Wow - extremely interesting new find of an iron age northern European shield dating to before the roman occupation of England:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/may/23/2300-year-old-iron-age-bark-shield-leicestershire
Cheers and beers,
Michael
Nice shield but why does every find these days have to "revolutionize history" or "completely overturn" previous assumptions? It would be neat to be able to simply study it for what it is: an interesting shield.
I hope someone takes up the challenge to reproduce one, I hope there aren't too many puzzle pieces missing in the construction process. I'd love to see a brand new one, with weapons tests and everything!
Slightly less hyped article with excellent illustrations and reconstructions:
shield-found-by-leicester-archaeologists/?fbclid=IwAR2flnVJGDa5RMF5cuqSE8Q_UMXtIrrc6NhmetR3rbI8wRqFpJ5yZ3BK0v8" target="_blank">https://ulasnews.com/2019/05/23/unique-iron-age-shield-found-by-leicester-archaeologists/?fbclid=IwAR2flnVJGDa5RMF5cuqSE8Q_UMXtIrrc6NhmetR3rbI8wRqFpJ5yZ3BK0v8
shield-found-by-leicester-archaeologists/?fbclid=IwAR2flnVJGDa5RMF5cuqSE8Q_UMXtIrrc6NhmetR3rbI8wRqFpJ5yZ3BK0v8" target="_blank">https://ulasnews.com/2019/05/23/unique-iron-age-shield-found-by-leicester-archaeologists/?fbclid=IwAR2flnVJGDa5RMF5cuqSE8Q_UMXtIrrc6NhmetR3rbI8wRqFpJ5yZ3BK0v8
| Dan Howard wrote: |
| Nice shield but why does every find these days have to "revolutionize history" or "completely overturn" previous assumptions? It would be neat to be able to simply study it for what it is: an interesting shield. |
It is a fascinating shield but it should be studied as the revolutionary find that it is. After all . . . before this shield . . . who around here would ever say that Northern European peoples of the era made useful and effective shields out of tree bark? Anyone who'd say that they'd always espoused such an idea is almost guaranteed to be outright lying . . . as even the archaeologists in the article admit that there's NEVER been a find like this before, or even evidence of something like it existing. It's even given them evidence and ideas as to why later shields were shaped the way they were. After all, to quote the lead archaeologist Matt Beamish:
| Quote: |
| This is a lost technology. It has not been seen before as far as we are aware, but presumably it is a technique that was used in many ways for making bark items. |
The reason so many finds are "revolutionizing history" or "completely overturning previous assumptions" is because there have been a lot of - frankly - unfounded assumptions and ideologies that have been branded into our "historical understanding"; and it's been done mostly by people who had little interest in the facets of history that this forum covers. After all, in the past 100 years, people like Oakeshott weren't the rule . . . they were the exception. Only in the last decade or two have the overarching historical community really started to actually care about these facets of history and worked to overturn a lot of the old assumptions and misconceptions that predecessors have had. It's that newfound interest that has caused people to actually TRY to find items like this shield and build a more complete historical understanding.
I'm really curious about the twisted willow boss. All in all, a really interesting find!
| Ben Joy wrote: | ||||
It is a fascinating shield but it should be studied as the revolutionary find that it is. After all . . . before this shield . . . who around here would ever say that Northern European peoples of the era made useful and effective shields out of tree bark? Anyone who'd say that they'd always espoused such an idea is almost guaranteed to be outright lying . . . as even the archaeologists in the article admit that there's NEVER been a find like this before, or even evidence of something like it existing. It's even given them evidence and ideas as to why later shields were shaped the way they were. After all, to quote the lead archaeologist Matt Beamish:
The reason so many finds are "revolutionizing history" or "completely overturning previous assumptions" is because there have been a lot of - frankly - unfounded assumptions and ideologies that have been branded into our "historical understanding"; and it's been done mostly by people who had little interest in the facets of history that this forum covers. After all, in the past 100 years, people like Oakeshott weren't the rule . . . they were the exception. Only in the last decade or two have the overarching historical community really started to actually care about these facets of history and worked to overturn a lot of the old assumptions and misconceptions that predecessors have had. It's that newfound interest that has caused people to actually TRY to find items like this shield and build a more complete historical understanding. |
This is a very important discovery and addition to the archeaology record. But not any sort of 'revolution'.
A revolution to me would be a significant overturning of facts and theories effecting other sheilds, technologies and eras.
Its semantics of course but I think the article would do better tone down its language a little.
| Karl G wrote: |
|
This is a very important discovery and addition to the archeaology record. But not any sort of 'revolution'. A revolution to me would be a significant overturning of facts and theories effecting other sheilds, technologies and eras. Its semantics of course but I think the article would do better tone down its language a little. |
Certainly one could debate what each of us consider this as a "semantics issue", but personally I think it's worth more than being given credit for here.
