Oval Shields from Dura Europos

[Matt Lukes]

Avete Omnes,

I've seen two nice images of shields from Dura Europos in the Osprey book on late Roman infantry- both made of planks with no fabric or leather covering- and I'm wondering if anyone knows whether or not their construction is typical of shields of the period (mid- late 3rd century AD). And does anyone know what the stiffeners on the back look like? The artwork on the front of the book shows central vertical strips and a central horizontal one with two smaller horizontal ones above and below. I'm also curious if anyone knows how the stiffeners were attached to the planks- it seems to me that they'd have to actually be mechanically attached to provide any real strength, but there's nothing obvious on the fronts of the two I've seen.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Vale

Matt

[Antonius Lucretius]

For starters...
[url:6i6o84zi]http://www.le.ac.uk/archaeology/stj/dura/index.htm[/url]
Then buy S. James book on the revisited Dura excavations.
It's expensive but worth it. You'll find all the details you want on the Dura shields and then some. This book is a must for every reenactor of this period, IMHO...

[url:6i6o84zi]http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/37256?CFID=7107972&CFTOKEN=45794703[/url]

Ahem... After re-checking the last link I got a "page not found" message. Then trying to get to Oxbow Books direct, I could't find anything on their search engine about Simon James. It kept trying to push a book about Simon de Montfort.. :roll:
Pretty efficient site, as you can see.. But well, once you've got their address you can always order by snail mail... :lol:

[richsc]

It's expensive but worth it.

I might add, it will be impossible to find eventually too, since these are small print runs.

[D B Campbell]

In answer to your questions:

whether or not their construction is typical of shields of the period

James (Dura Europos Final Report VII) cites no archaeological comparisons, but notes that the oval shields are similar in shape to depictions on the Arch of Galerius (citing H. Laubscher, Die Reliefschmuck des Galeriusbogens in Thessaloniki, Berlin 1975) and the Geneva silver dish (citing J. Toynbee, "A new Roman mosaic pavement found in Dorset", J. Roman Stud. 54, 1964, 7ff.), as well as later military tombstones. He also notes that they are slightly convex, as suggested by Ammianus Marcellinus (24.6.7).
Some of the shields (catalogue nos. 621, 622, 624, 626) retain evidence of thin animal skin covering (calf skin?), apparently glued to both sides and sealing a layer of fibrous material on the front face. The edge of the shield is thought to have been reinforced with a rawhide binding strip, observed during excavation but no longer surviving. (All of the shield boards have stitching holes around the edge.)

what the stiffeners on the back look like

The shields appear to have had an iron strip right across the back, reinforcing the horizontal hand grip. Certainly, some of the shields (catalogue nos. 616, 617, 618, 619) have rivet holes along the short axis, and James believes that he has identified fragments of the iron reinforcing bars.

the Osprey book on late Roman infantry

I presume you mean Plate A in Late Roman Infantryman (Warrior 9), where the author claims that the shield is "based on an example found at Dura Europos" (p.51).
I cannot find where you saw "central vertical strips and a central horizontal one with two smaller horizontal ones above and below", but the internal view of the shield in Plate A (basically a short handgrip) in no way resembles the version suggested by James.

I hope some of this helps. (It's cheaper than buying the book!)

[Antonius Lucretius]

I hope some of this helps. (It's cheaper than buying the book!)

Yes, but you won't get the very detailed line drawings on how to mount a handle on a shield... Or the position of the strap attachment ring..
Not to mention the innumerable examples of belt fittings, harness mounts, ballista bolts and so on...
Buy the book.

[Matt Lukes]

Whoops, I got the title of the book mixed up with another one I read recently- I meant Osprey's Warrior 72 Imperial roman legionary 161-284 and the stiffener pattern is on the cover, the shields the two pictured within- one having a very saintly-looking (haloed) soldier painted on the front. I'd expected that the cover art should accurately reflect the artifacts, however the actual reverses of the Dura shields aren't shown. While I can clearly see the stitching holes that once held the rawhide rim on, the planks that comprise the shield do appear to be plain wood- were there once a leather, linen or other facing that had degraded, I wouldn't expect to see the painted decoration.

So thanks for the replies so far guys, and Mr. Campbell if I could ask you to see what James says about either of these two shields as far as whether or not they were in fact covered and how the stiffeners did or might have been arranged, and whether or not plank construction is typical of all the examples found or just these two, I would appreciate it.

While I'm sure the book is excellent (thanks for the recommendation Lucretius), and I would normall agree that purchasing such a reference is the way to go, I'm actually just making the shield for someone- late Empire stuff isn't my usual area. He doesn't know the details of the period's equipment well yet either, so I have to appeal to those of you who do for help to get it right :wink:

Magna gratias.

