Leather covered clipeus

[Tarbicus]

Another reference:
[url:25jii7xc]http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html[/url]
Another shield from the late 13th century in the Armeria Real de Madrid is made from cedar-like wood with parchment covering on both sides, the parchment being thicker on the front.

[caiusbeerquitius]

that skin is described as parchment- i.e., very thin, which would seem to preclude it as a protective layer; it's on both sides too, which also suggests it wasn't protective.

A big problem is that even today many archaeologists do not know that much about materials used in antiquity, many won´t see a difference between leather or rawhide. (See Junkelmann´s books, e.g.clothing, or shield facings ) Parchment is better known than rawhide, so this term is used to describe the material that is dicovered.

The Trier shields are all covered with hide AFAIK, the Illerup report suggests this to be the case for the Illerup shields as well.
Also the early medieval and medieval shields usually are hide covered, up to the Crossbowmen-pavises in the Germanische Nationalmuseum Nürnberg.

Matt, why shouldn´t it be protective if it is on both sides?

One has nothing but gesso on the wood.

As far as I can remember this is not correct. Most of the shields have a layer of glue and fibres on the wood, I think this one as well, but I may be wrong.

The qualities of rawhide should not be regarded singularly, but always with reference to the composite construction, where it really makes sense to use rawhide. As we know from modern composite constructions as well as from ancient ones (bows, e.g.) the qualities of the individual component must not necessarily tell us sthg. about the finished object.

Gesso IMHO is a quite reasonable material for a shield facing, I would say. But textiles as well, or gesso on top of textiles...

[Robert]

Oh my, guess I'm up the creek without a paddle here. Is there some refrence to the Trier shields as to whether is was leather or rawhide?

[aitor iriarte]

Well, Klaus-Peter Goethert writes consistently 'Leder' but I wouldn't take that too seriously as he doesn't exhibit any analysis on the paper to back that assertion... :roll:

Aitor

[Matt Lukes]

Another reference:
[url:2ti8v6ae]http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html[/url]
Another shield from the late 13th century in the Armeria Real de Madrid is made from cedar-like wood with parchment covering on both sides, the parchment being thicker on the front.

Ah, well that one does show that people use the word parchment- well- incorrectly :lol: Parchment is equivalent to paper, which is thin- it doesn't make sense to me to use it in this context at all. Still, I guess Simon James would be the guy to clear this all up- he's examined the Dura semicircular scutum for his book and could tell us all just how thick the hide layers are- at least if they're really thin or not.

And the question isn't why wouldn't an inner protective layer exist Christian, but rather why would it? I guess it depends on whether one considers the parchment layers as strengthening the shield from a flexibility point-of-view, or as an 'armor' layer- to resist edges and points. It seems that most people seemed to think it was an 'armor' layer- because most arguments against leather stem from its susceptibility to direct damage- and for that it'd have to be thicker; thin rawhide isn't going to be particularly effective. So then what point is there having this armor layer on the inside where no blows would fall? If it's a strengthening layer to keep the scutum together- such as fabric would actually be- then the arguments against leather because of its susceptibility to damage are false, since the point is not to resist weapon damage. In fact, because both fabric and plain gesso are used, I submit the arguments presented against the use of leather are false for just that reason. Clearly fabric and gesso are even more susceptible to damage than leather is, but were clearly used and considered sufficient, there's no reason to consider leather unsuitable. Wasteful? Well that one's reasonable- it takes a long time to tan leather and why waste it when fabric will do sufficiently?

Well, Klaus-Peter Goethert writes consistently 'Leder' but I wouldn't take that too seriously as he doesn't exhibit any analysis on the paper to back that assertion...

Is this an old excavation report? A proper scientist should know better than to make designations without proof- at least nowadays. It drives me nuts (ha)

[Marcus Mummius]

Someone in our group has a shield faced with tanned leather and it get's scratches VERY easily. The leather just adds extra weight... Our linen faced shields seem much more durable, and lighter...

I think glued on linen is more protective than glued on tanned leather. The linen is saturated with glue gets very hard but the leather stays soft...

I know several people who use the word parchment (perkament in dutch) instead of rawhide...

Vale,

[Marcus Mummius]

On the Illerup shields rawhide was clearly used as facing. When I attended a congres in Mannheim last October I spoke to L. B. Andersen, a Danish conservator who has studied the shields and other finds from Illerup.

I was puzzled by some of his findings!

Some shields had their painting on a layer of linen UNDER the rawhide (now tanned leather by their long stay in the marches)) covering.

I asked him if the outer layer was perhaps not shield facing but a leather shield cover instead but he told me this was clearly not the case.

At first the researchers were very confused about the painting of the linen underneath the rawhide. Why paint something that would be almost or completely invisible? Some of the pigments that were found to have been used on the shields were very expensive.

Dr. Andersen did several experiments with rawide over a painted surface and found out the following: THIN rawhide that is given several coats of lineseed oil becomes quite transparant. So the painting on the linen would have been visible through the rawhide. He stressed that the rwahide used on the shields was quite thin.

This also offers a solution to the question of how shields painted with caseïn paint would have survived heavy rain with their painting intact. The rawhide protected the paint both from scratches and water.

I experimented with rawhide and lineseed oil myself and can tell you it works. BUT the rawhide must be fairly thin. There are also often imperfections in the rawhide that do not get transparent but remain opaque. But I don't think this bothered the Romans that much.