A technique they believed was used for making common items of bark discovered to actually also be used for military hardware in the form of shields? Then it's built with techniques that they only have passing knowledge of and have never found an actual physical sample of? Those are pretty big deals, as it does "revolutionize" how they're looking at some other shields in addition to revealing a new type of shield they never thought was even made in that region and era. They now have to reevaluate how they've previously assessed shields that they'd assumed they had all of the answers for. In addition, they actually have a physical sample for a fabrication technique that they've apparently never found a reasonably preserved sample of before; and that can give them a great deal of insight into completely different facets of life in the era. It's a win-win for the fields of Archaeology and Historians.
Again, I think the biggest reason for all of the "revolutionizing" and "overturning" of previously assessed history is because of the recently newfound interest on these facets of history. Sure, the rhetoric might go too far some times, but when a completely undiscovered class of item is found (in this case a new type of shield that they'd never thought was made before), I would absolutely use that kind of language here.
It is just a shield made from bark. There are examples all over the world from the Americas to Africa to Australia.
| Ben Joy wrote: |
| Again, I think the biggest reason for all of the "revolutionizing" and "overturning" of previously assessed history is because of the recently newfound interest on these facets of history. Sure, the rhetoric might go too far some times, but when a completely undiscovered class of item is found (in this case a new type of shield that they'd never thought was made before), I would absolutely use that kind of language here. |
Honestly, I may be somewhat cynical, but I think the main reason for all the revolutionizing and overturning in journalism (you won't find this language in the actual academic work being reported on) is that sensationalism sells, nothing more.
| Dan Howard wrote: |
| It is just a shield made from bark. There are examples all over the world from the Americas to Africa to Australia. |
Ok . . . then show me all of the other found examples that use THIS technique and are built in THIS way and all of the reproductions people have been able to make using THIS technique that's never been fully documented before. Do that and it won't be such a unique find. I won't hold my breath, since the Archaeologists (NOT the article writers) stated it's a one-of-a-kind and never been found before.
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: |
|
Honestly, I may be somewhat cynical, but I think the main reason for all the revolutionizing and overturning in journalism (you won't find this language in the actual academic work being reported on) is that sensationalism sells, nothing more. |
That's a reasonably fair point, but where was the sensationalism over these kinds of finds 20 years ago? The historical/archaeological community didn't really give a red-rat's-behind about this kind of stuff until pretty recently. While we, sadly, probably have things like Game of Thrones, Vikings, Lord of the Rings movies, etc. to thank for that, which create plenty of misconceptions (like a sword or arrows just punching right through plate armor like paper), this relatively newfound interest is the only reason things like this would even receive any level of sensationalism . . . deserved or not (which is obviously up for debate).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets put it into another perspective, what if they found -in a battlefield dig- a surviving sample of cuir bouilli armor? We can say, "Well, we've already found plenty of surviving samples of historical leather . . . it's not such a big deal!" But wouldn't it actually be a big deal, really? There's already so much debate over how the stuff was made and utilized as armor (and still plenty of people who say it was NEVER used as armor, right or not) having a truly surviving sample that could be analyzed would likely put a lot of those questions to rest. Even on this very forum we've had people debating how it was made, how effective it truly could have been, and discussions over all the materials involved (I remember several people, including Mr. Todeschini, discussing a way it could have been made that was more like fiberglass in application and building, which is pretty out there in the grand scheme).
Well . . . here we have a surviving sample of a building technique that's never been found before. It will answer a LOT of questions and put a lot of theory-craft to rest. Then, on top of it, it is an item that NO ONE, EVER, thought was made with the technique to begin with. That is, in fact, a big deal . . . just as big of a deal as if someone found a surviving sample of cuir bouilli.
To me, that is a big deal . . . whether people agree or not is their opinion; and that's fine . . . it makes for interesting debate. However, I honestly think a big reason some people would be inclined to blow this off is because it's "just" a shield; and it's not something "truly amazing" . . . which is their prerogative. I'm curious what they'd think if it was a piece of cuir bouilli.
| Ben Joy wrote: |
| That's a reasonably fair point, but where was the sensationalism over these kinds of finds 20 years ago? The historical/archaeological community didn't really give a red-rat's-behind about this kind of stuff until pretty recently. While we, sadly, probably have things like Game of Thrones, Vikings, Lord of the Rings movies, etc. to thank for that, which create plenty of misconceptions (like a sword or arrows just punching right through plate armor like paper), this relatively newfound interest is the only reason things like this would even receive any level of sensationalism . . . deserved or not (which is obviously up for debate). |
Why sadly? Does it really matter what sparks interest in actual research, as long the interest is genuinely there? How many of us were initially brought here by Conan and Lord of the Rings? :)
It's true that there's more reporting about academic subjects like history and science than before - but there's also significantly more reporting about everything. I'm not sure that the actual proportion of these to other subjects has changed at all.
