Time and place for this shield boss?

[Dan D'Silva]

Hello there,

Can anyone advise how authentic this shield boss is and what time range and area, if any, it would be correct for?  The closest archaeological match I've found is the one from Glauberg, but that one has a much, much larger flange.

   

[Sean Manning]

Iron shield bosses were used for about 2,000 years across a vast area. I don't think anyone in the world has studied all of them. Could you narrow down what you are looking for in terms of place and time?

The European bosses I am familiar with are round, but there might be something like that in the period of transition from the spined shield to the bossed shield around the first century BCE and first century CE. If I can think of a good book on the transition between the two designs I will add it, its hard because archaeologists sometimes call the reinforcement on the middle of the spina of a spined shield the umbo or boss.

South Asian bosses are often a bit bigger than originals (because the Viking Fightin' groups wear thick gloves) and a bit thicker (because steel is cheap, nobody today marches with their shield for a month, and customers expect their toys not to need maintenance)

[Dan D'Silva]

Thank you.  From what I know, apart from the Glauberg find, it also looks like a steel version of some of the ones from Hjortspring.  Between the two sites, it would suggest a time range of around 500-300 BCE and area of western Germany to southern Denmark, so early La Tene and Jastorf.  The thing is, it's not quite a match for either of these, so I'm just wondering if anyone has seen any archaeological finds that are more like it.

[Sean Manning]

I'm not a specialist in barbarian Europe, but my understanding is that the long wooden shield with a spine down the middle which swells over the handhole into an umbo appears in the Iron Age. As iron and bronze become more affordable, better shields start to have a plate of bronze or iron over the wooden umbo to stop incoming weapons from piercing the wood and wounding the hand. As time passes, these plates are more and more intricately shaped rather than just being a trough hammered from a rectangle of iron or bronze. Sometime around the first century BCE or first century CE, actual round all-iron bosses appear. This correlates with the appearance of large, round shields in sites in Denmark although Roman imperial art continues to show barbarians with long oval or hexagonal shields. So to my limited and incomplete knowledge, there were no all-iron shield bosses in barbarian Europe at the same time as the Hjortspring deposits.

Could you point us to some information on the find from Glauberg which you are thinking of?

Edit: Back in 2008, Ruben P. thought that round iron shield bosses were first attested in barbarian Europe around 150 BCE. He tends to know his stuff but I would always recommend using an actual reference book or scholarly article rather than a web posting!

[Sean Manning]

Some references on the transition from the iron-plated wooden umbo to the all-iron boss (but two are only on the pre-Roman-empire period, and one is on a specific archaeological culture in what is today Poland and Germany in the Roman Imperial period). I repeat that I am not a specialist!

Brunaux and Rapin's "Gournay II" (in French)
Bartosz Kontny's "The war as seen by an archaeologist. Reconstruction of barbarian weapons and fighting techniques in the Roman Period based on the analysis of graves containing weapons. The case of the Przeworsk Culture" (JRMES 16, PDF is googlable)
Gioal Canestrelli's "Celtic Warfare"

[Dan D'Silva]

Could you point us to some information on the find from Glauberg which you are thinking of?

Here is the best picture I've found of it.  They like to make a point of the boss being similar to the one on the Glauberg Prince statue's shield.  I've variously seen the Prince claimed to be from c. 500 BCE and late Hallstatt or c. 450 and early La Tene.

A similar one from Austria (or at least I think it's from Austria; that's where the museum is, at any rate -- can't hardly find out anything about the Moserstein site) which the Wikimedia page claims is c. 410-370.  I'll try to find better citations.

I'll check out Kontny and Canestrelli.  At a cursory look, "Gournay II" sounds like a good source 'cause it's got boucliers in the title, but...  uh...  monolingual American here.

Thanks again.

[Sean Manning]

Interesting pictures!

It might be that some of the really early spina shields in Austria and southern Germany took a later path than the later Gallic shields, but I don't have any references on that place and time. I would look into whether those were iron bosses over a wooden core, or all-iron bosses applied to a flat board.

I think Canestrelli does not go further into central Europe than Switzerland and Tirol.

[Sean Manning]

This article by Peter F. Stary in Germania is a classic but its in German and not as extensively illustrated as Brunaux and Rapin https://doi.org/10.11588/ger.1981.91654

Some archaeologists seem to think that shields shaped like a stretched hide, such as the shield from the Keltenmuseum in Hallein, were a thing in the Early Iron Age. I am sorry but I have no idea where people who know Iron Age shields in central and northern Europe hang out these days!

[Crispianus]

Thank you.  From what I know, apart from the Glauberg find, it also looks like a steel version of some of the ones from Hjortspring.  Between the two sites, it would suggest a time range of around 500-300 BCE and area of western Germany to southern Denmark, so early La Tene and Jastorf.  The thing is, it's not quite a match for either of these, so I'm just wondering if anyone has seen any archaeological finds that are more like it.

Well I think you've got the date about right there (late Hallstadt-early La tene), some very similar stuff here:

"Ein eisenzeitlicher Prunkschild vom Dürrnberg bei Hallein, Land Salzburg" pg 96-7 has illustrations...

In the above link clink on the PDF button for the article.

[Sean Manning]

If I read page 88 rightly, they think that the iron umbo on the Dürnnberg 373 shield was a plating for a wooden core. They suggest that it was shaped like the large shield in the relief from Bormio in the Italian Alps. Its made from two layers of alder and covered and perhaps lined (p. 93) with bovine hide, but too badly preserved to determine whether the layers were solid or composed of narrower laths or boards. The iron umbo consists of a left half and a right half.

