01-07-2008, 05:03 PM
You are right. After that process, then, the boss´s flange would be angled, hence, when found nowadays, angled as well.
As far as reconstruction of infantry shields goes, I´d say on the safe side are those who follow the shield findings we have, which are all either dished or curved (Kasr-El-Harit, Dura Europos, Trier collection). Apart from display on reliefs I do not know any clear evidence for flat infantry shields, and these usually are in frontal view. Relief depicting shields in frontal view is, as I said above, IMO not a usable source for this question.
The Doncaster shield is AFAIK a cavalry shield - about Cavalry shields I so far do not know enough to dare making clearer statements. There seems to have been quite a variety of types. Evidence for this question would probably be found by an analysis of shield bosses from pure cavalry forts. I would expect to find quite a variety of shield forms there during the first century AD.
As far as reconstruction of infantry shields goes, I´d say on the safe side are those who follow the shield findings we have, which are all either dished or curved (Kasr-El-Harit, Dura Europos, Trier collection). Apart from display on reliefs I do not know any clear evidence for flat infantry shields, and these usually are in frontal view. Relief depicting shields in frontal view is, as I said above, IMO not a usable source for this question.
The Doncaster shield is AFAIK a cavalry shield - about Cavalry shields I so far do not know enough to dare making clearer statements. There seems to have been quite a variety of types. Evidence for this question would probably be found by an analysis of shield bosses from pure cavalry forts. I would expect to find quite a variety of shield forms there during the first century AD.
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.