Login

Gregg · 03-12-2004, 08:42 PM

The subject of reconstructing the Roman Draco standard has come up a couple of times recently. IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢d like to suggest that anyone serious about this consider reconstructing the Deskford draco instead of the now-common Niederbieber draco. Though until recently universally considered a carnyx head, it seems pretty certain that the Deskford find was in fact a Draco. I should think it would be first choice for any late Roman reenactment groups in England, anyway. 
 
Gregg

**Robert Vermaat** · 03-13-2004, 12:10 AM

Hi Gregg, 
 
I recall we discussed that in [url=http://pub45.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm1.showMessage?topicID=712.topic" target="top]this thread.[/url] 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

Gregg · 03-16-2004, 08:50 PM

Thanks for posting the link to that thread, Robert. When I wrote the post I originally went looking for it but couldnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t find it searching under ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œdracoÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

**Robert Vermaat** · 03-17-2004, 07:23 AM

Hi Gregg, 
 
Alas, the article looks very interesting, but Internet Archaeology has for a few years now closed their material off from non-paying readers, and the prices they ask are too steep for me. I'll have to take your word for it. 
 
Well, for someone who is "not convinced either way" you are certainly a fan of the Deskford being a draco! 
 
Ok, the style bothers me, but I guess you might say that a native style would be possible. However, how long would you expect this native style to survive on the continent or in Britain? The draco was not veru early roman, so for it to be made in Britain in an old native style would be difficult. 
 
A hinged jaw would also do for a Carnyx, opening and closing in the ryhem of the step of the bearer, right? Also, a carnyx with an opened jaw can be seen on the Gundestrup Cauldron. 
If this thing was deposited as a votive offering, it could very well be a Carnyx, too. 
 
One question, is there a hole for the standerd in this head? If not, it can't be a draco. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

aitor iriarte · 03-17-2004, 08:03 AM

Yes Gregg, 
Were or are there holes for the carrying pole? 
I tend to be less sceptic than Robert towards the Deskford head but the lack of holes (in case that area is preserved) would prevent it from being a draco (and that would be really a pity, I must add ) 
That details on the movable jaw and the lost ears are really thrilling! 
The Niederbieber draco is rather small, around 30 cm long and 12 cm in diameter, if I remember well. 
If it would not imply violating any copyright, it would be interesting to have some image of the Deskford head showing those details that you mention! 
 
Aitor

aitor iriarte · 03-17-2004, 11:15 AM

Hi again, 
 
Sorry for the big images, which I've taken from previous threads (and the Fectio site, thanks, Robert!) on the draco standards 
 
If the Deskford head had holes for the pole, they were on the attached back section with the ears. That section is now lost but, is there any reference to it? (BTW, in which context -you've mentioned ritual 'killing'- was it found? Is there any written account?) 
 
<img src="http://www.pictarts.demon.co.uk/guide/images/carnyx.gif" style="border:0;"/> 
 
I've already mentioned that the Deskford head is somewhat similar to the head of the Carolingian draco on the St. Gall Psalter... 
 
<img src="http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/bytype/manuscripts/survey/0001/138.JPG" style="border:0;"/> 
 
In any case, the reconstruction of the Deskford head as part of a carnyx makes me wonder if the now equally empty eyes of the Niederbieber draco would no have been filled with coloured paste either.... 
 
<img src="http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/deskfordca/pages/pics/carynx1.jpg" style="border:0;"/>+- 
 
<img src="http://www.fectio.org.uk/groep/draco1.jpg" style="border:0;"/> 
 
Aitor Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aitoririarte>Aitor Iriarte</A> at: 3/17/04 2:00 pm

Daniel S Peterson · 03-17-2004, 06:54 PM

The fact of its' Brass/Orichulum material fairly dismisses the notion that the Deskford is a pre-Roman, Celtic Carnyx head. I do not see anything boar-like about it, particularly when the reconstructed boar-like comb and ears are not there. The Roman Niederbieber Draco has some very realistic Reptilian features such a a lizard's ear, and keeled scales. I believe the Deskford is too stylized to be Roman, but rather something from the dark ages for there is much evidence indicating the usage of draco-like standards all the way up to the Saxons of Hastings. The upswept snout of the Deskford head is reminiscent of many early medieval dragons in liturgical art. Remember too, that the Carolinginan draco depicted on this thread as well as the Hastings draco (and several Roman depictions) do not show the staff attached to the head, but rather behind the head or in the middle of its body. 
 
