Ok here is my take on historical research and the SCA. However to follow this in the manner I mean to say it there are a couple of things that need to be understood.
1. I understand that records are kept much better today than they were “back in the dayâ€
Thoughts on reasearch
Moderator: Glen K
I believe in down to earth, common sense research. Basically if it makes sense and it is not proven to be wrong then why not accept it as possible.
That actually is not research. Research is an active, diligent, and systematic process of inquiry aimed at discovering, interpreting, and revising facts.
Lastly a lack of evidence is not proof that something didn’t happen it is just proof that I don’t have proof yet!
You are right you cannot prove a negative, it is basic logic. Having spent countless hours doing research I can safely say this. Most people ask the wrong questions when researching. One does not prove that someone used something or didn't use something. One seeks to answer by research how something happens or was done. The question should not be did vikings use leather for armour. The question should be either what did vikings use for armour if anything or what did vikings use leather for.
Gobae
That is a good point and superstition does drive people to do some strange things (my magic stick). I won't change anythign about the gear I wear because possibly something I am wearing is the "lucky" thing that is keeping me alive. The making sense I was speeking of is along the lines of this will stop swords better than than that. Not the I shouldn't wear clothes without poofy sleaves because they will hangin my soup.
Peder
I miss spoke. Let me rephrase that.
I believe in a down to earth, common sense approach to research. With one of the keys being "if it makes sense and it is not proven to be wrong then why not accept it as possible".
This dosn't change much and I am sure you will still have problems with it but I still needed to change it.
If research is an active, diligent, and systematic process of inquiry aimed at discovering, interpreting, and revising facts, then like i said you take the facts you know and from them use logic and common sense to answer the questions you have. I am not saying we should just make things up.
I understand that that last part was logic however many people lose all sight of logic and need to be reminded of it from time to time.
When you say you have done alot of research what are you talking about? (that was a real question) You just said that you have done alot of it but you didn't describe what you consider as research like reading, looking at pictures, looking at actual historical things, .
I need to think about how to reply to the questions about researching thing before I post a response.
That is a good point and superstition does drive people to do some strange things (my magic stick). I won't change anythign about the gear I wear because possibly something I am wearing is the "lucky" thing that is keeping me alive. The making sense I was speeking of is along the lines of this will stop swords better than than that. Not the I shouldn't wear clothes without poofy sleaves because they will hangin my soup.
Peder
I miss spoke. Let me rephrase that.
I believe in a down to earth, common sense approach to research. With one of the keys being "if it makes sense and it is not proven to be wrong then why not accept it as possible".
This dosn't change much and I am sure you will still have problems with it but I still needed to change it.
If research is an active, diligent, and systematic process of inquiry aimed at discovering, interpreting, and revising facts, then like i said you take the facts you know and from them use logic and common sense to answer the questions you have. I am not saying we should just make things up.
I understand that that last part was logic however many people lose all sight of logic and need to be reminded of it from time to time.
When you say you have done alot of research what are you talking about? (that was a real question) You just said that you have done alot of it but you didn't describe what you consider as research like reading, looking at pictures, looking at actual historical things, .
I need to think about how to reply to the questions about researching thing before I post a response.
Zack
I tend to agree with Bjorn to some degree. There are so few surviving examples of ancient finds that I think in our quest to be historically correct, we limit our own modelling and crafting to those itens that have been discovered. I often ask myself when crafting a maille shirt, coif or helm, "Just because this is the only evidence located, does it mean that variations didn't exist?" When a blacksmith, armourer or weaponsmith crafted an item, they didn't (I assume) have a step by step instruction book on how to make a spangle helm (for arguements sake). My way of thinking is there would have been a basic design (probably not written down in letter or diagram form), handed down from master to apprentice. Invariably these people would have put on their own touches, whether they cosmetic or functional. I agree with the arguement, because we haven't discovered it, does that mean it doesn't exist?
