Discovering how a bark shield from the Iron Age was made | Curator's Corner Se9 Ep2 | Sophia Adams
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 тра 2024
- The only way to find out what the Enderby Shield, the only known Iron Age shield made from bark, may actually have looked like is to task a crack team of experimental archaeologists with crazy Iron Age skills, and a nose for detective work, to authentically recreate it.
Curator of European and Roman Conquest period, Sophia Adams and this extraordinary team follow a trail of clues from laboratory findings at the British Museum, to marks and patterns on the remains of the shield itself, as they forensically piece together how this bark shield would have been constructed 2200 years ago.
This shield project was made possible by the inspiration and knowledge of Matthew Beamish and the skills and dedication of a team of field archaeologists, experimental archaeologists, independent specialists, conservators and scientists from The British Museum, University of Leicester Archaeological Services le.ac.uk/ulas, SUERC and York Archaeological Trust; including Caroline Cartwright and Barbara Wills (BM); Prof. Melanie Giles, Matthew Beamish, Adam Clapton and Roger Kipling (ULAS); Diederik Pomstra, Paul Windridge and Michael Bamforth. With thanks to Everards of Leicestershire and Mike Winterton and family.
#experimentalarchaeology #woodcraft #woodworking #basketry #ironage #shield #barkshield
Some of you may have missed it, but we sat down with curator, Sophia Adams after the previous Enderby shield film (SE8 Ep7), and asked her to answer some of your questions. The most important one being… ua-cam.com/video/vDYDyhcUiPI/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared&t=1274
If I may humbly add that, if you harvest green bark and it's under layer, you can add wax and heat to turn it more leathery. I play at stick making and find that if you warm the bark, add melted wax, heat, add wax, over and over until it won't accept any more. I've done this on maple and oak.
The other approach is to paint it with several layers of thinned glue (which also helps fill in any tiny holes), then once it has thoroughly dried stabilise it by coating it with a layer of paste wax to protect it from the inevitable British rain. And from the blood of your enemies, of course.
Bees wax is a high-price, rather rare material.
Especially if you talk a vat big enough to cook full shields in, to seep it in.
This was obviously a cheap, homemade solution simple peasant warriors could easily construct themselves over winter.
Bark, wood strips, wooden rim strengthening, basts, a basketry buckle - thats all _"go into the woods and collect it yourself"_ stuff.
I´ll believe you at once it strengthens the material - especially if you repeatedly heat it. The waterproofing effect alone would be highly desierable.
But I would be surprised if those economics worked out back then.
Wonderful to get this kind of presentation from a group of archeologists who are outstanding in their field. Also, out sitting in their field.
So glad there are people who spend the time and money to recreate ancient times! Enjoyed this and a lovely job!
This is my idea of a great use for museums and their budgets...learning what it took to maintain life in a past so distant we can't even imagine it. So we do it, and learn what they knew! TYVM for doing it and showing it to us.
Love me some experimental archaeology
Australia still has some "shield trees/scar trees" with a large oval scar were aboriginals removed a piece or bark to make it into a shield. Interesting comparison
Totally fascinating.
What a great bunch of experts.
3:40 "You wouldn't expect someone going into battle waving a bark shield..."
At first thought maybe, but add a second thought regarding the number of slingers who will be on the battlefield. A stout piece of wood between you and a lead ball the width of your thumb arriving at speed is a good thing.
Great video! And amazing to see the shield on display in the British Museum 👍🏻
Really shows the value of experimental archeology and reconstruction!
You can definitely learn a lot about items by making your own.
Nice to watch something for 16 minutes without people shouting and insulting each other; best to you all.
Nice!! You guys didn't steal this one! Way to go, team! 👏🏼👏🏼
Keep it up.
Thank you for showing how you worked out
the possible way the shield was made. I think it works for me.👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Sally Pointer has a u tube channel that shows a lot of early textile working techniques Well worth searching for. She deals with harvesting and preparing a range of
natural fibres.
Thanks ive added that channel now. Looks really interesting
Absolutely beautiful.
Wonderful video! Thank you!
i saw privous clip and it was fantastic!
Every shield has it's thorns.
Yes I am a Poison fan. Saw them at Monster of Rock.
I still want to know how it would have held up against different Iron Age weapons. Since there was a prototype as well as the finished replica, I really hope that they're at least considering making a follow-up film where people wail on it with swords and spears and stuff.