During our Limes march, we gave Junkelmann's droopy draco more 'body', by inserting into the windsock a coiled wire. The Deskford draco could have had a similar construction, which is why there is no staff holde. fabric wings and limbs could also be attached to such a draco, such as the one depicted on the Bayeux tapestry. I "captured" the Saxon draco at the big hastings event several years ago, and it seemed to have such an interior frame, though this is entirely speculative. 
 
This could just as eaisily have been the head to a straight military 'tuba' or 'fanfare' horn of the late Roman/dark age period. Though there are no Roman representations, there are many from medieval times, and dragon/serpent headed brass musical instruments survived until the Napoleonic era at least. 
 
Dan

Gregg · 03-18-2004, 04:59 PM

Robert and Aitor, 
 
Yeah, the Dungworth article is really excellent, with remarkable implications (most ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œCelticÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

aitor iriarte · 03-18-2004, 05:44 PM

Extremely exciting, Gregg ! 
Is there any possibility of having Smith's complete paper? 
One point against your theories and two pro them: 
-The flange of the Niederbieber draco is damaged, but the position of the damaged areas don't suggest torn rivets or the like. Moreover, you dont need them to attach a windsock. 
-Yes, the Deskford head is shorter than the Niederbieber one but it could have a section of tube rivetted to make it longer. You suggested this possibility, is the reference to lost ears a mistake? 
- The lost tongue. Is there any indication of how was it attached to the head? Remember the pair of slits at the base of the Niederbieber head. They could well have been used for the hanging barbs, as Dan rightly suggests or perhaps for a lost tongue or perhaps for both! 
 
Any good drawing of the Deskford head? 
 
Aitor

Gregg · 03-18-2004, 06:33 PM

Actually Aitor, you can read Smith's complete article, including an excellent drawing, as a pdf file here: 
 
minerva.york.ac.uk/catalo...34_361.pdf 
 
I probably shouldn't have suggested that the Niederbieber draco and the Deskford find both had rivet tears in the flanges. Without close examination, the tears looked to me like the kind of tear you get in scale or plate armor when the scale is torn from it's wire or the plate from a rivet. You're right, though, there's no reason to believe either of the flanges were ever riveted, and I assume the wind sock was tied on behind the flange as photos of recreated dracos suggest. The point I should have made is simply that both the Niederbieber draco and the Deskford find seem to have very similar damage on their flanges, suggesting a common function. 
 
Yes, I was incorrect to say the original find had ears. I posted that before I'd read Smith's article, based on some incorrect information from a web site (I think, I don't remember where I read it now). I personally feel that the Deskford find, like the Niederbieber draco, was found complete. I don't think its slightly shorter length would have effected its function as a draco, assuming that's what it was. 
 
The tongue is just strange. It had disappeared by the time Smith wrote his article, so I don't think anyone has any idea about its size or shape. But the original reference Smith had said it was attached by "springs." I think the belief now is that the tongue may have originally been attached in the mouth somehow by leather straps or something. Perhapse it bounced and lolled when the head was in motion. The back of the jaw has two long straight pieces that hook a bit at the ends, and possibly the tongue attached to these (you'll see what I'm talking about in the illustration). Smith thought they might have acted as some kind of counterbalance for the jaw. There was also a separate bronze "palate" for the top of the mouth. Why bronze and not brass is a mystery to me, though. Still, it's pretty obvious that whatever its intended function, the Deskford find was of much more complex construction than the Niederbieber draco. Sheer speculation on my part, but maybe the Niederbieber draco was a simple but functional piece intended for battle, while the Deskford was a draco intended for cavalry games. 
 
