Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Military Science

'Phenomenal' 2,300-Year-Old Bark Shield Found In Leicestershire (theguardian.com) 44

pgmrdlm shares a report from The Guardian: An "astonishing and unparalleled" 2,300-year-old shield made of tree bark has been discovered in Leicestershire, the only example of its kind ever found in Europe. The shield was discovered in 2015 by archaeologists from the University of Leicester Archaeological Service in a site close to the River Soar. Organic objects from the period very rarely survive, but the shield was preserved in waterlogged soil and may have been deposited in a water-filled pit, according to Matt Beamish, the lead archaeologist for the service.

Bark shields of the period were entirely unknown in the northern hemisphere, he told the Guardian, and the assumption was that the material may have been too flimsy for use in war. However experiments to remake the weapon in alder and willow showed the 3mm-thick shield would have been tough enough for battle but incredibly light. It was likely that, contrary to assumptions, similar weapons were widespread, Beamish said. The shield is made from green bark that has been stiffened with internal wooden laths, described by Beamish as "like a whalebone corset of split hardwood," and surrounded by a rim of hazel, with a twisted willow boss. The malleable green wood would then tighten as it dried, giving the shield its strength and forming the rounded rectangles into a slightly "waisted" shape, like a subtle figure of eight.
The University of York and University of Leicester have both released statements on the discovery.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Phenomenal' 2,300-Year-Old Bark Shield Found In Leicestershire

Comments Filter:
  • It would be nice if they said in the summary where this place is other than just "Europe." Answer: a city in England.

    • It would be nice if they said in the summary where this place is other than just "Europe." Answer: a city in England.

      Unfortunately exact locations usually only serve as an invitation to looters to scour the sites at night with metal detectors and steal artefacts to sell on the black market to private parties who lock the stuff up in underground vaults in Switzerland as an 'investment'. Therefore archaeologists tend to avoid giving exact locations. This kind of stuff is much better off in museums being studied by scientists than it is locked up in an investment vault or private collection.

      • Unfortunately exact locations usually only serve as an invitation to looters to scour the sites at night"

        I didn't mean that exact- just what country we are talking about. Like many, I had no idea Leicestershire was a city in England, Britain :) It doesn't have much immediate name recognition.

        • by Sique ( 173459 )
          Leicestershire is indeed no city in England. It's a shire. Since the Norman Conrquest, a shire is called a county.

          The town is Leicester, with -cester being derived from the old Latin castrum. Leicester thus is "the fortress on the Leir", where Leir is the old brittonic name of the River Soar.

      • scour the sites at night with metal detectors and steal artefacts to sell on the black market

        Metal detectors... to search for bark shields???

      • Indy ... is that you?
    • Oh, I thought everyone would be able to figure that out, especially with the 'shire' suffix added in the summary.
    • by pjt33 ( 739471 )

      The Guardian is a British newspaper, so their target audience don't need to be told. Blame the sub-"editor", and the general sub-"editing" culture of /., for accepting an abbreviated quote from the source instead of an actual summary.

      PS, FWIW Leicester is the standard example of a British placename that no-one can pronounce correctly without being taught. It's a homophone of "Lester".

  • If this discovery is so amazing, why are we hearing about it *NOW* instead of in 2015 when it was discovered?
    • Because that is how real archaeology and science works. You study your finds, lets your peers study the finds and then years later you publish. When you see that they issue a press release right at the moment that they have found something you can bet that it's always "we have found Atlantis, Noahs Ark or some Serbian pyramid.
      • imagine if the random chunk of historically significant preserved bark shield you found wasn't in fact a shield, but just a piece of god damn tree bark. if it was me, i'd pass that peer review around for a few years too.. it's a pretty bold claim.

        whenever i dig i find oddly shaped pieces of rocks and wood everywhere, but i would never suspect such an object was significant. you'd figure possessing the kind of trained eye it takes to spot stuff like that, you'd constantly be questioning yourself.

        i personal

        • The best pictures I've found are here:
          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sc... [dailymail.co.uk]

          The archaeologists drawing of the front and back give a pretty good idea of the general shape and how much they found. The pieces really do look like many of the metal and wooden shield that have been found. It is a flat-ish piece of bark, painted on the front, a central handle on the back, a hole and a "cup" around the handle and about the size of other shields used throughout history. It was also damaged by spear tips so I think it is

          • a hole and a "cup" around the handle

            It's a "boss" - the indentation in (or through) the shield which houses the hand and protects it from the nasty people on the other side of the shield is called a "boss". Not all designs of shield have them - some have a fist grip internally, and an elbow- or forearm- pad for the user to support the shield.

        • by pjt33 ( 739471 )

          That sucks. When my youngest sister was an archaeology student she had some friends from the local archaeological society round for a garden party, and they saw something interesting in the garden. A small dig turned up the oldest find ever in the town, a lower Palaeolithic handaxe (of type E in the Wymer classification, whatever that means). The axe is now in the local museum. The garden is still allowed to be used for gardening.

          • That sucks.

            It's also generally untrue. You might not be able to build your dream extension to replace your garden with bricks, or you might have to support the extension on piles instead of wall trenches (more expensive, but very do-able). But the system is designed to not destroy people and developments because if it did, then people would try to circumvent it by destroying sites rather than recording them. Which would be counter-productive.

        • if anyone ever found out you found something like that in your yard or work site, let alone a chunk of bark, your property is generally turned into a restricted heritage archeology site or some such thing, and all construction stops forever. not only do you lose your shirt on that property, you're forever liable for property taxes on a hunk of dirt that you aren't allowed to build on, and nobody will ever fund the archeological dig (since people are really bored of finding native arrowheads), so its basica

  • . . . the name "Rothschild" originated: it means "red oak" or "red shield" since they were made from that in yonder years.

Be sociable. Speak to the person next to you in the unemployment line tomorrow.

Working...