shield boss

[Chuck Russell]

do you think if i used a round shield boss on my "Celtic" shield instead of a pointed one with e nut on the end i would be cast out ? heheh i have an oval shield and want to make a wooden spine with e butterfly boss, but right now i just don't have the time, resources or cash flow. my look is 1st century b.c. continent

[Paullus Scipio]

No problemo , Chuck !
A number of circular domed shield bosses come from Gaul, with a well-established dating of c. 150 BC- Ist century AD times (la Tene III). Other's come from Caesarian sites.
Similar types have been found in Britain. One elaborately decorated example was found in South Cadbury hill fort and positively dated 1st C BC, or possibly as late as the early 1st C AD if it was still in use during the Roman Invasion.
Another elaborately decorated example, with a smallish boss and large flange, called the 'Round Wandsworth shield Boss' dates from the 3C BC, and is decorated with highly stylised bird's heads.

[MeinPanzer]

As Paul says, round shield bosses are perfectly fine for c. 1st C. BC impressions. However, don't make the mistake many do and place the round shield boss before the late 2nd C. BC- it was only after this period that the median spine with barley-corn boss began to be replaced by the circular boss without spine simultaneously among the Celts of western and central Europe and the Germanic peoples of northern and northeastern Europe.

[M. Demetrius]

On the idea of the pointed, or conical-ended bosses...anybody have a good idea about how to hammer those out? Round is not such a problem, but I'm considering one of the more Germanic types. Ideas, anyone?

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread. *click*

[Paullus Scipio]

Reuben wrote:-

However, don't make the mistake many do and place the round shield boss before the late 2nd C. BC- it was only after this period that the median spine with barley-corn boss began to be replaced by the circular boss without spine simultaneously among the Celts of western and central Europe and the Germanic peoples of northern and northeastern Europe.

.......true in a general sense - round shield bosses are exceptional rather than the rule down to late 2C B.C. and later, and barleycorn/spine types still predominate in the finds from Alesia, for example, but....
Paullus wrote:-

the 'Round Wandsworth shield Boss' dates from the 3C BC, and is decorated with highly stylised bird's heads.

......the 3C B.C. dating on this shield-boss is very firm, it being found with another as part of a (presumed) votive deposit, Reuben.

[MeinPanzer]

.......true in a general sense - round shield bosses are exceptional rather than the rule down to late 2C B.C. and later, and barleycorn/spine types still predominate in the finds from Alesia, for example, but....

Of course, the spine and barley-corn boss doesn't disappear entirely until the 1st C. AD, but it certainly became uncommon.

......the 3C B.C. dating on this shield-boss is very firm, it being found with another as part of a (presumed) votive deposit, Reuben.

I've heard 2nd-1st C. BC before. I'm curious who dates it to the 3rd C. BC and on what basis?

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:-

I've heard 2nd-1st C. BC before. I'm curious who dates it to the 3rd C. BC and on what basis?

The Witham shield was originally in the Meyrick collection ( along with the Meyrick helmet) and was presented to the British Museum in 1872.The two Wandsworth shield bosses (round and long) came from the Thames at Wandsworth, and were presented to the British Museum by the Archaeological institute in 1858. All three are stylistically very similar in their decorative style.
In 1955, Professors Piggott and Atkinson sought to date these items, which of course were all river votive finds, with no 'context' to help date them. They argued that the style was clearly an indigenous British style that developed in the late 3C B.C., pointing to the Torrs Chamfron of identical style and on the basis of the continental Waldalgesheim and 'Hungarian sword' styles. On that basis they dated these items firmly to the late 3 C B.C. i.e. circa just before 200 B.C give or take.....

In the 1970's Mansel Spratling added further commentary following the discovery of the South Cadbury shield boss of similar style from a firm stratified first century B.C. context, or possibly up to the fort's demise.
Spratling therefore concluded that the style persisted later than had previously been thought i.e. from 3 C B.C. - 1C B.C. and possibly into 1C A.D. based on continental parallels....
The other great river votive find, the well-known Battersea shield came from the Thames in 1857 and is dated to late 1C B.C.-early 1C A.D. on stylistic grounds.

In the light of all the above, late 3C B.C. seems the earliest, but if the style continued to exist, then it could be later, despite professors Piggott and Atkinson, who were unaware at the time of the later South Cadbury boss.......which would explain why 2nd-1st C B.C. have been suggested.....
Sorry to post such a lengthy reply, but it does emphasise some of the difficulties of dating, especially when the artifact is not in a 'stratified layer' which can be altered by later finds..........

[MeinPanzer]

So, it sounds like it very plausibly could be dated from the end of the 3rd to the 1st C. BC. It seems very likely that it dates to the latter portion of that period rather than the former, which would be most harmonious with the appearance of such bosses elsewhere.