Shield covers or not shield covers?

[Tim Edwards]

I've just been re-reading my new copy of Masada Vol VIII.

One of the shield boards recovered is most thought provoking.

It exhibits a ply construction covered with leather, as one might expect.

What is particularly interesting is that it has stitch holes for a leather tabula ansata motif, showing that the unit title was effectively stitched onto the shield board!

Does this change the way we perceive shield board decoration? Ie no longer painted, or indeed in metal, but predominately stitched on in contrasting pieces of leather?

Moreover, should we now be re-examining surviving 'shield covers' which may actually be the facings of the shields themselves?

Discuss!!

[Magnus]

Does this change the way we perceive shield board decoration? Ie no longer painted, or indeed in metal, but predominately stitched on in contrasting pieces of leather?

Moreover, should we now be re-examining surviving 'shield covers' which may actually be the facings of the shields themselves?

Discuss!!

No, just another possible way to decorate one's shield face. Was the leather bits analyzed for paint residue?

No to your second point as well...thin leather like that would be made into shredded cheese too easily I would think. Far easier to repaint a shield face than constantly stitch a cover, or patch one. It would start to look like junk after a while.

[jkaler48]

Please tell us more details (photographs?) about the shield board(s)!

[Tim Edwards]

Matt,

Dye was only detected on a few fragments, which were red.

I would not be so ready to dismiss the importance of these published finds.

I think that the Masada shield boards are of great significance. They are the biggest group of Roman shield board fragments occurring outside Dura Europos, and most importantly, are datable to the first century AD.

Whether you personally consider it practical or not, the evidence of applied leather decoration is there!

We could argue on 'practical' grounds alone endlessly, personally I consider the leather decoration more robust than paint, but hey.

I suggest that we focus on discussion of extant finds, rather than modern conceptions of ancient practicalities.

Previously I had imagined that shield decoration would be predominately executed in metal, going purely from the single board that had hitherto been published from the first century, ie from Doncaster.

I'd like to broaden the discussion to looking at the numerous surviving items we classify as shield covers, maybe some of them could be components of the actual shields themselves?

Roman vegetable tanned leather survives reasonably well in anaerobic contexts, hence the large sample of Roman leatherwork that has survived.

It has always seemed strange to me that we have so many surviving shield cover fragments, yet not a single similiarly preserved shield facing, when we assume that these were also of leather. Surely not just an accident of deposition?

When the Vindonissa fragments were published, Gannsser-Burckhardt had reason to believe that these were the leather shield facings, though we now see these as shield covers. Maybe he was right, and certain items could be reclassified.

John,

The publication goes into great detail, I went out and bought it.

You can get it from Oxbow:

Masada VIII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-65
edited by Joseph Aviram

Its quite pricey, so you might want to borrow a copy through a fellow reenactor/enthusiast/library loan etc.
I'm not sure I want to paste up copied pictures when the author of the relevant chapter has been known to frequent this forum!!

[Magnus]

I wasn't dismissing the "evidence" of leather shield devices. I said it was now another possible way to decorate the front of your shield.

The idea of a shield cover being the main decoration of a shield was your idea and unsupported at this time. I applied no modern thinking to it...thin leather gets damaged easily...this concept is timeless. So unless we have evidence of leather covers used as the main identifier of a unit or scutum pattern, what you have posted while interesting, doesn't prove that it was so.

[Matthew Amt]

There might be a few pieces of what we think are removable shield covers that are actually facings, but probably not too many. Some of the surviving covers are complete enough that they show stitched casings around the edges for a drawstring--you wouldn't find that on a glued-on facing. Reinforcing patches around the edges would seem to me to be another clue that it's a removable cover. The covering for the boss, or stitch holes for it, is a dead giveaway.

It seems to me that a well-preserved facing ought to be found stuck to pieces of wood, or at least found in conjunction with them. Plus, if facings were actually rawhide instead of tanned leather, they simply would not preserve as well. (Though I'm not trying to say that only rawhide was used for facings!)

One of the guys in my group did his shield face by gluing on leather wings and lightning bolts. Since he painted them first, it made the whole project a LOT quicker and easier! No fiddling about trying to keep the paint job neat. Obviously stitching would be a more solid attachment than gluing, but you'd have to stitch before gluing the facing onto the wood, and that could make things dicey. (Though I expect the Romans wouldn't care if something came out a little crooked!)

Valete,

Matthew

[Caballo]

thin leather like that would be made into shredded cheese too easily I would think. Far easier to repaint a shield face than constantly stitch a cover, or patch one. It would start to look like junk after a while.

IIRC, Polybius describes the shield of the Republican period as being constructed of a thick shield board, curved and covered in canvas and calf skin on the interior and exterior surfaces. The Fayum shield was felt covered, and the Dura shields covered with leather and faced with linen.

I'm not sure that leather solidly glued ito shields like that would shred....though I'd love to do an experiment!

Cheers

Caballo

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

We have a scutum covered with leather.
It was used for target practice this year.....

[Tim Edwards]

I wasn't dismissing the "evidence" of leather shield devices. I said it was now another possible way to decorate the front of your shield.

Apologies, my misunderstanding.

the Dura shields covered with leather and faced with linen.

