Oval shields..

[caiusbeerquitius]

Dished is not a very exact term, I agree. The vertical curvature is indeed way less than the horizontal curvature, nonetheless there is a vertical curvature on the Dura shields. The Trier shields are published in the book I quoted above. They are equally curved horizontally and vertically.

[Arrichion]

caiustarquitius,

I followed up on the Junkelmann book that you suggested through JSTOR, a semi-private database, and was only allowed to obtain access to the material by aquiring special access from them which also meant obtaining it from Junkelmann himself. I did manage to get a look at a late Roman shield reconstruction which was from a private collection (Archaeology Journal, JSTOR) and it does seem to have a slight taper both on the horizontal axis as well as the vertical, and this leads me to believe that the planks were tapered from the center outwards (nothing new, I'd imagine ). I have come to the belief that some late Roman shields indeed had a slight convex shape to them but I can not find conclusive evidence supporting the deeply convex, tear-drop shaped (the cross-section) shields that late Romans supposedly used (not to step on anyone's toes, but the convex shape is sometimes overdone by reenactors). The shield that you made though, seems to be in line with the available evidence.

[Robert Vermaat]

Guys,

I'm not saying that 'dished' is a better or worse word than 'convex', it's just the word we've been using over the years. It does not tell anything about the measure of taper of either the horizontal or vertical axis.

The actual number of LR shields is, sadly, very small. The Dura Europos shields might even be a bit too early for our purposes, but we are still using them becaause we have few better finds.. of course, the shields were found under a tower, and we can no longer tell for sure if they were once flat or not. Many think, however, that they were flattened.

Most 'real' nformation comes from the study of shield bosses though. I was assured many years ago (by Holger Ratsdorf) that LR shield bosses never fit a flat shield, but a 'dished' shield.

We do see'dished' shields in Roman art, which satisfies me that the shape we are using is correct.

not many Late Roman re-enactors own a dished shield, so who are you referring when you say that:

I can not find conclusive evidence supporting the deeply convex, tear-drop shaped (the cross-section) shields that late Romans supposedly used (not to step on anyone's toes, but the convex shape is sometimes overdone by reenactors)

[Robert Vermaat]

I'm not saying that 'dished' is a better or worse word than 'convex', it's just the word we've been using over the years.

And, quoting myself, if anyone has problems with the word 'dished', I can offer the word 'lenticular' as an alternative that we've used in the discussion of these shields over the past years.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I'm not saying that 'dished' is a better or worse word than 'convex', it's just the word we've been using over the years.

And, quoting myself, if anyone has problems with the word 'dished', I can offer the word 'lenticular' as an alternative that we've used in the discussion of these shields over the past years.

Betraying my ignorance, 'Dished ' sound perfectly clear to me!