It would definitely be an interesting experiment. The issue I can see is how to conduct a test to simulate the way it was used. I suspect that much of the time, a shield like this would have been used by a skirmisher (a slinger or javelinman, perhaps) so it's puropse would be to deflect or catch slingstones, arrows and light javelins. If the owner was unlucky enough to be caught in close combat (probably not his primary role), I'm guessing it would be used more like a buckler, to actively parry blows and guide them away.
So direct impact tests are probably an unfair way to test the shield. Maybe the answer is to use LARP-type weapons with an active wielder to establish the way blows could be parried, together with some kind of instrument to measure the force of impact vs motion. Once those parameters are established, it migt be possible to fit it to a robot arm of some kind to simulate incoming attacks with "real" weapons.
@@seanbissett-powell5916 I can't dispute any of your ideas there... but that's why I'd love to see someone at least have a go with weapons confirmed in the archaeological record before we start getting in to LARP weapons or contemporary weapons from other places, etc.
Fantastic!!!!!
Very interesting video! want a sheild of my own now... but they i'd need a sword os some sort... and the cloathing....
So cool.
Second time watch this, seriously thinking to make one for myself.
How do we know this was a shield that was used in battle vs for play/ practice/ ceremony?
This definitely makes a lot of sense. A bark shield is light and perfect for skirmish warfare, maybe someone running in and throwing javelins. It probably would have been used largely for parrying since it's light enough to swing around yet large enough to be a very useful surface for deflecting. Also that woven boss is really cool. People underestimate how resistant the right weave can be.
Interesting, i would like to see how these were used in combat alongside an axe or sword perhaps, I can imagine quiet a kinetic style like some of the African Martial styles
Huh, if the shield making didn't kill the tree, I wonder if there's still trees out there bearing these scars? Would there still be scars? I wonder if the bark that grows back would be smoother or too mutilated to cut again?
Have you tested the shield against weapons of various kinds? I got the impression that the original shield was more lenticular, pointed at top and bottom. Perhaps to divert blows to either side more easily.
click the link in the pinned comment for you answer.
Why the assumption that the shield was taken into battle? Could it not been made for practicing instead?
I would have expected that the inside, or tree-side, would have faced the bearer of the shield.
Opinel knife! 4:27 - 4:28. ;)
Didn't the Persians use wicker shields? How would this be any less effective? Also as someone has suggested, it might have been used as a training aid.
Based on the size and that it was made out of bark I’m wondering if this was made as a kids toy
How long would it have taken to construct the shield for a person with the correct skills? If it’s about a day’s worth of work I’ld say it’s a child’s toy or a young person’s first start to practice just like a wooden sword?
Can you graft a vertical piece of bark on the tree to speed recovery?
Piece of bark from where?
@@pattheplanter
From another tree that you have to graft bark onto afterwards. 😆
its cool to watch reverse engineering at work. I am curious of two things: did you contact birch canoe makers for their advice and techniques? and was there any evidence of pitch being used?
training shield for kids?
I LOVE CURATORS CORNER!!
So, they were barking down the right tree, eh? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
🤣🤣🤣
Boring, predictable and unfunny. I would delete that comment if I were you.
@@NeungView Mmh, but then you aren't me.
@@NeungViewleaf him alone it’s funny
@@jimferry6539 i cedar what yew did there
Ugh. Exactly as expected, there are a lot of comments calling it too small, too light, too weak, or a childs toy. Those commenters clearly have no idea what they're talking about. It is precisely what you'd expect.
A big and heavy shield is a slow shield and will tire you out in mere minutes. (Try going for a run holding a case of beer in your off hand at chest height. You won't last 5 minutes.) A Roman Scutum is big and heavy because it was used in static or slow formations. It's near useless in a quick skirmish. You want your shield to be about 60 to 80 cm long/wide, 3 to 12 mm thick and 3 to 4 kg. All it needs to do is deflect an opponent's weapon. The last thing you'd want is to absorb it.
A shield does not need to survive the battle, you do. A broken shield can be discarded and replaced.
Poor tree! But how it's starting to repair itself is fascinating.
Could this shield be intended as a toy for children? Or as some kind of offering object? Because this shield does not seem suited at all for actual combat.
To my way of thinking, any time in human history could have been enjoyable weren't it for the endemic warfare (and inadequate hygiene practices). The material culture captures my attention at every stage of development. I'm glad that enthusiasts and experts can bring that bit into the 21st century for our enrichment.
The real shield looks wider than the attempted copy
Are those mora knifes i see!?!??!
DEVUELVAN EL MOAI
Time to ship a reproduction over to the UA-camr Skallagrim for destructive testing, haha
It’s not clear why they’re assuming that the inside of the bark must be the outside of the shield. Interesting that the Roman scutum is typically bark-shaped as well.
I imagine it must represent what average people were using for armor in contrast to the known metal shields that wouldve been used by the elites. The owner was probably a shepherd or a farmer, but ready to fight off attackers if he had to.
Shields often where made from hide and wood. I doubt that this was a poor man’s protection, it hardly would withstand stand a single serious blow.
I speculate it, also considering the size, to have been a child’s toy.
@@Columkille72 Or a training aid for young people yeah.
@@Columkille72 Considering that Bark shields existed in an Indigenous Australian context where it was used in warfare, It is not unlikely that Bark shields were designed specifically with a skirmish-heavy context in mind in an Iron-age European context. I'd wager that the key thing to keep in mind is that they are not built to handle a great deal of abuse so I'd imagine the user would have to be actively deflecting blows away.
IMHO a bark shield is ideal for 'Yeet-and-retreat' actions where the relative lightness of the shield wouldn't interfere much, which would be a nice feature if you are expected to do a great deal of running about and dodging javelins before going in to throw your own.
It could also be a toy.
@@thejackinati2759 Good point.
This guy looks very focused and serious
I wonder if it belonged to a child or adolescent for training? Or perhaps it was ceremonial such as the shields carried by the Zulu women and given to their husbands as part of a marriage ceremony? Fascinating.
I get the feeling those shields were used for stick fighting like in Africa
From the Iron Age huh?
Can't imagine it'll be much use against anything but thrown stones & the odd thrusted spear. 😐
I'm curious if anyone knows in what part of England would someone say "I'm stood next to a willow tree..."? That's a rather odd way of speaking.
This looks like Busy 'work'.... Job creation scheme for Archaeology Grads
It's hard enough securing funding. No-one is making up projects to waste money. Experimental archeology has been very important in understanding how things could have been done in the past.
@@markwynne725 I love seeing history coming a live.
Efforts like this are the only possible way museum curators can have the first clue about the things they're curating.
Practical research into original production methods is essential to archaeology. That information can illuminate context, allow uses to be tested on multiple replicas and aid conservation of the objects. It can also put conspiracy theorists in their place by showing that thin granite vases as good as those made by Egyptians can be made with the stone-working technology we know the Egyptians had. No aliens or Atlanteans needed.
@@pattheplanter nice one pat.
A real experimental archaeologist would have made two final shields and would have hit one of them with various period-appropriate weapons.
Also, I'm disappointed there was no mention of any other bark artifacts. Craftsmen don't work in vaccums and never have - the people making that shield would have had direct experience working with bark to make other items, or direct access to people who did.
You don’t discover a replica, you discover an artifact. You don’t build an artifact, you build a replica.
*INCORRECT:* _“Discovering a Bark Shield Replica from the Iron Age.”_
*CORRECT:* _“Discovering a bark shield from the Iron Age.”_
*CORRECT:* _“Making a replica of a bark shield from the Iron Age.”_
---
Making = building, constructing, recreating, &c…
Also, “bark shield replica” isn’t a proper noun. Don’t capitalize it.
Titles often have capitalization for all the non-trivial words. You may have a strict personal style guide but surely you have seen this form in articles, books and cetera?
Surely the definition of an artefact is something that has been built or made? "An object made or modified by human workmanship, as opposed to one formed by natural processes." as the OED has it. The spoon I am eating with is an artefact. They don't have to be dug up.
You’re talking to a typographer re upstyle v downstyle. Don’t waste your time. Use downstyle. Always.
Next, your definition of artifact is moot. You’ve completely missed the point. In this context, there are two objects; the found, and the replica they made. I’m criticizing the clunky and inaccurate use of language in the title, which conflates the two.
@@readthetype Are you a good typographer or a style slave?
@@readthetype I am writing not talking, a typographer should know the difference. If you had started with a conditional like "In this case, an artefact..." your defence of your bald, dramatic statements would be more possible, but no, you made general statements. All of your statements are dogmatic, clunky and inaccurate.
