Among the artifacts of the Pazyryk culture (VI–III centuries BC), battle shields attract attention. As a rule, they come from rich burial mounds. Items have the shape of an elongated rectangle or square, sometimes with a rounded top. There is a belt loop in the center. Shields are ornamented with zigzags, rhombuses, braids-like ornaments, crosses, triangles. Items can be divided into two groups. The first group consists of items 35,5–44 cm long and 24,5–35 cm wide, while second group consists of 50–69 cm long and 42–54 cm wide shields. Small shields predominate. Products are made from different materials using different techniques. Some of the objects are carved from wood, the rest are made from pieces of leather and sticks. As it known, battle shields were not popular among the ancient nomads of the Asian region and are rarely found. The Pazyryk culture is an exception to the rule. However, many Pazyryk shields are not reliable enough and are poorly effective for protection against hand and throwing weapons. In addition, no damage that could occur during the battle has been observed on them. Also there are no signs of repair. Apparently, all the shields of the Pazyryk culture mainly served as amulets. Probably, wooden items were ritual models, while leather-wood ones were copies of military weapons. Both of them were made for the funeral ritual. However, one cannot categorically deny the possibility of using them during hostilities. This situation is known from ethnographic materials. For example, the magic shields of the Indians of the Great Plains of North America can be a close parallel. These products were also not homogeneous. They are different in types. One type was made up of exact copies of real defensive weapons, the other — reduced models, the third — hoops with stretched straps. The Indians constantly took them on military campaigns. The manufacture of magical shields was considered one of the most important sacred procedures, and very expensive, which was available only to wealthy people.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vladimir A. Kisel (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: