Shield thickness

[Tarbicus]

but probably larger areas like the wings were done in a method similar to that of the early medieval shields.

Hi Dan. I still don't really understand why that would be (with gypsum)? Why couldn't the wings have been metal, which would make a certain amount of sense given the other artefacts that have been found? Unless it's precisely because they haven't been found?

Jim.

[Neuraleanus]

Am I correctly understanding you Dan, a shield made from two pieces of rawhide with metal reinforcement, but no wooden core? :?:

[caiusbeerquitius]

I agree to a certain extent. The problem is, that a lot of evidence from reliefs is inaccurate for several reasons:

1. The sketchbooks mentioned above. This is not a mere theory, but widely accepted among art-historians

2. Mechanical reasons. There are also reliefs or statues, where the clavi of tunics are shown in relief, to make it easier for the painter (?), and to show them in a more distinctive way. Such a piece (1st century AD) is here in Augsburg, e.g.

3. Often certain details were visible only in the paint (vice versa to the argument above). E.g. Pubic hair on many statues.

4. Size of - and size relationships between - items are very often distorted due to the usually not first-hand character of information available to the sculptor.

If one is able to apply a critical method for interpreting the reliefs and statues, which takes these factors into account, this evidence can be helpful. Alas, many archaeologists and historians are tempted to make their statements too quick.
Your example above seems quite reasonable, however.
I have the standpoint, that reliefs and statuary are useful sources, but that they have to be examined with a (very) critical method, otherwise they seem to be more confusing than they seem to be helpful.

As far as the rawhide shields go: It is imaginable, but lacks any evidence. I would obstain from such a construction.