horseshoe:

Vielen Dank für Ihr Mail! Sie haben tatsächlich recht, was das Problem der römischen Hufeisen anbelangt. Es ist immer noch umstritten, ob die Römer Hufeisen kannten, aber es scheinen mittlerweile einige Hinweise in diese Richtung zu deuten. Vor allem sind es Steinreliefs aus dem Osten des Römerreiches, mit Pferdedarstellungen, auf denen Hufeisen angedeutet werden sowie ein wichtiger Hortfund aus Waldmössingen (Baden-Württemberg), wo mehrere Hufeisen in einem Eisendepot angetroffen wurden, die dafür sprechen. Meine Kollegin, Frau Dr. Bärbel Hanemann hat kurz darüber in Ihrem Aufsatz im Katalog "Geraubt und im Rhein versunken. Der Barbarenschatz", Speyer 2006, 139ff. berichtet.

So, in a nutshell, this particular horsehoe could be medieval or modern, but other evidence has surfaced by now which indicates that the Romans knew horseshoes.

Okay, I read the article from Dr. B. Hanemann.
She writes "....was die ... heftig diskutierte Frage über die Existenz römischer Hufeisen erneut aufwirft. Hufeisen sind weder in literarischen Quellen erwähnt, noch scheint ein lateinisches Wort dafür zu existieren. Unter den Bilddarstellungen römischer Zeit glaubt man inzwischen, auf zwei Reliefs genagelte Hufeisen zu erkennen. .... Zu den beachtenswerten Funden gehört der römische Hortfund von Waldmössingen, ein zum Konglomerat verbackenes Eisendepot, das vier Hufeisen enthielt....
Unabhängig davon, ob man von der Existenz römischer Hufeisen ausgeht ... befinden sich drei neuzeitliche Exemplare unter dem Neupotzer Fundmaterial..."

She talks about two Roman reliefs, on which meanwhile it is believed to recognise nailed-on horseshoes. And about an iron find from the Roman vicus Waldmössingen, containing 4 horseshoes. But still she doesn't take position if there were horseshoes or not. Just questionmarks.

I have ordered the publication about the Waldmössingen find and about the horseshoe visible on a Dacian relief. I will report my impressions as soon as possible.

Eleatic, don't take me wrong! I do neither believe in horseshoes nor in the opposite. I just want to check the evidence. There are many things with many questionmarks, and as long as my horse wears modern horseshoes I'd never tell the public, that these are modern but Romans had similar. I'd just say: modern. When the evidence is - in a vague way - convincing myself, I'd say: maybe Romans had, there is some evidence. When the evidence is exact and reliable, I'd have a Roman horseshoe replicated and would say: on my horse's hoofs, modern, but have a look, this is the replica of a Roman horseshoe.

So I don't want to fight one horseshoe find after the other, nutshell by nutshell :wink: , I have no fixed opinion, I am just looking for proofs. Okay, I am wondering why there are not thousands of horseshoe-finds, because they are quite effective, so if known they would have used them frequently, they wear off and get lost from time to time, mostly on a ride and in deep, wet ground, so they should be the ideal finding material. Even hobnails from Roman shoes are found after 2000 years, why not horseshoes? Should be an every day find. They had the technology and it would have been useful. Why don't we find the remnants everywhere? At least in cavalry forts? Should be plenty. So you may call me prejudging in a way. But I will gladly change my attitude as soon as I find the mentioned sources convincing.

Cheers,

Stefan