On the other hand, I also agree that if you gave too much artistic licence, we would end with such fantastical arms and armour that 'could' have existed and the line between archeological truth and Dungeons and Dragons would become so blurred that basic truth and design would be lost.
Tough question.
On the other hand, I also agree that if you gave too much artistic licence, we would end with such fantastical arms and armour that 'could' have existed and the line between archeological truth and Dungeons and Dragons would become so blurred that basic truth and design would be lost.
Tough question.
Bjorn Leorhals wrote: I believe in a down to earth, common sense approach to research. With one of the keys being "if it makes sense and it is not proven to be wrong then why not accept it as possible".
Possible means nothing, it is all about probable. It is possible that the world will end tomorrow but it is not probable. Probable is about whether it was likely as opposed to possible which is whether or not it is somewhere within the realm of logic. For example it is possible that someone who had contact with another culture or that had an item avalible to them used a certain item. That however does not make it probable. It is probable if the evidence supports that such items were used.
When you say you have done alot of research what are you talking about? (that was a real question) You just said that you have done alot of it but you didn't describe what you consider as research like reading, looking at pictures, looking at actual historical things, .
Over about the last decade I have earned a BA in history and am one class shy of an MA although I would be in that class now if my advisor had a clue. I have written papers from original sources on 13th century sports, the King's Mirror as a Medieval Military Manual, the DeSoto expedition, and you know whats sad I don't think I've actually writen much from original sources since then although I have worked in them. I have also looked at countless numbers of images of late medieval art and read many a book and collected a decent little library. While I have been to museums and worked from archeaology books I don't tend to work with original objects as that is not my training. I have tought people how to research who have gone on to win SCA A&S competitions and most 15th century people here have been given pieces of research by me. I could write more but I think it would sound like I was trying to make myself out to be some kind of super historical researcher.
Brent
-
D. Sebastian
- Archive Member
- Posts: 11463
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 1:01 am
- Location: East - Haus VDK
- Contact:
There is what is possible, and there is what is probable.
When you're talking about recreation, in the absence of evidence, you should lean towards the probable and avoid the possible.
Otherwise, you will quickly find you've strayed deep into the the realm of fantacy.
When you're talking about recreation, in the absence of evidence, you should lean towards the probable and avoid the possible.
Otherwise, you will quickly find you've strayed deep into the the realm of fantacy.
SCA Demo .com
Like it? Link it!
Mattyds .com
(my site)
Like it? Link it!
Mattyds .com
(my site)
Peder wrote:Over about the last decade I have earned a BA in history and am one class shy of an MA although I would be in that class now if my advisor had a clue. I have written papers from original sources on 13th century sports, the King's Mirror as a Medieval Military Manual, the DeSoto expedition, and you know whats sad I don't think I've actually writen much from original sources since then although I have worked in them. I have also looked at countless numbers of images of late medieval art and read many a book and collected a decent little library. While I have been to museums and worked from archeaology books I don't tend to work with original objects as that is not my training. I have tought people how to research who have gone on to win SCA A&S competitions and most 15th century people here have been given pieces of research by me. I could write more but I think it would sound like I was trying to make myself out to be some kind of super historical researcher.
Please don't stop there, That is one of the reasons I started this thread. I am not a historical researcher but I have my views, I would like to here other views as well. But could you please use smaller words because the military has sucked my vocabulary (and my spelling) away
.
And I do agree there are those people that would take the frredome I am sudgesting and turn the research world into D&D. BUT those people are around anyway and there is almost nothing we can do about them (except for throwing rocks). The people that want to learn will learn and the people that want to go to events and do the viking horned helmet w/ a sword and buckler thing will do it too. And the good thing about us being able to get away with that is the carpet armor I started fighting in 10 years ago would have never passed and authentication inspection, I had the "they say I need these things covered so I will cover them" armor. And I think it is because of this acceptance at the beginning that made me stick around all these years.