Kind regards,
Jef

[aitor iriarte]

Fine, Jeff! Laus for you!
Did he told anything on the shield boards being dished? 8)

Aitor

[Marcus Mummius]

Fine, Jeff! Laus for you!
Did he told anything on the shield boards being dished? 8)

Aitor

Hi Aitor,

I remember asking him but I don't think I got a clear answer on that one. I plan to contact him and that's one of the questions I'll ask him.
It was a lucky coincidence to meet him. I was talking about roman military gear with a fellow student during a break between lectures, someone overheard us and told me I should talk to Dr. Andersen.

[aitor iriarte]

Many thanks, Jef. It will be extremely interesting to hear what Dr. Andersen has to say about that :wink: !

Aitor

[Dan Howard]

I think glued on linen is more protective than glued on tanned leather. The linen is saturated with glue gets very hard but the leather stays soft...

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that "harder" means "better protection". I have already demonstrated that this isn't the case. I believe Jason Hoffman has done the same thing. If you take two examples of layered linen - one glued and one quilted - the example with quilted linen actually offers better protection against points that the glued one. Even though the glued one is "harder"

[Marcus Mummius]

I think glued on linen is more protective than glued on tanned leather. The linen is saturated with glue gets very hard but the leather stays soft...

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that "harder" means "better protection". I have already demonstrated that this isn't the case. I believe Jason Hoffman has done the same thing. If you take two examples of layered linen - one glued and one quilted - the example with quilted linen actually offers better protection against points that the glued one. Even though the glued one is "harder"

Indeed, I didn't phrase it very well. I believe the quilted versus glued theory but I'm going to try it myself I think... I do however think that glued linen is stronger than glued leather...

[Matt Lukes]

I think glued on linen is more protective than glued on tanned leather. The linen is saturated with glue gets very hard but the leather stays soft...

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that "harder" means "better protection". I have already demonstrated that this isn't the case. I believe Jason Hoffman has done the same thing. If you take two examples of layered linen - one glued and one quilted - the example with quilted linen actually offers better protection against points that the glued one. Even though the glued one is "harder"

You've demonstrated this? In a proper experiment? I'd be very curious to read the data- is it posted anywhere? Actually I'm not entirely surprised- I've found that fabric saturated with hide glue seems more susceptible to puncture than unglued fabric, but it was only a general observation on one occasion :wink:

It still doesn't make sense to me though to even consider these things as any kind of protection from puncture- neither is stronger than the wood of the scutum, so it doesn't really make any sense to me to consider a weaker material to add to a stronger one. It makes more sense to me that the fabric would be intended to improve the flexibility strength- sort of an ancient version of fiberglass fabric.

As for the oil-treated parchment-thin rawhide as an outer layer over the paint that Jef mentioned- is there any reason to expect this was done? Oil in the hide or anything at all? If the point was to protect the paint, why not just oil or wax it directly? Seems like a reach to think a layer of rawhide made slightly transparent with oil would be the solution to the problem.

[caiusbeerquitius]

thin rawhide isn't going to be particularly effective

Why, Matt? I find it very effective.

Well that one's reasonable- it takes a long time to tan leather and why waste it when fabric will do sufficiently?

But fabric is also not so easily produced. Also quite time-consuming.

And the question isn't why wouldn't an inner protective layer exist Christian, but rather why would it? I guess it depends on whether one considers the parchment layers as strengthening the shield from a flexibility point-of-view, or as an 'armor' layer- to resist edges and points.

Probably mainly to get an even surface, maybe to strengthen the composite construction. It makes sense IMO. But for the large amount of shields we have from the first century onwards up to the late Middle Ages the rawhide on the front seemed to be enough. But why has it to be an either-or, it can be both things simultaneously, strengthening and armor-adding.
Apart from that, rawhide on the inner side can be useful: if you carry the shield around a lot the chape of your spatha, your spear butt, and many other items often collide with it from the inside, this way your shield might remain "nicer" for a longer time. Just an idea.

Someone in our group has a shield faced with tanned leather and it get's scratches VERY easily. The leather just adds extra weight... Our linen faced shields seem much more durable, and lighter...

I think glued on linen is more protective than glued on tanned leather. The linen is saturated with glue gets very hard but the leather stays soft...

I know several people who use the word parchment (perkament in dutch) instead of rawhide...

I sign that.

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that "harder" means "better protection". I have already demonstrated that this isn't the case. I believe Jason Hoffman has done the same thing. If you take two examples of layered linen - one glued and one quilted - the example with quilted linen actually offers better protection against points that the glued one. Even though the glued one is "harder"

This may be right, but not necessarily the case for skin. Anyway we should keep to the findings and not "invent" new items or construction methods. We have ample proof of linen and / or rawhide covered shields from the Iron Age, so that would be the most sensible and safe way to make a reproduction, I assume.

[Marcus Mummius]

As for the oil-treated parchment-thin rawhide as an outer layer over the paint that Jef mentioned- is there any reason to expect this was done? Oil in the hide or anything at all? If the point was to protect the paint, why not just oil or wax it directly? Seems like a reach to think a layer of rawhide made slightly transparent with oil would be the solution to the problem.

Salve Matt. This is not just a theory. Dr. Andersen told me he has closely studied these shields and the rawhide was really glued on top of the painted surface of the shields. Why would they have done this if it wouldn't have been visible? Thin rawhide gets VERY transparent when oiled.

I agree that the rawhide isn't meant to protect against punctures but it gives the shield a lot of structural strength. The rawhide can be very thin, this doesn't matter a lot.

Vale,
Jef