Cuirie

[Thomas MacFinn]

In his book European Armor: circa 1066 to circa 1700 (1959), Claude Blair theorized that a "cuirie" was a cuir-bouilli breastplate worn over chain. Has anybody proven or disproven this?

[PartsAndTechnical]

This is heretical to some.... however I contend that the term cuirie and boili are very likely misinterpreted.

Modern English has evolved to a point where Middle English and Old English terms have very different connotations.

As an example, just the other day I learned that the term "burl" ...as in a highly valued turned 'burled' bowl is a combination of the term boil and another word....resulting in the combined term, b'url. NOWADAYS we tend to define it simply as a piece of knotty wood .......but in period a true burl was a highly valued sick portion or healed portion of a tree, most notably where the tree was sickened or injured and healed over, forming a morass of knotty wood, much more dense and infinitely stronger than even a typical knot. And yet according to many lumber folks I deal with, a burl is erroneously thought of as simply a knotty piece of wood....this is not the true historical meaning. We have implied the term boil...burl....bubble...rounded bubble....all supposedly meaning the same thing, yet the origins of these words are really different....but they have been confused and mixed up.

Yet the process that creates a true historical tree burl is not the same meaning as water boil. The latter refers to the REMOVAL of water ...ie, vapor, gas. Even in period people understood basic evaporation.

At any rate, the term boil has come to be associated with water, or boiling water.... but what this really implies is not necessarily heat or light cooking at all (as we currently presume) , but rather the removal of water which is exactly what the careful drying out hides does....it makes it strong as hell

I did some research into the origin of the word boil some time ago. The problem with taking the definition too literally when applying it to "hardened hide" is the redundancy of time/money wasted when tanning leather (a process designed to soften it for the most part) only to totally undue all that time/money by hardening it up again when it was unnecessary. Combine this with the modern public's general lack of experience using true raw-hides (no, not the rough doggie chew tows) but the smooth outer skin from the animal. Is the finished surface smooth....yes. Can it be tooled and carved..yes. Can it be dyed or painted....yes. Can it be shaped, stretched, etc...yes.

This is a good discussion of the word boil and why we need to possibly rethink our literally approach (notably one of the KEY MEANINGS is to reduce water....ie, dry out.....I think this is the clue)

boil- Word History

* Boil ‘large spot’ (OE) and boil ‘vaporize with heat’ (13th c.) are distinct words. The former comes from Old English bȳl or bȳle, which became bile in Middle English; the change to boil started in the 15th century, perhaps from association with the verb. The Old English word goes back ultimately to a West Germanic *būlja, whose central meaning element was ‘swelling’; from it also comes German beule ‘lump, boil’. The verb’s source, via Anglo-Norman boiller, is Latin bullīre, a derivative of bulla ‘bubble’, a word which also gave us bull (as in ‘Papal bull’), bullion, bowl (as in the game of ‘bowls’), budge, bullet, bulletin and bully (as in ‘bully beef’), as well, perhaps, as bill.
See also bill, bowl, budge, bull, bullet, bulletin, bullion, bully, ebullient

The only problem with the above quote is that it also overlooks natural evaporation. So with cuire boille we literally have "cured/finished, evaporated material," hence the sense of hot water to "boil" already tanned leather is redundant and unnecessary. To dry out the hide (creating what we now call raw-hide) is a closer probably meaning to the concept of evaporated and hence hardened hide. I suspect this scenario is rather like the term salute and salude or sallet....sallet or sallad bowl, military salute or lifting visor. Somehow, someway they have all been mixed up and associated with each other, implying a common derived meaning or word. But language etymology often shows that two or more seemingly similar things or processes can be mixed up and combined in slang, a sort of reference to something that reminds us of something else.


eg, an airplane/aeroplane is technically not exactly the same thing as a jet, but in common use we think of these things as one in the same, yet their specific meanings and origins are very different. A jet is something that jettisons or creates expulsion. An aeroplane is a surface that air moves over, often quickly. Nowadays we think of the two words as the same thing...just like we have simplified the term boil to presumably mean one thing.

I contend at least one valid industrial (armour) production meaning in the Middle Ages, is not about heated boiling or even adding water, thus undoing already finished leather .....but cleaning and evaporating fresh animal hides to create a hardened and easily tooled, dyed, painted, shaped or stretched (far better stretched) product.

[Russ Mitchell]

It's a reasonable supposition -- it's very, very easy to be deceived by false cognates.
The question to my mind would be -- can they be painted, gessoed, glued, treated, etcetera, as was done at the time?

