05-16-2006, 06:50 AM
Hi Martin,
We all agree on late Roman (IV-Vth century) being either round or oval. We don't agree about 'statistics'. i.e. I think that most shields were already round, while others (Christian, Robert) think that most shields were still oval... :roll:
We all agree on most if not all shields being dished, like the sloping collars on most shield bosses clearly prove.
If the Migration Period (broadly speaking, Thorsberg, Nydam...) actual surviving shield boards are now flat, it is due to terrain pressure. The shield bosses denote that they were originally dished. The sixth century board remains from Egypt now in Trier are dished too.
About the Sutton Hoo shield, at the BM reconstructed it as an ugly and strange hybrid compromise between a flat central section and a sloping rim, but the umbo's flange is sloping too and they were forced to insert an odd ring-like feature under it to make it fit their 'flat' board.
Aitor
We all agree on late Roman (IV-Vth century) being either round or oval. We don't agree about 'statistics'. i.e. I think that most shields were already round, while others (Christian, Robert) think that most shields were still oval... :roll:
We all agree on most if not all shields being dished, like the sloping collars on most shield bosses clearly prove.
If the Migration Period (broadly speaking, Thorsberg, Nydam...) actual surviving shield boards are now flat, it is due to terrain pressure. The shield bosses denote that they were originally dished. The sixth century board remains from Egypt now in Trier are dished too.
About the Sutton Hoo shield, at the BM reconstructed it as an ugly and strange hybrid compromise between a flat central section and a sloping rim, but the umbo's flange is sloping too and they were forced to insert an odd ring-like feature under it to make it fit their 'flat' board.
Aitor
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Rolf Steiner
Rolf Steiner
