Buckland (1978)

In Buckland's assessment the board of the shield, which had largely deteriorated, was broadly rectangular, with a curved top and bottom, and measured at 0.64 metres (2.1 ft) in width and a maximum of 1.25 metres (4.1 ft) in length.^{[1]: 248, 251} Based on the size of iron rivets used in its construction the board measured around 10 millimetres (0.39 in) in thickness.^[1]: 249 The shield was flat in profile, not curved as the famous Roman scutum shield. The board was made from three layers of wood; a centre of oak with outer layers of alder joined by glue. The centre was made from six staves of wood, approximately 3.8 millimetres (0.15 in) thick, arranged in a vertical orientation, while the outer layers were of staves around 3.2 millimetres (0.13 in) thick laid in a horizontal orientation. The staves varied but measured 103–110 millimetres (4.1–4.3 in) in width.^[1]: 251 The shield board was not banded in iron along its edge as some other Roman shields were. This would have made it less durable in battle against opponents with slashing weapons such as swords. It may be that the design was intentional and worked to trap an opponent's sword if it struck the shield's edge, or that the shield was intended for use only against spear-armed opponents.^[1]: 258

The domed shield boss was 200 millimetres (7.9 in) in diameter and made of 2-millimetre (0.079 in) thick iron.^{[1]: 249, 251} It was positioned 50 millimetres (2.0 in) vertically above the centre of the shield and affixed to it by four iron rivets driven through a 28-millimetre (1.1 in) flange.^[1]: 249 The off-centre position of the boss would cause the bottom portion of the shield to tip towards the user, protecting their legs.^[1]: 259 On the rear of the shield was a 0.8-metre (2.6 ft) vertical iron hand grip, secured by six iron rivets.^[1]: 249 The rivets were hidden on the front of the shield by a spina, a wooden rib 28–33 millimetres (1.1–1.3 in) wide and 5 millimetres (0.20 in) thick running vertically down the centre of the face, this had no structural value.^{[1]: 253, 259} The handgrip showed evidence of being repaired, possibly due to breakage of the grip or because the rivets pulled out. The spina was removed, and the hand grip reattached with nails driven through the rivetholes and bent over, the spina was then reattached.^{[1]: 256, 263}

Microscopic fragments showed that the centre of the grip, behind the boss, was bound with leather where it would have been held by the soldier's hand.^[1]: 249 During combustion the boss and the grip had sprung away from the shield board, taking some of the wood with them.^[1]: 248 The short depth of the boss would have left the user's shield-holding hand vulnerable to impact from blows against the outside of the boss; it is possible that a padding of horse-hair was used here as with the Caerhun shield.^[1]: 259 The boss showed evidence of an attempt being made to remove it prior to the disposal of the shield by burning, possibly to salvage it for reuse.^[1]: 248 A leather thong may have been provided from the grip to the soldier's wrist to spread the weight of the shield and to prevent its loss in battle.^[1]: 259 An iron ferrule was found on the handgrip and, with an eyelet affixed to the back of the shield board, may have been used to affix a leather shoulder strap for carrying the shield.^[1]: 249

There was evidence that a leather cover was affixed to the inner and outer faces of the shield, which could have been formed from a single cow hide.^{[1]: 251, 258} This was likely to have originally been painted, though no evidence of the original colour was found.^[1]: 259 The leather covering was pierced by decorative lines of iron studs around 10 millimetres (0.39 in) in diameter and protruding from the face by 6 millimetres (0.24 in). One surviving run of studs radiated from around the boss and was probably mirrored in all four quadrants of the shield face.^[1]: 251 Other studs were found in 60-millimetre (2.4 in)-long crescent positioned 70 millimetres (2.8 in) from the base of the shield. It was assumed that a similar group would have been positioned at the top of the shield.^[1]: 253 These studs do not appear to have helped much with tensioning the leather cover, which would probably have had to have been glued to the board, but may have helped keep the separate wood layers bound together.^[1]: 258

The rivets through the handgrip retained fragments of bronze sheeting that probably decorated the shield face.^[1]: 249 Most of the bronzework seems to have been removed prior to the disposal of the shield.^[1]: 256 The original pattern of this cannot be known for certain but elements can be discerned from green corrosion products left in the underlying sand.^[1]: 256 The sheeting was secured by a number of 5-millimetre (0.20 in) and 8-millimetre (0.31 in) diameter bronze studs with a mixture of flat and domed heads.^[1]: 253 At least four studs radiated from the boss as extensions of the lines of iron studs on the shield face.^[1]: 256 The bronzework may have been inlaid with a chased pattern of curves and lines in a Celtic-style pattern, as the fragments had fractured along curved lines, and may have been used for tactical recognition on the battlefield.^{[1]: 259, 263 [4]}

The vertical grip used on the shield is rare in Roman finds, most others having horizontal grips with the exception of a shield, virtually identical to the Danum example, recovered at Trimontium fort in the Scottish borders and one near Strasbourg, France.^[1]: 263 The vertical grip would have made it awkward for used by an infantryman as it is more difficult to apply force through the shield than with a horizontal grip, as would be required in a melee. Buckland considered that the shield may have been used by a Roman auxiliary cavalryman, though noted that its weight was heavier than other known cavalry shields, which were made largely from leather.^[1]: 260

Buckland considered that the shield might not have been Roman in origin, potentially being a trophy taken from a Gallic tribe, as it bears some resemblance to examples known from European iron age tribes.^[1]: 260 However, Buckland stated that the number and position of rivets on the shield probably gave it a Roman origin and it may have been brought over by an auxiliary soldier from Western continental Europe.^[1]: 264 Buckland considered it likely that the shield had been disposed of in the early 2nd century AD, possibly around 105 AD when the Roman army was withdrawn from Caledonia.^[1]: 269

Travis & Travis reinterpretation (2014)

Hilary & John Travis discussed the Danum shield in their 2014 book Roman Shields, and suggested that Buckland's findings were open to reinterpretation. Because the handgrip had become detached during combustion of the shield, it is possible that it had been, in fact, originally orientated horizontally. This would have lent it better to use by infantrymen. To match the orientation of wood grain recovered from the boss and grip for this interpretation to be true, the shield would have had to have been of two-ply construction, with the inner layer of wood orientated vertically and the outer layer horizontally. Travis & Travis suggest that the overall thickness of the shield would still have been 10 millimetres (0.39 in) and that the two layers would have been approximately 5 millimetres (0.20 in) each, rather than the 3–3.8 millimetres (0.12–0.15 in) of Buckland's three layers.^{[2]: 41–42} A horizontally orientated handgrip would match the shields recovered at Faiyum Oasis and at Dura-Europos, as well as six iron handgrips recovered elsewhere.^[2]: 42

Travis & Travis also suggested that the shield could originally have been of the more traditional curved rectangular shield shape, and that it had flattened out after disposal in the fire. A horizontally-orientated handgrip would have been more likely than a vertically orientated grip to spring away from a curved shield board in a fire. That the shield had been curved had been the original working assumption of Buckland during the 1971 excavation.^[2]: 42 Travis & Travis also suggest that, had the shield been disposed of intentionally, the handgrip and boss would have been recovered, and they propose that the shield may have been accidentally consumed by the fire.^[2]: 43