The Iron Age Shield... that's made of bark? The Enderby Shield | Curator's Corner S8 Ep7 

AMEN

And to the people who excavated in wet clay.

You know there's gonna be dumb Americans claiming it couldn't be in such good shape after that long.

Yes. The reason why I’m subscribed to this channel!

Interesting thought, it could be a toy or practice shield. It could also teach the maker skills that could be applied to more practical but mundane items.

The size makes me wonder. Not that a smaller shield can't still be useful, as the targe and buckler demonstrate. But 3mm is about half as thick as the wood of typical shields made from planks which were also covered with cowhide. I'd be curious how the size compares to other shields of the era.

The North American Iroquois people used wooden shields and armor in battle until the arrival of Champlain with soldiers armed with guns around 1603 ce

@@wayne00k Great and highly relevant information . Fitting the material to the task I suppose . Thank you for responding so nicely .

:) Those people were specialists at survival at a time, when being good at what you do made all the difference between life and death a lot more often than it is the case today. I really appreciate this showing in the presentation!

@@dayegilharno4988 I just HAVE to agree with you 👍🏼

If you've ever pushed yourself through undergrowth you'd know this would be more of an hinderance than a helpful tool, a sword would cut straight through the centre boss, if I had to guess I'd say it was made to practice fighting in battle with an opponent using a wooden sword, or even used in a combative sport.

It's pretty humbling. I'm delighted when I can go out to my garden and identify a seedling. Imagine having such a comprehensive understanding of the physical attributes of every part of every plant at every stage of its development that you could engineer such a remarkable object. No written instructions: All this lore is stored in your head.

In a sense, metal never "dominated". We retrospectively define "ages" by the most durable archaeological finds: stone, then copper, bronze, then iron. These were the pinnacle of technology at the time, requiring extraction of materials (flint mines, copper mines, etc.) transport/trade in materials, and then in the case of metal, smelting, smithing, and so on. However, clothes, shoes, bows, spear shafts, buildings, boats, fishing nets, ropes, and most other things in daily use were made wholly or mainly from organic materials. Thing is, it is rare for organics to survive for thousands of years, and they often leave little imprint in the soil. Bronze survives very well, and iron can survive in the right conditions, and even when it doesn't it often leaves a visible oxide residue. Bark, wool, and timber often simply rot away in the same way as if they had never been used to make something. Survivor bias: we know more about the stuff that didn't rot away, and it distorts our view of the era it came from.

Greek shields were often covered in a bronze skin, why would bronze shields from Britain not be used in combat? I think the Chertsey shield could be ceremonial given it's a copy of a wooden shield in bronze but the others were bronze over a wood backing. The more recent discovery at Pocklington has a very large bronze plate over a wooden shield, hopefully more will turn up in due course.

The skills could have been from other wares. Some people are good with their hand an an initiative knowledge and may have made other thing using these material an techniques, if if no it is not inconceivable that they could have perfect this in half a dozen, perhaps there were hundred but have my doubt. I think it like that these skills weren't just used for one thing, There is so much that is useful for every day wares. One thing that is obvious I thsi is lighter than metal or ceramics. so ware that are useful for those on he move.

@@paulthomas8262 Totally agree with you. The skills used to make the shield would have also been used for other items. Thank you for your comment. G'day from Australia.

This is NOT the only wooden Iron Age shield that has been found. A number of them were found in La Tene, Switzerland. This is the only wooden Iron Age shield found in the British Isles- that is the more accurate statement.

@@solinvictus39 the beginning of the viking age could still be considered iron age. It wouldn't be long before wood routinely was part of the construction of shields. However I don't think we are looking at something used in battle. It could be art, a demonstration of skill or a practice item. They understood about hardness and that a harder items cuts a less hard items or they wouldn't have been able craft it. They also understood about grain direction and how to split wood. They may not of known about local stressors but would have some intuative knowledge that there are fault lines in bark. Also the use of stretched hides for protective gear may have been used early on.

@@solinvictus39 Thank you so much for your comment, very helpful.

I was going to say the same, I really like her haircut. Suits her to a T, very flattering.

Ish. It is also true that most battles occurred between small groups of elite warriors in Iron Age Britain. Ordinary people didn't exactly have any assets that were worth fighting over (and most "battles" were really more like devolved arrest attempts than like anything we would consider warfare). But, certain political events did inspire larger military campaigns that would have involved ordinary people: so it does stand to reason we would find some weapons and armaments made from less expensive materials.

A bark shield would be a lot lighter than a metal one. Very important consideration when you’re on foot, trudging along. The muckitymucks, with their fancy gear and riding their horses could manage the high status metal shields. Show offs

My first impression, as a modern lay person whose interests run more to fantasy than actual history, is child’s toy. Maybe something preteens and early teens trained with. A side by side comparison with the surviving bronze shields would be interesting. On the other hand we have the example of the Zulu hide shields and I vaguely remember seeing something about Bronze Age wicker shields from the Mediterranean area in an ancient warfare video or something.

@@MacAisling In spite of what she is saying in the video, "all organic" shields where common in the period. Mostly they where wood with wood bosses. A good example is Hortspring bog in Denmark where fragment of more than 100 shields where found. So where almost complete. Search for Hjortspring and shield (and also check out the boat and other gear). It was a entire war/raiding party. Similar shields are known from graves from Scandinavia and central Europe.

I wonder if people during the Iron Age in Britain made shields from animal hide like the Zulus?

Total guess but perhaps the beautiful metal shields were for the nobles and this bark shield were for the regulars farmer/soldiers.

Not sure we use birch more than for making some disgusting wine and burning in our fire places. :)

And the use of so many different types of tree because of the better properties of each one's material per application.