Zack
I could list classes and seminars I have taken and subjects I have read widely on but that isn't going to do anyone any good. What you need to do is read books, the more you know and the more experience you have with dealing with aspects of historical research the better prepaired you will be for it and for this conversation. It isn't going to do you any good for me to tell you what I've learned in my years because you don't really have a good point of reference for the discussion. One thing I have noticed on my years on this board is that you can tell those who start to read and research because you can see them gain a real point of reference for discussing such issues.
-
Oswyn_de_Wulferton
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2861
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:15 pm
- Contact:
The biggest flaw I see with your arguement Bjorn (and I have used the same logic at times as well) besides the slippery slope it tends to lead to (where exactly do you stop interpolating), is the mindset of the people back then. The two best examples I have heard of this is that the Greeks were the first to invent the steam engine. Why did they decide to keep using chariots then? Because they thought it was a useless invention, and couldnt figure out what to do with it. It is the same with a normal quartz watch (an example closer to our time). The Swiss figured out they could do this, and make a watch run. But it wasnt a watch to them, it was a cheap little trick. Until someone with a different mindset comes along (in the case of the watch, the Japanese), they stay with what they would have known. I dont buy into the Viking leather armour, and I have several reasons why.
Firstly, what makes you believe that leather was any more cheaper than steel to work with in big stiff pieces? If I can get one "breastplate" out of a hide, or shoe my whole family, I am going to go for the second. There is quite a bit of evidence (from slightly later) of padded armour being the norm for the lower classes, as if you really needed to, you dont even need to process it much (raw wool, anyone?). Consider how much time it takes to process leather, and the usefulness of having it alive instead.
Secondly, I would discount the magical items. They arent worn because they are leather, and that gives protection, but instead because they have properties believed to make the wearer invulnerable. I am going off a guess here, but I would think that reindeer hide (the magic armour) and deer hide to be similar. I wouldnt wear deer hide if I had any alternative (including a couple of tunics), as I seriously doubt the stopping power.
Thirdly, I would have guessed that some sort of leather armour would have survived, somewhere. There are enough finds of shoes, belts and other leather garments that if it was worn, even infrequently, I would have guessed that it would have shown up somewhere. Using this as justification for leather armour would be like claiming that they threw warhammers at their enemies, because of Thor.
As you, this is just my opinion. Take it for what it is worth.
Firstly, what makes you believe that leather was any more cheaper than steel to work with in big stiff pieces? If I can get one "breastplate" out of a hide, or shoe my whole family, I am going to go for the second. There is quite a bit of evidence (from slightly later) of padded armour being the norm for the lower classes, as if you really needed to, you dont even need to process it much (raw wool, anyone?). Consider how much time it takes to process leather, and the usefulness of having it alive instead.
Secondly, I would discount the magical items. They arent worn because they are leather, and that gives protection, but instead because they have properties believed to make the wearer invulnerable. I am going off a guess here, but I would think that reindeer hide (the magic armour) and deer hide to be similar. I wouldnt wear deer hide if I had any alternative (including a couple of tunics), as I seriously doubt the stopping power.
Thirdly, I would have guessed that some sort of leather armour would have survived, somewhere. There are enough finds of shoes, belts and other leather garments that if it was worn, even infrequently, I would have guessed that it would have shown up somewhere. Using this as justification for leather armour would be like claiming that they threw warhammers at their enemies, because of Thor.
As you, this is just my opinion. Take it for what it is worth.
Westerners, we have forgotten our origins. We speak all the diverse languages of the country in turn. Indeed the man who was poor at home attains opulence here; he who had no more than a few deiners, finds himself master of a fourtune.
=
Okay, just because I am in a quibbling mood...
It's not an either/or choice with a hide. You cut out the big things first - breastplate, and the small things after - shoes. It's kinda like filling the jar with rocks; if you start with the small rocks, you won't have room for the big rocks. But there are usually lots of little shoe-sized corners that aren't good for anything bigger.
Leather was not expensive. It was a by-product of hunting game. As far as processing - labor was cheap. And it might be used as rawhide - less processing and pretty sturdy unless you're fighting in the rain, and a PITA to cut through even when soggy. In later literary sources IIRC it is generally portrayed as not a very respectable thing to wear - something that a brigand in the woods might be wearing.
Viking leather finds - we have some shoes and some pouches, probably some other things. If leather was declasse, would it be mentioned - or folks buried in it - or would the less-than-weathy fellow who didn't fight all the time recycle it to smaller goods and make another if he needed to sometime?
I think there are a wide range of things which are possible, and would surprise us. Would anyone have expected Otzi (sp?) to have all the cool gear he had? So until we find a Viking in a glacier...
But I am bad, and merely an unrepentant scadian, and it is best to be fairly conservative when spinning off into wild speculation.
Oswyn_de_Wulferton wrote:e
Firstly, what makes you believe that leather was any more cheaper than steel to work with in big stiff pieces? If I can get one "breastplate" out of a hide, or shoe my whole family, I am going to go for the second. There is quite a bit of evidence (from slightly later) of padded armour being the norm for the lower classes, as if you really needed to, you dont even need to process it much (raw wool, anyone?). Consider how much time it takes to process leather, and the usefulness of having it alive instead....
I wouldnt wear deer hide if I had any alternative (including a couple of tunics), as I seriously doubt the stopping power.
Thirdly, I would have guessed that some sort of leather armour would have survived, somewhere. There are enough finds of shoes, belts and other leather garments that if it was worn, even infrequently, I would have guessed that it would have shown up somewhere....
As you, this is just my opinion. Take it for what it is worth.
Okay, just because I am in a quibbling mood...
It's not an either/or choice with a hide. You cut out the big things first - breastplate, and the small things after - shoes. It's kinda like filling the jar with rocks; if you start with the small rocks, you won't have room for the big rocks. But there are usually lots of little shoe-sized corners that aren't good for anything bigger.
Leather was not expensive. It was a by-product of hunting game. As far as processing - labor was cheap. And it might be used as rawhide - less processing and pretty sturdy unless you're fighting in the rain, and a PITA to cut through even when soggy. In later literary sources IIRC it is generally portrayed as not a very respectable thing to wear - something that a brigand in the woods might be wearing.
Viking leather finds - we have some shoes and some pouches, probably some other things. If leather was declasse, would it be mentioned - or folks buried in it - or would the less-than-weathy fellow who didn't fight all the time recycle it to smaller goods and make another if he needed to sometime?
I think there are a wide range of things which are possible, and would surprise us. Would anyone have expected Otzi (sp?) to have all the cool gear he had? So until we find a Viking in a glacier...
But I am bad, and merely an unrepentant scadian, and it is best to be fairly conservative when spinning off into wild speculation.
-
Oswyn_de_Wulferton
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2861
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:15 pm
- Contact:
I see what you are saying with regards to the bigger/smaller pieces, but you can get a few pairs of shoes for the same amount of leather. If you only have X amount, then you might need it. I agree that some of it might not be expensive, but is the stuff you get hunting really good for armour? Most of what we use is veg-tan (not something you can get while hunting). I have never heard of the rawhide part of it though. Part of what we have comes from bog finds and others where there is not a ton of time to loot. Not everything was from nice burials. I would agree with the using it for other things, but I would think that someplace we would have found one. I agree that we cant know for sure, but it is still good to go on what we have.
Dont feel bad, I am a Scadian as well, and simply feel like presenting a counterpoint to your arguement. Not totally intended to change your mind, but simply provide a different view for you to consider. Perhaps in the answering, your belief in Viking leather might grow stronger.
Dont feel bad, I am a Scadian as well, and simply feel like presenting a counterpoint to your arguement. Not totally intended to change your mind, but simply provide a different view for you to consider. Perhaps in the answering, your belief in Viking leather might grow stronger.
Westerners, we have forgotten our origins. We speak all the diverse languages of the country in turn. Indeed the man who was poor at home attains opulence here; he who had no more than a few deiners, finds himself master of a fourtune.