| Quote: |
| Well . . . here we have a surviving sample of a building technique that's never been found before. It will answer a LOT of questions and put a lot of theory-craft to rest. Then, on top of it, it is an item that NO ONE, EVER, thought was made with the technique to begin with. That is, in fact, a big deal . . . just as big of a deal as if someone found a surviving sample of cuir bouilli. |
But that's not true. This is the first shield made of bark found in Europe, specifically. As Dan already said, there are plenty of shields made of bark with the same or similar methods found elsewhere - there's nothing new about the material or the technique nor their application to shield making. The only thing about this that's actually news is the specific cultural context in which this particular specimen was found.
It's very interesting, sure, but it doesn't revolutionize our understanding of Celtic history or turn our conception of early Iron Age material culture upside down, or anything of the sort. It just adds one more little piece to the big picture.
Last edited by Mikko Kuusirati on Tue 28 May, 2019 4:05 pm; edited 3 times in total
| Matthew Amt wrote: |
| Slightly less hyped article with excellent illustrations and reconstructions:
shield-found-by-leicester-archaeologists/?fbclid=IwAR2flnVJGDa5RMF5cuqSE8Q_UMXtIrrc6NhmetR3rbI8wRqFpJ5yZ3BK0v8" target="_blank">https://ulasnews.com/2019/05/23/unique-iron-age-shield-found-by-leicester-archaeologists/?fbclid=IwAR2flnVJGDa5RMF5cuqSE8Q_UMXtIrrc6NhmetR3rbI8wRqFpJ5yZ3BK0v8 |
Can't get this link to work.
Found this one
https://www2.le.ac.uk/services/ulas/discoveries/projects/iron-age/enderby-shield
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: |
| It's very interesting, sure, but it doesn't revolutionize our understanding of Celtic history or turn our conception of early Iron Age material culture upside down, or anything of the sort. It just adds one more little piece to the big picture. |
We've known for two thousand years that the Celts made shields from bark because Caesar wrote about them. We already knew how they looked because there is plenty of iconographical evidence as well as actual shields made from other materials. We've already guessed how they were made based on all the other bark shields from around the world. It is nice to have confirmation but it hardly revolutionizes or overturns anything.
Keep in mind that this is just one example. We already know from other regions that bark shields can be made many different ways, even in the same culture. The woven boss and lathe reinforcement are nice touches but it would be foolish to assume that they were all made like this. Caesar said that some Gallic bark shields were faced with hide.
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: |
|
Why sadly? Does it really matter what sparks interest in actual research, as long the interest is genuinely there? How many of us were initially brought here by Conan and Lord of the Rings? :) It's true that there's more reporting about academic subjects like history and science than before - but there's also significantly more reporting about everything. I'm not sure that the actual proportion of these to other subjects has changed at all. |
I say sadly in the sense (and we've even seen it here on these forums) that you have people coming in with preconceptions like, "Well, I played For Honor and it's supposed to have the most authentic historical battle experience." or, "I watch Vikings on History Channel, so they absolutely did things historically accurate." Therefore it brings people in with false misconceptions in this modern era.
Sure, many of us came in by seeing some medieval fantasy movie or reading a book and going, "Wow, that's interesting." However, we had the belief that what we read or saw was fantasy, not reality, and wanted to learn more. A lot of the newer interest is coming in with severe misconceptions of what reality is.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing that they have the interest. I'm saying it's sad the misconceptions that are propagated and brought in as perceived fact. It's the reverse in the interest gaining trend that I find sad.
In regards to the change in proportions for the research. From ~1900 through to ~1970 you had Peterson, Dr. Wheeler, and Oakeshott as the only real major voices, on these subjects, that's readily accessible. I'm sure there's more, but it wasn't/isn't popular or readily accessible (just look at some of the costs of books on this forum). Nowadays there's large amounts of archaeological attention to these subjects from almost every major university in the Western World. I'm sure some of it is just the modern information age, but some of it is absolutely the major increase in actual academic attention, funding, and personnel on the subject.