The Masada shields seem to be faced with leather, with linen underneath. Are you quite certain the Dura shields dont have the leather on top? I'm pretty sure that the late Roman painted shields found in Egypt, conserved in Trier and published by Junkelmann had paint applied onto the leather, though I dont know if any linen was found underneath these...

It seems to me that a well-preserved facing ought to be found stuck to pieces of wood, or at least found in conjunction with them. Plus, if facings were actually rawhide instead of tanned leather, they simply would not preserve as well. (Though I'm not trying to say that only rawhide was used for facings!)

Seems like a reasonable argument, but then archaeologists have failed to identify any such pieces of laminate shield board anywhere in Europe, apart from the carbonised elements of the Doncaster board, which were a fluke of preservation. Its a shame that we dont know more about the leather (or rawhide?!!) facing of the Doncaster example...

I suspect that if the Masada group had been found in a European context, the delicate ply layers would have all but have disintegrated and the leather would have been immiediately classified as simply being shield covers.

There might be a few pieces of what we think are removable shield covers that are actually facings, but probably not too many. Some of the surviving covers are complete enough that they show stitched casings around the edges for a drawstring--you wouldn't find that on a glued-on facing. Reinforcing patches around the edges would seem to me to be another clue that it's a removable cover. The covering for the boss, or stitch holes for it, is a dead giveaway.

I agree with all of this, though there are plenty enough specimens from European contexts that do not have such diagnostic features.

Some tacking stitches that have been interpreted as accomodating draw strings but could be there for other purposes.

The author of the finds, Guy Stiebel, cites an example at Vindonissa with an impression from a reinforcing bar which he belives could well be a shield facing.

Some other features of the Masada group are compelling, there is evidence of both cupric and leather edging in use, plus the strengthening/grip bars like we see on the Doncaster board, and independently in other contexts.

As I mentioned, traces of red paint/dye have been detected, but the general lack of decoration/adornment I find surprising. The one exception is that stitched tabula ansata blazon.

Some boards had oval shapes, whilst at least one had near parallel sides with strongly sloped corners, a very rounded rectangle if you will.

One fragment demonstrates a piercing which accomodated a leather loop, which the author speculates was for a carrying sling/harness.

On some boards there have been traces of bitumen, though the archaeologists speculate that this material was not part of the shields original construction.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

On some boards there have been traces of bitumen, though the archaeologists speculate that this material was not part of the shields original construction.


What do they suppose is the source of the bitumen? Assault with fire weapons?

[Magnus]

A glued shield face is one thing, but a "cover" is entirely different. The glued leather will last much longer than something which is free floating (like the cover, which is secured via draw string ties).

[Tim Edwards]

Yes Magnus/Matt, this is exactly what I have been saying all along, maybe I have not made this clear enough.

In the very first post I speculated that some examples of what hitherto have been interpreted as shield covers may originally have been the actual leather facings of the shield, therein lies the difference.

The Masada finds show that the two distinct items could actually look quite similar, excepting the points that Matt Amp rightly raised.

[muskitear]

Are the reproduced shield boss's to correct size?
I find the ergonomics of holding the scutum to be a bit out of kilter.
When holding the handle the edge of the hole bites the back of your hand. Over 25 miles foot slogging thats a lot of rubbing. ( I know about the sheep skin)
In fact the design to me is awkward. If the handle was raised say like a bridge then there would be clearance. If there was a strap higher up through which you could slip your arm you would have better control.
I use round shields with off set handles and a strap for the arm. Many shields are like this. Is there any evidence that this is the way the scutum worked or is it an assumption???

[Marcus Mummius]

Are the reproduced shield boss's to correct size?
I find the ergonomics of holding the scutum to be a bit out of kilter.
When holding the handle the edge of the hole bites the back of your hand. Over 25 miles foot slogging thats a lot of rubbing. ( I know about the sheep skin)
In fact the design to me is awkward. If the handle was raised say like a bridge then there would be clearance. If there was a strap higher up through which you could slip your arm you would have better control.
I use round shields with off set handles and a strap for the arm. Many shields are like this. Is there any evidence that this is the way the scutum worked or is it an assumption???

If a scutum is properly balanced and the handhole is large enough it should not bite in the hand...
Perhaps the Romans had smaller hands than most reenactors today, but I don't think a lot of studies have been done to make definite statements about this. Most handgrips of original gladii would be too small for a lot of modern reenactors so probably the average Roman soldier did have smaller hands. I have rather small hands myself and the dimensions of Roman sword handles and umbones are perfect for me.

Putting a 'bridge-like' handle on a scutum is a bad idea. It will ruin the balance and it will make the shield seem a lot heavier and unwieldy.

Also on a march the shield would not have been carried in the hand but strapped to the body (the back for example) using an unknown carriage system.


Vale,

[Magnus]

Yes Magnus/Matt, this is exactly what I have been saying all along, maybe I have not made this clear enough.

In the very first post I speculated that some examples of what hitherto have been interpreted as shield covers may originally have been the actual leather facings of the shield, therein lies the difference.

The Masada finds show that the two distinct items could actually look quite similar, excepting the points that Matt Amp rightly raised.

Ahhhh...my mistake then. Yes, I agree with you completely lol. I mean why not?