Gregg

Daniel S Peterson · 03-18-2004, 07:16 PM

It is the tongue assemblage that makes this likely a kind of carnyx-like musical instrument, rather than a draco windsock standard. I seem to recall a Roman account that specifically mentions the moving tongue when the Carnyx is blown. There is also a parallel for this in the moveable tongues in the serpent-dragon headed military instruments of the Medieval to 19th century period. This is carried over into the 20th century with a movable tongue in the dragon headed horns of antique automobiles. I have one which is now used as a medieval horn. 
 
On the contrary, if employed as a draco, the tongue and palette would obstruct the wind flow into the body-sock. The fact that the palette is bronze again suggests a Celtic origin. The Orichulum would have been rare, but perhaps reserved for the outer surface of the instrument because of its golden-yelllow color. 
 
It is very probably the rest of the Carnyx was entirely of wood construction, just as the similar, but much later 'serpent' instrument. We only assume the entire instrument was made of metal, when many may have been partly, or wholly made of wood. The entire instrument may have therefore been deposited, and the thin-walled wooden tube of the instrument deteriorating faster than the possibly more substantial "tongue". 
 
The Carnyx idea then, seems more probable than a Draco head since there is no visible means of attachment to the pole, for the supposed missing element which might have had a staff-mounting hole would have been metal also, yet was not recovered. 
 
And yes, overall, it does look far more like the head of a Carnyx, than any draco depiction in ancient art. 
 
Dan

aitor iriarte · 03-18-2004, 08:49 PM

I've printed the paper, Gregg (that horned chamfron is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen! ), many thanks for the reference! 
Isn't there any more recent survey or drawing of the Deskford head? 
In any case, the holes for attaching the pole seem to be absent... As far as we can go now, no holes, no draco! 
 
Aitor

aitor iriarte · 03-21-2004, 10:50 AM

Avete, 
That Nineteenth century report has been really enlightening. It would have been better if several views of each component would have been offered , but the available information is enough as to dismiss the draco hypothesis and accept the carnyx one. Let's see: 
Alongside with the head, lower jaw and palate, another piece, just slightly broader than the diameter of the head and resembling a soup dish in shape was recovered. The bottom of the dish seems to be very poorly preserved, having a big hole in it. 
All the objections mentioned by Dan about the palate and tongue obstructing the air flow towards the windsock are sensible but circumstantial. What is totally clear is that a draco wouldn't work at all if the back section of the head is obstructed by a 'lid' or if its diameter is severely diminished. 
Notwithstanding, those features are what precisely fit a carnyx. All the depictions show a broad head joined by its neck to a narrower tube and that is the mission of the soup dish. The reconstruction as a carnyx fills the gap at its bottom with a narrower mouth that joined the head with the tube of the carnyx. It is difficult to imagine why the mid-section with the ears was totally lost, but it would account for the difference in diameter of the head and the dish... 
Valete, 
 
Aitor

Gregg · 03-22-2004, 07:30 PM

Thanks for the responses, those are all valid points... 
 
First of all, the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œpalateÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

Crispvs · 03-23-2004, 12:05 AM

"(BTW, I should add that the St. Gall Psalter draco could be green because it was constructed of copper alloy)." 
 
Off topic here I know, but if that's true then there is also a depiction in the same picture of a horse in a copper alloy body stocking! Be careful when making assumptions about colour, even when it is contemporary. I do not believe Norman knights, for instance, rode blue horses whose left legs were coloured orange, despite the contemporary evidence of the Bayeaux Tapestry. Colour can be dictated by a number of factors. One is the appearance of reality; another is convention and another is the range of colours available to an artist. There are many more I am sure. 
 
Crispvs

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me