12-30-2007, 10:51 PM
Yes, there is a clear conflict in sources here, Giannis, but I doubt my source is mistaken. Let us examine the two sources ( and I think there are only two, and that Sekunda( haven't seen this - which of his books is it?), Hanson et al are simply following Connolly.)
As is clear from a comparison of your photos ( thanks for posting these BTW! ) and Connolly's paintings of same, he had at least seen the shield sometime around 1976. It is also clear his paintings are somewhat inaccurate - e.g. he has the porpax intact, the bronze face intact when a considerable part is missing, the rim damage in the wrong place etc etc
My source is Dr G. Jeronimides, via his colleague Dr P.H. Blyth. The Vatican Museum allowed Dr Jeronomides to examine the shield in detail, at around the same time as Connolly ( therefore Connolly's errors/artistic licence are not due to any change in the condition of the shield).I have a copy of his report, which was duly published in Blyth's 1977 Doctoral thesis on the Effectiveness of Greek Armour. I have already mentioned most of his report's findings above, but will include some more detail.
"The shield seems in fairly good condition, although the centre of the bowl and some sections of the rim have been corroded away. (n.b. already in the first line more accurate than Connolly)
The wood inside is not laminated, and about half the original quantity remains.The shield has not been restored in any way, and various bits of wood and other metal fittings are loose (!
hock: )
The outer bronze is very smooth and without any design or engraving on it.
The shape is nearly circular, 82 cmx 81.5 cm.
The thickness of the bronze cover is 0.1 cm or less.There is no sign of weapon damage.
The width of the bronze rim is 3.8 cm, almost constant around the circumference. The rim has seven holes ( diameter about 0.3 cm) more or less evenly spaced. They seem to be rivet or nail holes, but no rivets or nails remain. The petals of the holes point inwards. The edge of the rim is about 0.8 cm deep.
The wood seems to be a long-fibred species. There is no ( sic - typographical error, judging by following context, "no" should be deleted) evidence of some glued joints which indicate that the wooden bowl has been assembled from two or more carved pieces. This is confirmed by the fact that the grain direction is not always the same. At the centre of the bowl the wood thickness is 2.0-2.5 cm. The rim of the wooden bowl has been carved as in fig 1 below. The lower part of the wooden rim has a sort of rib glued to it, and a second rib is glued on the bronze. The two ribs provide the contact ( see fig 2) -[ see attachment for figs 1 and 2 - which clearly show shape different to Connolly]
The inner side of the wooden bowl has been covered with a thin layer of leather ( about 0.25 mm thick) and so has the rim. The junction between the bowl leather and the rim leather seems to have been made by sewing"
Notice that Dr Jeronomides was specifically allowed to examine the shield in detail, and gives exact measurements, which Connolly originally (1977) did not, nor does he say he examined the shield closely.
In his later book, "Greece and Rome at War", Connolly gave a little more detail.(p.53)
"This shield, which probably comes from an Etruscan grave, has survived sufficiently intact to permit a complete restoration with absolute certainty. The complete bronze facing has survived without distortion ( my emphasis - this is also the way he painted it, but he is clearly mistaken, as the photos and Dr Jeronomides description make clear.)
He goes on to describe the rim.....
".. are revealed in the cross section where one can see how how he has had to pad the rim with slivers of wood. In its original form this shield would have weighed about 7kg" ( c.f. Dr Jeronomides detailed description and measurements of the rim 'ribs' - though this could be down to interpretation, Dr J's description and measurements are precise)
"The wooden core core of the Argive shield was only about 0.5 cm in the centre and a re-inforcing plate was often placed on the inside..."
Compare Dr Jeronomides figure of 2.0 cm aprox, tapering (probably intended to be uniform) to 1.9 cm, and then on the steep curve to 1.1.cm - which is much more like what you would expect to find. Connolly's design would make no sense for a shield designed primarily against a spear thrust - a thick rim and thin centre would be most effective against a 'slash' at rim or across the face, rather than a thrust to the face of the shield, where it is thinnest. Dr J's reconstruction ( with detailed measurements) makes much more sense - a fairly uniform thickness, tapering on the steep curve ( where, like tank armour, the 'slope' adds effective thickness)
Given Connolly's errors and lack of detail I would guess he saw the shield, but did not examine it in closely, or measure it,( notice he never says he measured it) hence the errors; and the rest is guesswork on his part. On the other hand, Dr Jeronomides definitely did examine and measure the shield in detail. I therefore prefer Dr J's information as more accurate and correct.......readers must decide for themselves!