*Just in case you missed it the first time I said it, I’ll copy/paste it here, and save you a search:*
_“It feels as though you’re already several degrees off into the weeds, and then trying to lure me into tangential debates. I believe the popular older boys on Reddit refer to this tactic as “attempting to bind you to their narrative._
_For future reference, both this, and transparent ad hominem attacks, achieve little more than revealing the speaker doesn’t have an argument. Once identified, all you need to do is ignore their bait, repeatedly bring them back on point, and let them tire themselves out.”_
Return the artifacts back to the rightful origins! This museum's existence is theft!
This is a perfect example of an instance confirming that either I’m an alien from the future, or I’m trapped in a simulation.
The trick to realizing this has nothing to do with what I’m seeing (in this case, a UA-cam video), and everything to do with what others (that’s you people) *AREN’T* seeing. I’ll describe this particular situation to illustrate: There’s nothing extraordinary here, just a video about a historical artifact. No problems believing that. Next we look at the title of the video. And here’s where we see the first component of the tell: This is video is *NOT* about _“discovering a replica.”_ In fact, that’s essentially impossible. You “discover” an *ARTIFACT,* not a replica. You *RECREATE, BUILD, PRODUCE* a replica.
In and of itself, that mistake isn’t completely insane or unbelievable. Which leads us to the second component of the tell: It’s not odd that they made a mistake… *but it’s absolutely impossible, irrefutably, simply cannot exist, that not a single person here has noticed the mistake.* There’s simply no such thing as a universe where everyone is blind to this. If there were, it would mean that everyone here is developmentally delayed to such an extreme that they would require assistance for things as basic as feeding and personal hygiene. Think ‘feeding-tube’ and ‘hospital bed sponge bath.’ And if that were the case, you would not be able to read, write, or operate a computer. Which everyone here has already done.
And that’s how we know none if this is reality.
Revealing a replica can be said to be discovering that replica. It is an archaic use of the word but these are archaeologists. As the OED has for one definition of the verb discover: "To disclose, reveal, etc., to others or (later) oneself; to find out. ;;; to be the means or agency by which (something) is disclosed or revealed." The English language is, perhaps, more ambiguous and nuanced and complex than you realise. A good pedant needs to know absolutely everything before pronouncing on a subject.
Given you’re not the author, yours is simply a post-hoc attempt at rationalizing what was most likely a mistake.
Next, your semantic song and dance re “revealing” is moot. It’s not even on the map. Other than as a diversionary tactic, I don’t understand why you brought it up.
Next, your debate re definitions of “discover” (+1 alliteration bonus) is _barely_ relevant. There _might_ be something there if this video were only about _one_ object, but that’s not the case. You’re fixating on a single detail. I’m discussing their relationships.
For example; discovering, shield, replica, bark, iron age. Did someone from the Iron Age make a replica of a shield, which we later discovered? Or did someone from an unknown era make a replica of a shield that was used during the Iron Age? And was it the original, the replica, or both, that were used during the Iron Age? Wait, I’ve got it; it wasn’t the shield, it was the guy who _used_ the shield who was from the Iron Age! Hold up, which one was made out of bark? Or did someone make replica of an iron shield, but they used bark instead? Why would someone make a bark copy of an iron shield, when they could use the iron one? &c…
Because there are so many moving parts, allowing for multiple combinations and interactions, the potential for confusion is simply too great. Bad writing, bad design decision.
It feels as though you’re already several degrees off into the weeds, and then trying to lure me into tangential debates. I believe the popular older boys on Reddit refer to this tactic as _“attempting to bind you to _*_their_*_ narrative.”_
For future reference, both this, and transparent ad hominem attacks, achieve little more than revealing the speaker doesn’t have an argument. Once identified, all you need to do is ignore their bait, repeatedly bring them back on point, and let them tire themselves out.
---
Aside: A sexier alternative to _“tire themselves out”_ is the idiom _“punch themselves out.”_ It refers to one boxer adopting a defensive posture, whilst letting their opponent flail about wildly, throwing punches until they tire themselves out, securing an easy win for the guy playing defensively. However, I would *strongly* discourage using it as an expression in any online context. The potential for miscommunication, coupled with a potentially violent image of punching, could easily send things off the rails. Only say it in contexts with eye contact.
Annoying music . Nope. Tired of it . Unsubscribe.
You don't have any straight employees anymore?
??? yeah? what does that even mean