Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:00 pm
I just couldn't restrain myself. 
However, the one thing it never did was STAND STILL IN THE GODDAMN SKY.
(Couldn't restrain myself, either!)
Archaeologica.org
Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
Nebra disc
Page 2 of 4
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:05 pm
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:11 pm
Frank - some appropriate laughing emoticons please.
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:27 pm
Beagle wrote:Frank - some appropriate laughing emoticons please.
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:47 pm
First: 
..........
Bob wrote:
Beagle, don't you think it had the "brass" to stop an arrow?
..........
Bob wrote:
Right on. You don't need a circle at all. But you do need an observation point. That's why i questioned the lack of a center point on the Nebra disc.To check the rising point you need a central point and one marker for each of the Winter and Summer solstices and one for the Equinox.
Beagle, don't you think it had the "brass" to stop an arrow?
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:16 pm
Yes Stan, I think it would stop an arrow, spear, or sword.
There have been many fixtures on shields, and in fact around 2,000 yrs. after the date of this artifact the Templar Knights had a cross on their shields. But that was paint. So, I suppose that an ancient warrior might want to have a religious or sacred symbol on his shield, but in the very first serious fight - it will be pretty beat up.
I just think that metal at that time would be more valuable. Some fixtures on shields have had offensive features as well as defensive. In any event, it doesn't appear to me that the Nebra disk was in a serious fight.
Maybe a tribal Chieftain who didn't enter the fray? Maybe.
In my own mind I still see it affixed to some sort of standard that might be a tribal totem of sorts.
There have been many fixtures on shields, and in fact around 2,000 yrs. after the date of this artifact the Templar Knights had a cross on their shields. But that was paint. So, I suppose that an ancient warrior might want to have a religious or sacred symbol on his shield, but in the very first serious fight - it will be pretty beat up.
I just think that metal at that time would be more valuable. Some fixtures on shields have had offensive features as well as defensive. In any event, it doesn't appear to me that the Nebra disk was in a serious fight.
Maybe a tribal Chieftain who didn't enter the fray? Maybe.
In my own mind I still see it affixed to some sort of standard that might be a tribal totem of sorts.
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:28 pm
A shield needs some sort of handle on the back which makes the earlier question of what's on the reverse quite relevant.
BTW, the Romans used a wood frame shield (scutum) with layers of cowhide. Greek hoplites used a wooden shield (aspis). They were always decorated.
A bronze shield would have been pretty heavy for actual use in combat.
BTW, the Romans used a wood frame shield (scutum) with layers of cowhide. Greek hoplites used a wooden shield (aspis). They were always decorated.
A bronze shield would have been pretty heavy for actual use in combat.
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:11 pm
A shield with a decoration like that was not made for combat. It was a ceremonial thing. The actual shield itself was probably a lot bigger and had this disc attached to it.Minimalist wrote:A shield needs some sort of handle on the back which makes the earlier question of what's on the reverse quite relevant.
BTW, the Romans used a wood frame shield (scutum) with layers of cowhide. Greek hoplites used a wooden shield (aspis). They were always decorated.
A bronze shield would have been pretty heavy for actual use in combat.
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:18 pm
Then why not bury the whole thing with it's owner?
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:25 pm
If it was attached to a wooden shield or standard that might not have survived to the present. Depends on the ground etc. from the burial. Or the looters might not have thought the background necessary. I personally like the Mr. T theory
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:36 pm
I like Mr. T also , but my biggest problem with the disk is not knowing for sure where it came from. There is just no real proof.
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:52 pm
Beagle wrote:I like Mr. T also , but my biggest problem with the disk is not knowing for sure where it came from. There is just no real proof.
Exactly. No provenance means no proof. All we poor mortals can do is theorize and hope something similar gets turned up by a pro so we can dig up the truth.
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:12 pm
As our friend Arch would say - "Amen to that." 
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:14 am
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think they know whether or not it was buried with the owner. It did have two swords with it. If it was dug up by looters, any evidence of an interment would likely have been missed. Speaking of the Mr. T aspect. It could have been hung around the owner's neck and hung over his chest as a sort of breastplate armor. All the other's would have been so envious! I bet he had a mohawk too! Back to serious stuff tho', is the provenence of this item know? I don't remember. Things like this just prove that context is very important.Minimalist wrote:Then why not bury the whole thing with it's owner?
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:43 am
Judging from this description in Rene's original post...
It does not sound as if the finders used anything other than Schliemann/Oz techniques to dig it up.
NARRATOR: In 1999 three men came combing through this forest with metal detectors. After several hours they found themselves in a small clearing near a hilltop. Suddenly their detectors came alive. With a pickaxe they tore in to the earth. And after a brief struggle the earth gave up a treasure it had kept safe for over three thousand years. What these robbers didn’t realise was that they may have dug up one of the most significant archaeological finds of the century.
It does not sound as if the finders used anything other than Schliemann/Oz techniques to dig it up.