I'm still waiting for a definitive argument against the Vikings having leather armor. "We haven't found any" isn't very compelling to me. We didn't find Troy until we did. Before that, it didn't exist. Neither did Mycenae. Until Schliemann dug it up. Using the Iliad as a guide. Leather wasn't scarce and they knew how to tan it. Why wouldn't leather gained from hunting make armor if properly treated? It makes good armor and is very light and can be attached to mail or to supplement textile armor. Metals were far harder to obtain and armor from it much more dear.
Bjorn, it's okay to examine reasonable, coherent possibilities within the context of the SCA. It isn't if you are a graduate student in History. It is if you're a Classics grad student like me. Depends upon your purpose and your ethos.
Bjorn, it's okay to examine reasonable, coherent possibilities within the context of the SCA. It isn't if you are a graduate student in History. It is if you're a Classics grad student like me. Depends upon your purpose and your ethos.
Martel le Hardi
black for the darkness of the path
red for a fiery passion
white for the blinding illumination
--------------------------------------
Ursus, verily thou rocketh.
black for the darkness of the path
red for a fiery passion
white for the blinding illumination
--------------------------------------
Ursus, verily thou rocketh.
Oswyn_de_Wulferton wrote:but is the stuff you get hunting really good for armour? Most of what we use is veg-tan (not something you can get while hunting). I have never heard of the rawhide part of it though.
You won't find tanned hides on anything you hunt, or raise. That takes work after you empty the hides out.
My 10yo daughter says I'm pretty!
Squire to Jarl Asgeirr Gunnarson, Barony of Vatavia, Calontir
Squire to Jarl Asgeirr Gunnarson, Barony of Vatavia, Calontir
-
D. Sebastian
- Archive Member
- Posts: 11463
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 1:01 am
- Location: East - Haus VDK
- Contact:
I'm still waiting for a definitive argument against the Vikings having leather armor. "We haven't found any" isn't very compelling to me.
A complete lack of evidence is quite compelling from a research point of view. Not so much that we didn't find any, but that evidence of such has not appeared in any form.
I hope we do find something. New stuff always excites me, but until then...
SCA Demo .com
Like it? Link it!
Mattyds .com
(my site)
Like it? Link it!
Mattyds .com
(my site)
There was no evidence of Troy til it was found. It was completely dismissed by mainstream researchers as legend and nothing more at the time. I'm not saying the Vikings had leather armor, just that it can't be said they didn't with complete certainty. New stuff is always coming to light that changes our understanding. Like I said, I come from a Classical archeology background and there is so much that has been and is being found that it can't be catalogued, much less analyzed. There's just not enough money and grad students to do eveything that needs done. Until every last little bit of realia has been dug up, catalogued and analyzed I think the more honest answer is to say "We don't know but none has been found so far."
Martel le Hardi
black for the darkness of the path
red for a fiery passion
white for the blinding illumination
--------------------------------------
Ursus, verily thou rocketh.
black for the darkness of the path
red for a fiery passion
white for the blinding illumination
--------------------------------------
Ursus, verily thou rocketh.
audax wrote:There was no evidence of Troy til it was found.
That actually is not true. There was evidence of it just not physical evidence of it. If there is written evidence of viking leather armour in say the Sagas then that actually is evidence. It may not be the best evidence that can be had for something but it is evidence.
Peder wrote:audax wrote:There was no evidence of Troy til it was found.
That actually is not true. There was evidence of it just not physical evidence of it. If there is written evidence of viking leather armour in say the Sagas then that actually is evidence. It may not be the best evidence that can be had for something but it is evidence.
Are these the same Sagas that have the magic reindeer hides?
If you are not doing anything to a hide to harden it aside from whatever type of tanning you are using. A hide w/ the hair on it would probably work better for deflecting sword blows than a hide w/o hair. If you take the Sagas as a literary work based on actual events that have been embelished (sp?), then why wouldn't you assume that the base is correct.
If everyone wore deer leather armor and someone got some reindeer hide armor that deflected blows better you might say in your book that it was magical.
Zack
-
Oswyn_de_Wulferton
- Archive Member
- Posts: 2861
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:15 pm
- Contact:
From my limited experience, letting a hide tan on a frame, it was really hard to keep the hair on it, without it turning completely nasty. You ended up scraping it away to stop it from rotting, and ruining the rest of the hide. The big question still remains of how hard is reindeer hide? Like deer? Sole bend? I still think that the level of protection it would give you would be nominal compared to wearing a couple of thick woolen tunics.
Westerners, we have forgotten our origins. We speak all the diverse languages of the country in turn. Indeed the man who was poor at home attains opulence here; he who had no more than a few deiners, finds himself master of a fourtune.
Bjorn Leorhals wrote:
Are these the same Sagas that have the magic reindeer hides?
I have no idea if they mention magic reindeer hides or not as I haven't even read the other thread and vikings are not my thing.
If there are mentions of magic reindeer hides in the Sagas then you need to look at how often are they mentioned, how broadly are they mentioned and how broadly are other types of armour mentioned or lack of armour mentioned.
Brent
Peder wrote:audax wrote:There was no evidence of Troy til it was found.
That actually is not true. There was evidence of it just not physical evidence of it. If there is written evidence of viking leather armour in say the Sagas then that actually is evidence. It may not be the best evidence that can be had for something but it is evidence.
Thus are the nits picked.
Martel le Hardi
black for the darkness of the path
red for a fiery passion
white for the blinding illumination
--------------------------------------
Ursus, verily thou rocketh.
black for the darkness of the path
red for a fiery passion
white for the blinding illumination
--------------------------------------
Ursus, verily thou rocketh.
Peder wrote:I have no idea if they mention magic reindeer hides or not as I haven't even read the other thread and vikings are not my thing.
If there are mentions of magic reindeer hides in the Sagas then you need to look at how often are they mentioned, how broadly are they mentioned and how broadly are other types of armour mentioned or lack of armour mentioned.
Brent
I have bought several different coppies and have in total read about 3 paragraphs out of all of them put together
.I got the reindeer hide thing from someone here on the AA. I believe it was said and I believe it that Reindeer hide armor is mentiond somewhere in the ballpark of once.
The point I was trying to make is they wrote it down once so yes it was special. But was it special because it was magic, special because it was leather, special because it was reindeer? If something is commonplace authors might have overlooked it because everyone did it so no one needs reminding of it (like the tshirt refference I made above). When an author says someone was fully armored with a helm and a shield was he saying this because being fully armored meant only a helm and a shield, or did he mean fully armored just like everyone else but he had a helm and a shield too.
Oswyn_de_Wulferton wrote:The two best examples I have heard of this is that the Greeks were the first to invent the steam engine. Why did they decide to keep using chariots then? Because they thought it was a useless invention, and couldnt figure out what to do with it. It is the same with a normal quartz watch (an example closer to our time). The Swiss figured out they could do this, and make a watch run. But it wasnt a watch to them, it was a cheap little trick. Until someone with a different mindset comes along (in the case of the watch, the Japanese), they stay with what they would have known.
I am not disagreeing with you on either the watch or the steam engine thing. They had a new technology and had no idea what to do with it because it was just wierd to them. However we know the Vikings did know the protective properties of leather and they used it for several types of protection (shoes, shield coverings) the only thing that is in question is did they keep going and put it on other parts of their bodies as well.
Anyway I know there are several threads already about Vikings and weather leather armor was used by them or not. I probably should have picked another example for my first post but I didn't. I was trying to get this thread about the different views on research and what people considder to be viable (I guess I could have put that in the first post too).
Zack
I read a book recently called the Archaeology of Weapons. Basically it traced the sword from about 3500BC to 15th century. I can't recall the author. Anywho...The author of this book speaks very highly of sagas as they (fellow historians) have found a distinct resemblance between saga descriptions and finds from bogs and such. After reading that book I think disregarding the sagas as fantasy ramblings could be a little callous.
Boner, the Barbarian.
-
earnest carruthers
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1801
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:39 pm
- Location: East Anglia, UK
Cunian
"It's not an either/or choice with a hide. You cut out the big things first - breastplate, and the small things after - shoes. It's kinda like filling the jar with rocks; if you start with the small rocks, you won't have room for the big rocks. But there are usually lots of little shoe-sized corners that aren't good for anything bigger."
With something like armour, shoes or in fact anything made of leather where the piece comes from is crucial, some parts of the skin are no use at all for shoes, or belts. So it is what part of the skin is right for the job is the crucial factor. So if for example in a hypothetical leather breastplate, you would want the leather from the back, where it is thickest, so that means the rest is then only usable for whatever can be made use of from it. That means two hides with more waste or for limited uses.
"Leather was not expensive. It was a by-product of hunting game...."
Not quite true, leather was bought and sold in huge quantities between the various nations, given that much of it was cow, goat and sheep then some measure of cultivation is implied and required to meet demand, ie it was an industry.
Each animal has to be raised and kept in good condition, that means a lot of resources, food, care etc, so look at the energy pyramid alone to produce one sheep skin. In medieval England sheep wool was the main cash commodity, that comes from living sheep, a dead sheep can only be used once. And a badly reared animal produces poor leather. So leather is not cheap. Also the various examples of recycled leather would show it was valued rather than merely thrown away.
A cloth armour is essentially grown from the ground and made into cloth, a lot less energy and a huge reduction in time for the material to be made.
"As far as processing - labor was cheap...."
That would depend on the tanning process you used, some tanning agents need to be acquired, alum for example is not readily available everywhere so has to be bought.
Labour was cheap.
"And it might be used as rawhide - less processing and pretty sturdy unless you're fighting in the rain, and a PITA to cut through even when soggy. In later literary sources IIRC it is generally portrayed as not a very respectable thing to wear - something that a brigand in the woods might be wearing. "
Most fragments of leather appear to be tanned or tawed or otherwise cured. rawhide as you say is crappy and smelly and useless for most functions at the levels of clothing that most reenactors portray.
Leather from different nations was prized for particular use, suggesting that not all practices or materials were available at home, eg lots of goat skin from Spain to make points and book leathers.
"It's not an either/or choice with a hide. You cut out the big things first - breastplate, and the small things after - shoes. It's kinda like filling the jar with rocks; if you start with the small rocks, you won't have room for the big rocks. But there are usually lots of little shoe-sized corners that aren't good for anything bigger."
With something like armour, shoes or in fact anything made of leather where the piece comes from is crucial, some parts of the skin are no use at all for shoes, or belts. So it is what part of the skin is right for the job is the crucial factor. So if for example in a hypothetical leather breastplate, you would want the leather from the back, where it is thickest, so that means the rest is then only usable for whatever can be made use of from it. That means two hides with more waste or for limited uses.
"Leather was not expensive. It was a by-product of hunting game...."
Not quite true, leather was bought and sold in huge quantities between the various nations, given that much of it was cow, goat and sheep then some measure of cultivation is implied and required to meet demand, ie it was an industry.
Each animal has to be raised and kept in good condition, that means a lot of resources, food, care etc, so look at the energy pyramid alone to produce one sheep skin. In medieval England sheep wool was the main cash commodity, that comes from living sheep, a dead sheep can only be used once. And a badly reared animal produces poor leather. So leather is not cheap. Also the various examples of recycled leather would show it was valued rather than merely thrown away.
A cloth armour is essentially grown from the ground and made into cloth, a lot less energy and a huge reduction in time for the material to be made.
"As far as processing - labor was cheap...."
That would depend on the tanning process you used, some tanning agents need to be acquired, alum for example is not readily available everywhere so has to be bought.
Labour was cheap.