D
As is clear from a comparison of your photos ( thanks for posting these BTW! ) and Connolly's paintings of same, he had at least seen the shield sometime around 1976. It is also clear his paintings are somewhat inaccurate - e.g. he has the porpax intact, the bronze face intact when a considerable part is missing, the rim damage in the wrong place etc etc
My source is Dr G. Jeronimides, via his colleague Dr P.H. Blyth. The Vatican Museum allowed Dr Jeronomides to examine the shield in detail, at around the same time as Connolly ( therefore Connolly's errors/artistic licence are not due to any change in the condition of the shield).I have a copy of his report, which was duly published in Blyth's 1977 Doctoral thesis on the Effectiveness of Greek Armour. I have already mentioned most of his report's findings above, but will include some more detail.
"The shield seems in fairly good condition, although the centre of the bowl and some sections of the rim have been corroded away. (n.b. already in the first line more accurate than Connolly)
The wood inside is not laminated, and about half the original quantity remains.The shield has not been restored in any way, and various bits of wood and other metal fittings are loose (!
hock: )The outer bronze is very smooth and without any design or engraving on it.
The shape is nearly circular, 82 cmx 81.5 cm.
The thickness of the bronze cover is 0.1 cm or less.There is no sign of weapon damage.
The width of the bronze rim is 3.8 cm, almost constant around the circumference. The rim has seven holes ( diameter about 0.3 cm) more or less evenly spaced. They seem to be rivet or nail holes, but no rivets or nails remain. The petals of the holes point inwards. The edge of the rim is about 0.8 cm deep.
The wood seems to be a long-fibred species. There is no ( sic - typographical error, judging by following context, "no" should be deleted) evidence of some glued joints which indicate that the wooden bowl has been assembled from two or more carved pieces. This is confirmed by the fact that the grain direction is not always the same. At the centre of the bowl the wood thickness is 2.0-2.5 cm. The rim of the wooden bowl has been carved as in fig 1 below. The lower part of the wooden rim has a sort of rib glued to it, and a second rib is glued on the bronze. The two ribs provide the contact ( see fig 2) -[ see attachment for figs 1 and 2 - which clearly show shape different to Connolly]
The inner side of the wooden bowl has been covered with a thin layer of leather ( about 0.25 mm thick) and so has the rim. The junction between the bowl leather and the rim leather seems to have been made by sewing"
Notice that Dr Jeronomides was specifically allowed to examine the shield in detail, and gives exact measurements, which Connolly originally (1977) did not, nor does he say he examined the shield closely.
In his later book, "Greece and Rome at War", Connolly gave a little more detail.(p.53)
"This shield, which probably comes from an Etruscan grave, has survived sufficiently intact to permit a complete restoration with absolute certainty. The complete bronze facing has survived without distortion ( my emphasis - this is also the way he painted it, but he is clearly mistaken, as the photos and Dr Jeronomides description make clear.)
He goes on to describe the rim.....
".. are revealed in the cross section where one can see how how he has had to pad the rim with slivers of wood. In its original form this shield would have weighed about 7kg" ( c.f. Dr Jeronomides detailed description and measurements of the rim 'ribs' - though this could be down to interpretation, Dr J's description and measurements are precise)
"The wooden core core of the Argive shield was only about 0.5 cm in the centre and a re-inforcing plate was often placed on the inside..."
Compare Dr Jeronomides figure of 2.0 cm aprox, tapering (probably intended to be uniform) to 1.9 cm, and then on the steep curve to 1.1.cm - which is much more like what you would expect to find. Connolly's design would make no sense for a shield designed primarily against a spear thrust - a thick rim and thin centre would be most effective against a 'slash' at rim or across the face, rather than a thrust to the face of the shield, where it is thinnest. Dr J's reconstruction ( with detailed measurements) makes much more sense - a fairly uniform thickness, tapering on the steep curve ( where, like tank armour, the 'slope' adds effective thickness)
Given Connolly's errors and lack of detail I would guess he saw the shield, but did not examine it in closely, or measure it,( notice he never says he measured it) hence the errors; and the rest is guesswork on his part. On the other hand, Dr Jeronomides definitely did examine and measure the shield in detail. I therefore prefer Dr J's information as more accurate and correct.......readers must decide for themselves!
D
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