Confusingly, the British shields with concave top and bottom edges and convex sides are also described as shaped like a stretched skin.

[Crispianus]

If I read page 88 rightly, they think that the iron umbo on the Dürnnberg 373 shield was a plating for a wooden core.  They suggest that it was shaped like the large shield in the relief from Bormio in the Italian Alps.  Its made from two layers of alder and covered and perhaps lined (p. 93) with bovine hide, but too badly preserved to determine whether the layers were solid or composed of narrower laths or boards.  The iron umbo consists of a left half and a right half.

To clarify I was refering to the illustrations rather then the article itself, specifically to illustrations on pg 96-7, which has two bosses of similar form: 2a-b Bránov (no13 in the article below) and 4a-b Dürrnberg bei Hallein, Grab 39/2.

Heres a comprehensive article on the subject: "Ursprung und Ausbreitung der eisenzeitlichen Ovalschilde mit  spindelförmigem Schildbuckel" Stary 1981, though dont take the dates as gospel there are different opinions...

[Dan D'Silva]

Thanks Ivor.  The one from Branov is so similar that I could believe the repro is an inexact copy of it specifically.  Several obvious differences, IMO the biggest being that the original looks to me as though it has openings for spines, which if true suggests that it is indeed meant to cover a wooden boss.

The clearest explanation about the date for Glauberg that I can read is Thomas Stöllner's "Between ruling ideology and ancestor worship:  The Mos Maiorum of the early Celtic 'Hero Graves'" (JSTOR). The upshot is that according to Stöllner the burial goods are more characteristic of early La Tene than late Hallstatt.

Interesting to see that the Strettweg riders have long shields with round bosses.  I wonder what those looked like.

[Crispianus]

Thanks Ivor.  The one from Branov is so similar that I could believe the repro is an inexact copy of it specifically.  Several obvious differences, IMO the biggest being that the original looks to me as though it has openings for spines, which if true suggests that it is indeed meant to cover a wooden boss.

The clearest explanation about the date for Glauberg that I can read is Thomas Stöllner's "Between ruling ideology and ancestor worship:  The Mos Maiorum of the early Celtic 'Hero Graves'" (JSTOR). The upshot is that according to Stöllner the burial goods are more characteristic of early La Tene than late Hallstatt.

Interesting to see that the Strettweg riders have long shields with round bosses.  I wonder what those looked like.

Yes I think its quite possible that this type of split boss has a wooden support in battleshields, it would make sense as the two halves would likely not have withstood a blow, in particular because they seem to have a gap bettween them which the spine channel covers.
The illustration for the Branov boss should show this gap but doesn't, this would make it around 14cm wide (assuming the gap is a bit less then the channel) at the grip, which is more them enough for a substantial wooden support and room for the hand, also its been crushed a bit so would be higher then the drawing suggests, perhaps 1-1.5cm more at the center.

Back to the "replica" boss you show, is this one piece? how big is it?...

Glauberg shield boss is there any articles on this?, as I'm getting no results...

   
"Der eiserne Schildbuckel lag im Zentrum eines ovalen Schildes aus Lindenholz. Vorder- und Rückseite waren mit Rinderleder bezogen und verziert. Das Schild war 110 cm hoch, 70 cm breit."

[Dan D'Silva]

I had noticed the Branov boss was in two halves, but I'd wondered if it might have been welded down the middle and later split.

I can't find any scholarly articles on the Glauberg boss specifically.  Most of the results for "Glauberg" on JSTOR are in German, but even then adding "Buckel" or "Schildbuckel" produces very few results.  I'm not really seeing anything on Academia that looks relevant either, although it could be that I just don't know how to search effectively.

The repro is 27.8cm high, 19.5cm wide including the flanges, 14cm wide on the interior, and about 6cm high at the ridge.  It's one piece and 14ga steel.  Definitely meant to be used on its own, although a bit larger than it needs to be for that purpose.

[Sean Manning]

I had noticed the Branov boss was in two halves, but I'd wondered if it might have been welded down the middle and later split.

I can't find any scholarly articles on the Glauberg boss specifically.  Most of the results for "Glauberg" on JSTOR are in German, but even then adding "Buckel" or "Schildbuckel" produces very few results.  I'm not really seeing anything on Academia that looks relevant either, although it could be that I just don't know how to search effectively.

The repro is 27.8cm high, 19.5cm wide including the flanges, 14cm wide on the interior, and about 6cm high at the ridge.  It's one piece and 14ga steel.  Definitely meant to be used on its own, although a bit larger than it needs to be for that purpose.

I think the place to look would be the preliminary and final reports on the excavations (which will be in German).  Many European countries require archaeologists to publish those promptly to remain eligible for grants. I don't know where those are published, but one of the previews of the book Celtic Art in Europe: Making Connections points to the volume

H. Baitinger, und B. Pinsker, Das Rätsel der Kelten vom Glauberg: Glaube - Mythos - Wirklichkeit: Begleitband zur Ausstellung des Landes Hessen in der Schirn-Kunsthalle Frankfurt 24. Mai bis 1. September 2002. Schirn-Kunsthalle and Hessische Kultur GmbH: Stuttgart, 2002.

Its a companion volume for a museum exhibition so its probably well illustrated.  I doubt there is anything detailed in English on late Halstatt and early La Tène arms and arms unfortunately (although the book by Canestrelli covers La Tène arms and armour south and west of a line from Veneto to Northern England.