For example, I have a hell of a time trying to hide-glue two pieces of rawhide together -- there's not enough penetration to make it work (this almost certainly being why the folks in the other thread were going with partially-tanned stuff).

[PartsAndTechnical]

It's a reasonable supposition -- it's very, very easy to be deceived by false cognates.
The question to my mind would be -- can they be painted, gessoed, glued, treated, etcetera, as was done at the time?

For example, I have a hell of a time trying to hide-glue two pieces of rawhide together -- there's not enough penetration to make it work (this almost certainly being why the folks in the other thread were going with partially-tanned stuff).

Yes, rawhides....which I prefer to call "dried hide" to avoid modern connotations, can be painted, gessoed and presumably glued, though I would submit that effective rawhide for armour would not be thin, anymore than tanned leather-rehardened would be too thin either. And at some point if its thicker there is no need to glue it....a long way of saying, I see no point in gluing hard thick materials as its rather redundant, unnecessary. But as for painting, gesso...sure. Ive dont experiment with tooled dried hides ...providing its slightly 'wetted' it works just great. Even the argument that dried hides lose their efficacy in rain/water is almost moot---because this is also true with hardened, dried out leather but I will say that Ive submitted dried out hides to rain and they are remarkably resistant to rehydration, I think in part because the original fats and oils are still present and must, somehow, form a barrier to rehydration??? I would contend, however that dried hides while capable of being very hard and cut resistant, are still a bit more flexible, again because the natural fats and oils have not been totally driven out of them.

Dried hides remind me of kevlar in many ways. Hard, yet cut and more water resistant.

Well have you tried gluing tanned leather in the same fashion with any success? Im asking because it would stand to reason that if you have similar trouble it might be the glue, not the hides. What kind of glue ?

Now having said that Im leery of gluing leather anyway. If it was a totally durable method we would see a lot more evidence of it. But we seem to see more stitching or riveting than anything. Even a sword handle with leather often shows evidence of stitching to help hold it on. Or perhaps it was frequently replaced and reglued. Russ you probably have done more with glued leather, so I yield to your experience with this. Just seems to me that the notion of gluing something is to either attach two separate weaker things for said purpose of hardening as a union/whole.

[Blaine de Navarre]

As far as I know, there is almost no information regarding the early cuirie except that A) such a thing existed, B) it was made of leather in some way, and C) it was worn over the mail and under the surcoat.

I apologize for working from memory and not having the link, but I found a web page of someone who had researched it, and the best he was able to find were several efigies with the shoulders of the surcoat riding up off the shoulder as if something else were under them, one effigy with some buckled straps showing in the arm hole of the surcoat, and one illustration of a battle showing one guy wearing what might be one without a surcoat over it.

As to weather they were hardened in some way or not, cured leather or rawhide, or any other relevant information, AFAIK there is no data.

[Russ Mitchell]

regarding the OP: What Blaine said. We just don't know.

"Yes, rawhides....which I prefer to call "dried hide" to avoid modern connotations, can be painted, gessoed and presumably glued, though I would submit that effective rawhide for armour would not be thin, anymore than tanned leather-rehardened would be too thin either."

-- This is working backwards from an idea, not forwards from evidence. The VAST majority of hides available to medieval Europe would generally be relatively thin. Tough as hell and hard to cut through? Sure. But most cattle hides just aren't all that thick, and even draft horse isn't particularly stout. None of them are until they've been hot-stuffed with oils in the tanning process, pumping them up some.

REAL pretty, though, if you part-tan then with the right stuff. I did some with tea once and got a gorgeous semi-translucent orange material I almost made into fantasy armor for a guy. But this really deserves its own thread so as not to be rude to Thomas.

[PartsAndTechnical]

regarding the OP: What Blaine said. We just don't know.

"Yes, rawhides....which I prefer to call "dried hide" to avoid modern connotations, can be painted, gessoed and presumably glued, though I would submit that effective rawhide for armour would not be thin, anymore than tanned leather-rehardened would be too thin either."

-- This is working backwards from an idea, not forwards from evidence. The VAST majority of hides available to medieval Europe would generally be relatively thin. Tough as hell and hard to cut through? Sure. But most cattle hides just aren't all that thick, and even draft horse isn't particularly stout. None of them are until they've been hot-stuffed with oils in the tanning process, pumping them up some.