As it goes, the British museum along with other large institutions IS negotiating some deals. But can we keep the traditional slander off videos that are in fact about British artifacts?

you mean like The British Museum lol

@@veeepool Yes, I want to British Museum the British Museum.

Exactaly! Now think how strong ply wood can be? This is not a toy.

Yeah, and it is even as well preserved as the Hjortspring shields from Denmark.

It was probably more used to deflect rather than catch blows in which case the lightness and flexibility of its design would be an advantage. It's worth remembering that even in the Iron Age swords are high status bits of kit and most of the time they would probably be facing spears. They must have been effective because these kind of light, organic shields crop up in many cultures globally right up until modern times!

So, speaking from my admittedly only semi-relevant experience with later medieval shield fencing experiments, snagging is actually a great thing! The shield is historically a disposable or semi-disposable object, because for it to be anything else it would have to be prohibitively heavy and overbuilt, so losing the shield isn't a huge concern. when a weapon cuts into a shield and becomes stuck you're given a massive opportunity to neutralize the threat posed by your opponent, be that by disarming them or just straight up turning their brains into paste. Bosses on some viking age shields are even designed for this, with a little "lip" or groove used for binding in a shield press or similar weapon interaction, allowing for unprecedented kinds of weapon manipulation when compared to like, a late medieval heater shield with a smooth face. Linen covered shields are certainly a possibility, being almost universal in wooden shield construction in later more documented European military equipment, and indeed I'll bet that metal bossed wooden shields were constructed in exactly that manner, but I doubt this one would have been covered, mainly because it seems likely to me that linen, a plant finer, would have preserved alongside the wood. I personally guess it would've been gessoed and then brightly painted with some kind of tribal or personal motif, which in itself can lend some toughness to a shield, as the gesso acts as a glue, making the shield into a fibreglass-like composite at least in the case of textiles, although I've no idea what it'd to to bark. Hope this answers your questions! if it doesn't I'm happy to clarify.

@@ef.9095 Scotish Tarn shields faced with felted wool have been proved to stop musket balls. (At longer ranges) Everyone is assuming wood is weak. Try throwing a heavy metal sheild about to protect your self. As you say most people think shield, stop anything, not how they are used.

This was probably used exclusively against wooden weapons. Either for play or training. Not on the battlefield.

We looked for evidence of hide and other animal products on the shield and York University analysed a sample via ZooMS (Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectroscopy) but nothing was found. We also found no evidence for glue or resin.

@@ef.9095 Tod's Workshop has explored a number of wooden shield types, with and without linen, as you mention, and tried different layers of material. For this and armor he's always emphasizing the advantage of laminating different materials. I was struck by the nature of the bark - it has 2 layers with different properties, thus is a natural laminate. This shield had no linen but may perhaps be considered a laminate. That would make it more resistant to arrows than it looks, and of course if it slows and catches an arrow even if it goes through by a few inches that's good - as long as it doesn't hit your hand!

Thing is, if dad could afford a shield in the right size, and the kid could carry a full-size one... he'd probably just get him a metal shield. I like the idea, but it'd have to be a lot smaller, for that to make as much sense.

@@Mlpzeldafan011100 It's not a lot bigger than the one my dad made for me when I was about four, which I still have. He used thin plywood rather than birch bark, of course.

If you want to see really small shields, check out these miniature ones from the Salisbury Hoard: www.britishmuseum.org/collection/search?place=Netherhampton&object=shield&view=grid&sort=object_name__asc&page=1

When you see modern weapon against shield/armour tests it's always square on. Having done a bit of martial arts, that's surprisingly difficult to do against a moving and uncooperative target! 70/80% of the time the question is, would it deflect a glancing blow?

Probably okay in a one on one situation which seems to be what ancient Britons did the most, small scale battles. Against the Romans though, pretty much useless, a pilum would go straight through and kill the person holding it. This shield represents the technology divide between the Britons and Romans. The Britons had good technology to equip their nobles, but the average warrior had next to no armour and small shields designed for skirmishing. This bark shield has a similar shape and is a similar size to the Battersea shield which must have been a bronze version of shields like this one from Enderby. Which again suggests that these were widely used given that the distance between the two finds is around 170km.

A: certainly better than nothing. B: the people using bark shields didn’t have any of the extremely tough hides- rhino, hippo, elephant, or walrus (used in umiaks of Arctic Ocean peoples). I include walrus here because it anyone using bark shields would likely dump bark in a heartbeat if they had walrus hides.

Ok but come on, that is not a battle shield, made of willow bark and basket work, and it’s not going to stand up to a spear or even a stone axe, never mind a bronze axe or sword. It’s just too thin and light. One solid axe blow on that boss and your fingers are broken. It’s possibly a child’s play shield or used for competitive or ritualised ‘combat’ with thin sticks as weapons. Even as an adult training shield it would be too light, you’d train with something at least as heavy or heavier than the real thing. I can certainly accept that wooden shields were used but they could have used either heavy basket work that would be springy and tough or split ‘planks’ of poplar etc with cross pieces for stability that would stop an axe. This is made to look like a metal shield of the time, but not function like one.

@@carlbernsen1290 That's assuming whoever carried it was planning on getting within range of axe blows. If the idea is to hang back a bit and throw spears or whatever, I don't think it has to be so strong. Not sure exactly how much damage thrown spears do, but if you look at the damage on the Ballinderry shield (which has apparently had spears thrown at it, whether in a real fight or what I don't know), then none of the holes are particularly deep, and it wouldn't surprise me if bark would be adequate. Of course it definitely could be something other than a shield that just looks like one, but I'd say this has the possibility to be practical as well.

That's exactly what I'm thinking: given the lighter materials and the MUCH smaller size, could this have been a child's toy, meant to help some warrior-class child learn his fighting skills? Could the buried person have afterward kept it as a keepsake into adulthood?