Matt

[D B Campbell]

The previous correspondent is quite right -- if you don't buy the book, you'll miss out on 37 baldric fittings, 37 buckles and fasteners, 36 buckle and belt plates + attachments, 18 attachment loops and rings, 4 button-and-loop fasteners, 56 strap terminals, 50 pendants, 61 studs, and 25 decorative strap mounts. Not quite innumerable. And, I dare say, if you're interested in building a shield, not really relevant either.

Let's get back to the oval shields, shall we?

whether or not plank construction is typical of all the examples found

I should have made this clear. Yes, all the oval shields are made up of thin vertical planks of poplar, glued edge to edge, and given a degree of convexity.
The hand grip apertures were cut in the centre, leaving a horizontal wooden bar which seems then to have been reinforced by riveting a long iron bar to the back. James also conjectures a short length of iron in front of the wooden grip but behind the boss.

the planks that comprise the shield do appear to be plain wood- were there once a leather, linen or other facing that had degraded, I wouldn't expect to see the painted decoration

The shields you're looking at didn't have any facing.
On p.31 (bottom) of Ross Cowan's Imperial Roman Legionary (Warrior 72), you've got a photo of James's "Shield III" (catalogue no. 618), nicknamed the "Shield of the Warrior God".
You'll notice that no.618 is not one of the ones I listed as having evidence of animal skin facing. In fact, nos. 616-620, 623, 625 and 627 appear only to have been coated with a gluey substance, prior to the application of a layer of gesso as a primer for the painted design.
On p.48 (top), you've got a photo of James's "Shield II" (catalogue no. 617), nicknamed the "Amazon shield".
Again, not one of the animal skin covered examples.
(Incidentally, Ross Cowan's photos of the unrestored shields are not available in James's catalogue.)

the actual reverses of the Dura shields aren't shown

Actually, Ross Cowan's Plate H shows the reverse of Shield II (catalogue no.617).

you won't get the position of the strap attachment ring

Indeed, James does conjecture the existence of "a metal ring or loop, attached by a rivet above and to the (bearer's) left of the centre, probably for a hanging/carrying strap".
This is based on the alleged existence of a rivet in this position on Shield I (the so-called Homeric shield, catalogue no.616). James does not illustrate this, nor the associated "iron loop holding a flat articulating copper alloy ring to the back of the shield". Shield II (the so-called Amazon shield, catalogue no.617) apparently had "an iron shank stuck in the board above and to the bearers left of centre, about halfway along the radius. It was curved over into a loop." But none of the other 11 shield boards had anything similar. You may draw your own conclusions.

Again, I hope this helps.

[Matt Lukes]

Perfect! That's exactly what I needed to know- thanks much. I happened to notice on an image of one of the Dura shields has two large, apparently metal, 'rivets' to eother side of the handle and a third above and slightly to one side (Shield II?) presumably these were the attachment points for the iron bar- although I'd have expected one for each plank. I wonder why in Angus McBride's cover painting he shows so many extra stiffeners? I actualy hadn't noticed the reverse of Shield II in Cowan's book- I'll have to look again- thanks for pointing it out.

The book does indeed sound excellent- I may have to invest in it in a bit.

Matt

[Sassanid]

The shields appear to have had an iron strip right across the back, reinforcing the horizontal hand grip. Certainly, some of the shields (catalogue nos. 616, 617, 618, 619) have rivet holes along the short axis, and James believes that he has identified fragments of the iron reinforcing bars.

This is Quinta's take on the vertical planked shield, showing the long iron bar at the rear. Should they be slightly convex, quite possibly? They were made before Simon James' excellent Dura book was published. The front of the shield is faced in linen, the rear is not faced at all on this particular shield.

And yes, I know I am holding the shield right-handed.

Andrew

[Daniel S Peterson]

Matt,
Some of the dura ovals were definately encased in a thin rawhide like the famous scutum, but the one you refer to and some others were only planks. It is my understanding that the planks are merely glued edge to edge, with no kind of notching. I believe there is a close parallel to these shields in the many recovered from North German/Danish bog finds. Considering the other military equipment desposited, we can assume that at least some of these were captured Roman.

The plank only shields would have less strength than those encased in rawhide or with a rawhide face. Perhaps they were intended for a town militia or similar 2nd class troops. It is probable that during the seige additional equipment was quickly made to increase the defensive force, and perhaps during the boredom of the seige, these simple, plank only shields were painted, possibly for relgious reasons/good luck, etc.

Dan

[Theodosius the Great]

Here's my concave shield with a rawhide rim. It's made of horizontal planks.

[Matt Lukes]

Thanks guys- the information is much appreciated

Matt