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: |
|
But that's not true. This is the first shield made of bark found in Europe, specifically. As Dan already said, there are plenty of shields made of bark with the same or similar methods found elsewhere - there's nothing new about the material or the technique nor their application to shield making. The only thing about this that's actually news is the specific cultural context in which this particular specimen was found. It's very interesting, sure, but it doesn't revolutionize our understanding of Celtic history or turn our conception of early Iron Age material culture upside down, or anything of the sort. It just adds one more little piece to the big picture. |
| Dan Howard wrote: |
|
We've known for two thousand years that the Celts made shields from bark because Caesar wrote about them. We already knew how they looked because there is plenty of iconographical evidence as well as actual shields made from other materials. We've already guessed how they were made based on all the other bark shields from around the world. It is nice to have confirmation but it hardly revolutionizes or overturns anything. Keep in mind that this is just one example. We already know from other regions that bark shields can be made many different ways, even in the same culture. The woven boss and lathe reinforcement are nice touches but it would be foolish to assume that they were all made like this. Caesar said that some Gallic bark shields were faced with hide. |
The archaeologists is directly quoted as saying its the first shield found of its type that uses its construction technique. If there's evidence to the contrary readily available, then WHY would the archaeologist make this statement in particular? Where is the evidence that makes this statement false?
| Quote: |
| “This is a lost technology. It has not been seen before as far as we are aware, but presumably it is a technique that was used in many ways for making bark items.” |
With that said, how is that NOT an extremely notable, if not revolutionary, find. We've found bark shields from around the world, but were they made the EXACT same way? If so, then were's YOUR evidence for that. My agreement that this is an extremely important find is in the article. Where are these other bark shield finds that provide PHYSICAL evidence of these EXACT kinds of shields. I'm not talking about written stories or drawn pictures that, you Dan in particular, like to dismiss as "non representative" of the items involved in numerous other threads, due to issues in translation, storytelling, inaccurate drawing, and lack of physical evidence to support a written work. Frankly, that's being hypocritical here.
To say, "well, we've found other bark shields in the world, and they're all the same" frankly is absurd. That's like saying, "the English had bows, the Mongols had bows, the Japanese had bows, and the Native Americans had bows . . . so obviously they were all made EXACTLY the same way and a bow is a bow is a bow". That's just foolish.
It's not just that it's a bark shield. That's far too short-sighted of a way of looking at it. It's like what I said about the "what if" scenario as a sample of cuir bouilli armor. We are, for the first time, seeing one of these shields, in an at least semi-preserved state, as it physically was and seeing -for the first time EVER- the actual construction techniques that no one has EVER recreated. Leather armor is used throughout the world, but we haven't found a definitive sample of cuir bouilli . . . so are we just to assume that it was the same leather armor used throughout the world over, when we have no evidence of that? That's the same situation as this shield.
So what exactly is new or different? The lathe reinforcement is not new. The wooden edging is not new. The central boss is not new. The handgrip is not new. The type of bark is not new. The shape of the shield is not new. It is the only example in which all of these features appear on one shield but this makes it a curiosity not a revolutionary.
| Dan Howard wrote: |
| So what exactly is new or different? The lathe reinforcement is not new. The wooden edging is not new. The central boss is not new. The handgrip is not new. The type of bark is not new. The shape of the shield is not new. It is the only example in which all of these features appear on one shield but this makes it a curiosity not a revolutionary. |
Again, where is your PHYSICAL evidence of these shields already being found, and having evidence of existing, exactly how this Celtic shield is built? You're saying it's not new and we've had examples of these shields for ages. Where is your evidence? Where are these other physical examples that prove the archaeologist in the article wrong?
With everything you've said, you should be able to drop some quick links of actual physical evidence of these EXACT shields, OR you have to admit that it's the first time physical evidence of these shields has ever been found. If it is the first, then therefore it is a revolutionary find in the fact it provides actual physical evidence not only of the shields, but of the construction methods . . . of which the archaeologist directly stated there was ZERO evidence of ever being found before (not just shields, but the method in general, which makes it an even bigger deal).
Therefore . . . prove them wrong. Show us this evidence of these EXACT shields already being found, and that we've already got physical evidence of this exact Celtic bark construction method. Please show us this evidence that you have that the British Museum and the University of Leicester do not have and have never heard of.
I already said that there are no shields that match it exactly. Every design feature has been used on other shields so this one is hardly revolutionary.
Very cool shield! That reproduction shown in the University of Leicester article,linked above, looks really good.Makes me want to have a go at making one.
Does anyone know of the earliest example of a shield with a central grip and boss?I know there are plenty of bronze age examples but am curious as to just how far back these were used.
Does anyone know of the earliest example of a shield with a central grip and boss?I know there are plenty of bronze age examples but am curious as to just how far back these were used.
| Dan Howard wrote: |
| I already said that there are no shields that match it exactly. Every design feature has been used on other shields so this one is hardly revolutionary. |
So you are literally going with the absurd logic I presented earlier that "a bow is a bow is a bow". Gotcha. Well, in your eyes it isn't revolutionary . . . that's your opinion. The professional archaeological community disagrees.
Actually having a physical sample of something that's NEVER been found before is a BIG deal and quite revolutionary (both for the shield and for the construction technique). It confirms a great deal, dispels a great deal, and also gives insight that was never able to be ascertained before in a proper fashion. If that's not revolutionary, then apparently we should just stop digging up swords or pieces of bronze junk and take everything written as gospel . . . because . . . you know . . . we've seen it all already.
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum