when were the Danum shields used??

[Matt Lukes]

I have no axe to grind here Peroni but in terms of your argument, not necessarily so. Yes, I do find it hard to accept the argument over ground pressure deforming the shield and some metal parts but, the domed structure of the boss makes it an entirely different and stronger structure. Of course this argument is based on uniform pressure being applied to the shield as an entity.

While it would be difficult to 'squash' the boss, you would still expect some deformation. I think it is what it is, a flat shield.

I wrote that not Peroni, and I didn't say 'completely squashed'- but perhaps 'deformed at all' would have been better because of course a dome is an extremely strong structure and I only meant that it certainly appears unaffected by any pressure issues :wink: . On the other hand, perhaps the ground pressure was enough to flatten out the quite long bar and the boss flange (enough that it appears flat), and still leaving the dome of the boss intact- maybe enough soil was behind it to avail it of the any stability the shape might not have? It's hard to tell just how thick the bar is from that small, not terribly clear diagram though- the thicker it is, the harder it is to believe it could be straightened without the boss being deformed...

[Peroni]

Well in the diagram it's flat- diagrams are not always perfect however

I have seen the original find up close and personal! A curator from the Doncaster Museum and Gallery named Peter Robinson kindly opened up the case for me. It's very thick metal (approx. 14ga at a guess)

It's flat! :wink:

[Matt Lukes]

You mean the umbo Ade? That's pretty thick for sure- it'd take a LOT of weight to damage a dome like that...

[Peroni]

You mean the umbo Ade?

Yes Matt. Even with a little corrosion (it's iron, but has been well conserved) it's very heavy.

[Tarbicus]

How wide is the bar?

[Peroni]

It's about 20mm wide with the rivets and terminal expansions between 25mm and 28mm. It's about 820mm in length.

[Tarbicus]

It's about 20mm wide with the rivets and terminal expansions between 25mm and 28mm. It's about 850mm in length.

Hmmm. A good size for a deep curved scutum? :wink:

[Peroni]

Hmmm. A good size for a deep curved scutum?

Yes it is, I agree, but the flange of the shield boss is flat Jim. Hence my agreeing with the vertical grip. If it were deeply curved, you would be more likely to see a square or hexagonally flanged umbo. not a circular one. As Martinus said, trying to put a curve into a narrow-flanged circular umbo is very difficult to achieve.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Revival because of this thread:
link from old RAT

IMO the Doncaster shield is quite tricky. A few thoughts:
1. It´s hard to date. Its taq seems to be ca. 86 CE (phase 2), however it may be from phase 2 since there seems to be no additional stratum between the "bonfire" stratum and the base of the Antonine rampart (?) The specific stratum seems not to have had any accompanying finds (?) which would help in dating.

2. The find situation is such that the sides of the shield board (or, as we may see below, its upper and lower part) were simply not present, which allows all kinds of basic outer shield forms to be deduced from the remains. In regard of the construction of the shield board the most sensible reconstruction would IMO be a long-oval shape which might vary from Kasr-El-Harit to Dura Europos: The shield was not rectangular, other shields or shield fragments found which were constructed in this way had such a form. This goes well along the pictorial evidence from the period in question. Especially in regard of the younger arguments about the form of the shields the Valkenburg shield covers were made for.

3. Shield boss: A blown up pic of the bosses´ cross-section shows that the inner rim of the flange is higher than the outer rim. In my experience this is often the case, it is hardly visible at all, but it´s there if you measure it. Even 0,5 to 1mm make quite a difference of this is in regard of the 80 + cm shield width. E.g. a shield from a circular section of a circle with 60 cm radius with a height difference of 1 cm 10 cm away from the centre would have a depth of ~4 cm after 20 , of ~8 cm after 30 and of ~15 cm after 40 cm. We will all agree upon that the the curvature of a Roman shield was certainly less, and that it may have changed over the course of the whole width, as is the case on the Kasr-El-Harit shield.


addendum: depending on the heat of the fire in which the shield was destroyed the flange may have been deformed (flattened) by the weight of the shield´s dome and / or additional pressure when hot.

4. The shield reinforcing bar is, as usual, useless in determining whether the shield was flat ot not. However, it fits nicely with other such pieces from the Raetian and German limites. BUT this requires to turn the shield to the left by 90°. This would put the iron ferrule into a position similar to those on the Dura Europos shields. The result would be a shield very similar to the Dura shields altogether. The width would fit, anyway (~1m at Dura). Move the shield boss a bit downward from the centre of gravity (as on the Dura shields), and voilá.The preserved curve of the Doncaster board would harmonize with the curvature as well.
Here´s a pic of a soldier with a dished shield with the Dura dimensions and horizontal shield reinforcing bar:
So: The shield bar probably was just in this position, but the shield should be turned.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Ahhhh, excellent.....umbones which are designed to do the job they were meant to do.......not just fill the center of a shield and be shiney!!

[jkaler48]

Is it so credible ?

Excuse my english !

I think that the hand grip was vertical, to take some javelins ...

But this supposition is very interesting !

But there are some shields like this one in German/ celtic population .....

With the hand grip vertical......

This shield was for an auxillia infantry or Cavalry....????

For the infantry : it's a light shield for "artilleurs", to attack enemy and going to protect legions ..."It is not very good for the contact..."

I agree that a vertical hand grip is most effective in allowing extra javelins
to be carried while throwing one with the other hand. It may have been the hand grip of choice for some light troops as you propose. I have tried carrying extra javelins with a standard hand grip Cliptus and it is
difficult to carry the javelins so that they don't endanger your own troops.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Something that came to my mind to back up my hypothesis from above:

In Antiquity people were very aware of the different qualities of different kinds of wood. Since the shield´s core is of oak, it wouldn´t make much sense to have the grain of the planks running vertically. Oak is split very easily, this would result in a shield that is far easier split "in half". With the oak planks lying horizontal, the shield would profit from the long oak fibres against "splitting" cuts. Weird would be that the shield would have the outer facings running vertically though, but not impossible, as the Masada fragments suggest.