"And it might be used as rawhide - less processing and pretty sturdy unless you're fighting in the rain, and a PITA to cut through even when soggy. In later literary sources IIRC it is generally portrayed as not a very respectable thing to wear - something that a brigand in the woods might be wearing. "
Most fragments of leather appear to be tanned or tawed or otherwise cured. rawhide as you say is crappy and smelly and useless for most functions at the levels of clothing that most reenactors portray.
Leather from different nations was prized for particular use, suggesting that not all practices or materials were available at home, eg lots of goat skin from Spain to make points and book leathers.
earnest carruthers wrote:
Not quite true, leather was bought and sold in huge quantities between the various nations, given that much of it was cow, goat and sheep then some measure of cultivation is implied and required to meet demand, ie it was an industry.
...
A cloth armour is essentially grown from the ground and made into cloth, a lot less energy and a huge reduction in time for the material to be made.
I don't know how much leather trade was going on in Viking times. I do know there was a substantial cloth trade already. Making cloth takes a long time. It is why women at that time were spinning and weaving at every stray moment in their lives. I would really doubt that greater quantities of time and effort were involved in tanning leather.
-
earnest carruthers
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1801
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:39 pm
- Location: East Anglia, UK
The time taken and cost to make leather is mostly growing the animal, ie years the tanning may take a few weeks to a year, depending on the process.
The time taken to harvest wool and spin it may well be substantial, but it is offset by the essential reusability of a sheep, they get fed, they get sheared etc etc.
Likewise growing flax is a season, retting, carding and spinning and weaving, a year, also the cloth can be made to any lenght required and a loom made to suit, animals can only be bred to be bigger.
And cloth is not cheap either, relative to leather maybe but not 'cheap'.
On top pf that it is possible to card, spin and weave at will, as long as the stuff is set up, tanning hides is not something you just do when you fancy it as it is dictated by timing.
The general ease of making cloth and that it need not deplete the supply may well be the reason cloth has overtaken leather as a clothing material.
The time taken to harvest wool and spin it may well be substantial, but it is offset by the essential reusability of a sheep, they get fed, they get sheared etc etc.
Likewise growing flax is a season, retting, carding and spinning and weaving, a year, also the cloth can be made to any lenght required and a loom made to suit, animals can only be bred to be bigger.
And cloth is not cheap either, relative to leather maybe but not 'cheap'.
On top pf that it is possible to card, spin and weave at will, as long as the stuff is set up, tanning hides is not something you just do when you fancy it as it is dictated by timing.
The general ease of making cloth and that it need not deplete the supply may well be the reason cloth has overtaken leather as a clothing material.
-
Mord
- Archive Member
- Posts: 9752
- Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:48 am
- Location: Philadelphia, PA (looking at a wall)
Boner wrote:I read a book recently called the Archaeology of Weapons. Basically it traced the sword from about 3500BC to 15th century. I can't recall the author. Anywho...The author of this book speaks very highly of sagas as they (fellow historians) have found a distinct resemblance between saga descriptions and finds from bogs and such. After reading that book I think disregarding the sagas as fantasy ramblings could be a little callous.
Try, then, reading Peter Sawyer's "Age of Vikings" (2nd editon, 1982), as opposed to the "Archaeology of Weapons" (originally published in the early 1960s).
More generally, folks,
I am not interested in the probable or the possible; it's enough to be interested in what can proven. Speculation (the probable and the possible) in historical studies is fun, but only useful in learning the differences between "good" historical methods and "bad" historical methods.
Proving a fact through the evidence is much harder than expected. First, consider the source. Is the source documentary (written), representational (pictorial),or material (objects large and small). These are very broad catagories, each with their assets and limitations, and so requiring a different method of examination. Explaining a method for each of these 3 catagories would be a tedious business, but I can tell you that a good dose of sketpicism within context is the first step. Ask:
What is the provenance of the source?
Who found the source?
What is condition of the source?
When do we think the source was created?
Is there anything we can compare the source to?
Mord.
Keep calm and carry a bigger stick.