Vatican shield photos!

[abou]

Absolutely fantastic! Thanks for sharing.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Happy that you apprecieted it.
I just made a very quick trial of the constuction method of the Mars of Todi quirass. Perhaps it isn't suitable to this thred,but since there isn't much work involved in it,i'll post it here.
I did it very quickly and i can say that it has a number of mistakes and wrongs. I should have used thicker thread,but this is what i had in hand. The holes of the stitching near between the two layers should have been nearer to the edge,and although it's not visible,i'm suspecting there might have been a leather thread running under the stitching between the layers.
The most basic mistake i did on my rush is that the two layers do not overlap in the same direction,unlike the original cuirass.
However the basic construction tecnique is this one and it produced a very nice matterial,very flexible in the one axon and stiff on the other. The "scales" overlap is such way that the quirass is all doubled matterial.
And it's perfect job for a slave to do: simple and boring!


Khairete
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

It looks like the rim bronze is a separate piece from the bowl metal. Is that correct or just looks that way?

The bronze sheet face is a single piece, 'tightened' by being hammered into the groove (2mm deep) between bowl and rim. The bronze face goes over the rim and onto the back of the shield, to a distance of 4 cm aprox. Remarkably, and testament to the skill of the artisan, this has been achieved without leaving wrinkles, overlaps, 'darts' or cuts.

Thanks. Yes, that is skilled craftsmanship, as I am sure anyone who has attempted the edging for a scutum will appreciate....
I have only seen the spartan aspice facing in Athens, I hope to get to Rome again someday to see this one myself.
I would love to learn these skills, one of the desires that got me into re-enacting.

...Notice however that with the other shield ( in the first photo with the cross-shaped hole in the centre) the rim is not so skillfully made. It is clearly a separate rim piece, made of strip, which is bent around and then meets at the top.....

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paullus,i have to correct that. It was one of those things i remembered to check in my limited time to the museum,and i was meaning to write it in the previous post.
This is just a deformation of the rim. It was also a single piece.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Are you sure, Giannis? I can see how the vertical line down the rim might be a 'split' rather than a join, but look at the horizontal line running around the join between bowl and rim ( where the groove would be).That has clearly lifted and separated. It would seem unlikely that a 'split'/tear would have a smooth edge, or pull away exactly around the 'groove-line'....... :? ?

BTW, one can obviously walk around that case, did you happen to take photos of the rear of the shield?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Pretty sure Paul. Flickr where i uploaded the photo reduces the original size of the photo. PM me your e-mail and i'll send you the full size. It is a bit blurry,but you will see that even from the photo it will look one piece.
I centainly walked behind the shield and i looked at it for a while but i think i took no photo.
I took some other photos of stuff beside that shield and in one of them another angle of the shield might have been captured,but i don't have all the photos in my pc currently,so i will check as soon as possible.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Thanks, Giannis !.....PM sent...

You might have not noticed it because it is all covered by dark leather.

Thanks, I did not notice that there was wood under there. I do wonder at the length of those rivets becuae we might expect them to be a more accurate guage of the thickness that the warped and shrunken wood.

Blyth, in his study, comments that there was no papers/studies done on length of rivets/clenched nails found at Olympia, which would have been useful in calculating thickness ( although not all go completely through the shield-base. Neverthless he estimates from photos that many are around 2 cm ( p.75 "Effectiveness of Greek armour...etc"). Interested parties may note that Dr Jeronomides, who examined the shield, gave its thickness at the "centre of the bowl" as "2.0-2.5 cm" which seemed too thick ( see long discussion, "Making an Aspis" thread). The very approximate figure ( only within 5 mm) may be a clue that in fact Dr J. estimated rather than actually measured the wood thickness at the centre, perhaps influenced by the estimate of 2 cm for nails and rivets, also an estimate.
For all sorts of reasons, the more precise figures given by Blyth after examining the shield ( shoulders 10-14mm, outer face 5-6mm, toward the centre 8mm) are to be preferred. These give original thicknesses before shrinking of shoulders varying 12-18mm, outer face varying 7-9mm, toward the centre 10-11 mm

Changing the subject, apparently information about both shields is given in La Raccolta Benedetto Gigliemi nel Museo Gregoriano Etrusco II, citta del Vaticano F. Magi 1941 pp.225-27. Anyone have access?

Lastly, I know Kineas has the 'bees knees' book on Argive type shields. Does this shed any light on rivet/nail length, hence thickness?

[PMBardunias]

These give original thicknesses before shrinking of shoulders varying 12-18mm, outer face varying 7-9mm, toward the centre 10-11 mm

For some reason Blyth was very vague on the shield face measurements. It would be nice to know the exact profile of the shield face. We dod not know what percentage of the face was more like 7-9mm and what 10-11mm. We don't know if this change is a gentle slope or a thickened "near the center" specifically to support the porpax or as a result of a need for support during the lathing process. His diagram is no help in this, for he does not follow his own stated measurements.