REAL pretty, though, if you part-tan then with the right stuff. I did some with tea once and got a gorgeous semi-translucent orange material I almost made into fantasy armor for a guy. But this really deserves its own thread so as not to be rude to Thomas.

I agree that its using wording to find a starting point, but as has been established we dont really have a starting point insofar as armour goes. So I am tracing the etymology and submitting experiential evidence as two pieces that I think form reasonably good evidence.

When you say relatively thin....how thin are you referring to? Meaning, Im not implying sole leather in the scadian context. Besides hardened hide armour cant be too thick anyway less it gets clumsy. I rather agree that there is something to be considered with respect to keeping it thick enough and not going overboard.

[Ernst]

As to Blaine's point concerning reasearch, I've never understtod why it is presumed that a curie was made of one big piece of leather/hide as opposed to scales?

[Russ Mitchell]

Basically b/c you don't see a lot of scale going on in NW Europe at the time. Further south, sure... but there are so many options that we're barking into space. An alum-tanned hide doublet, for instance, is every bit as plausible.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

-- This is working backwards from an idea, not forwards from evidence. The VAST majority of hides available to medieval Europe would generally be relatively thin. Tough as hell and hard to cut through? Sure. But most cattle hides just aren't all that thick, and even draft horse isn't particularly stout. None of them are until they've been hot-stuffed with oils in the tanning process, pumping them up some.

How thick would the rawhide be if it came from the shoulders? That leather tends to be fairly thick when finished. I think our ideas of what rawhide is comes from our modern usage where there really isn't much commercial demand for thicker than what Tandy/etc sell.

[Russ Mitchell]

You'd have to ask Kel, but my experience tanning (which is pretty light, just a moosehide or two, really, and some experimental bits with lighter hides), is that they're just not that thick unless they're stuffed with something... most of the cow I've seen really does seem to come out around 6oz or so.

[Thomas MacFinn]

I was hoping that somebody had escavated a cuirie between 1959 and today. From what I am reading here, no such luck.

[Russ Mitchell]

Sadly, Thomas, if they have, it's probably English, and buried sixty pages into some title called "the High Street finds, vol. 3" that's absolutely useless unless you already know what's in it.

[Kel Rekuta]

I was hoping that somebody had escavated a cuirie between 1959 and today. From what I am reading here, no such luck.

Unlike shoes, belts and pouches, such a thing wouldn't be tossed into a midden or "fall in" a latrine like so many of the London finds. That and leather items rarely survive in the ground outside of very specific conditions.

[Kel Rekuta]

How thick would the rawhide be if it came from the shoulders? That leather tends to be fairly thick when finished. I think our ideas of what rawhide is comes from our modern usage where there really isn't much commercial demand for thicker than what Tandy/etc sell.

In terms of readily available hides in medieval Europe, the thickest would likely be from oxen - buffalo breeds. Moose were available in Baltic regions but likely not tanned commercially. Horse is actually a bit thinner than bovine hide as a rule. The thickest section of any hide is always the butt and that's where most curriers measure to grade a hide for thickness.

Tandy is selling pretty much the same rawhide you'd get from any of the other vendors. The thickest bovine rawhide that has been properly stretched for flatness is typically 6+oz. The tanning and fulling process makes rawhide fibres open up and set with a certain amount of air replacing the water as it evaporates. Stuffing and breaking in drums fluffs it more. That's why "sole leather" has to be compressed through roller bars to pack fibres more densely.

Perhaps that was helpful? I'm not a tanner but I have visited plenty and have several books on the topic. Best I can offer...

Kel

[PartsAndTechnical]

After some thought, Im eschewing the term "RW" and hardened hide in favor of "dried hide" to avoid misinterpretations, the DH I got my hands on came freshly slaughtered in a five gallon bucket.

Yes..it was among the grossest things I have ever dealt with. But after I threw up that first time....it got easier.

At any rate, one can still order freshly skinned hides. Expect nasty smells and BE PREPARED with 2x4s and screws to make a wooden frame so you can stretch out the hide. Get a box of plastic gloves....medical gloves. A good fan to avert the stench....and find a place in the sun.

And while its very hard and water resistant, you can then RESOAK for 24 hours and RESTRETCH a dried hide over a mold....producing any number of things. Thats the beauty of this stuff.

Feel free to play around with stamping, embossing etc when its mildly wet, just like tanned leather. Paint it, dye it...bleach it out. All works.

[Russ Mitchell]

2x4s ain't gonna cut it, bro. A full-sized hide properly stretched is very likely to rip that frame in half unless you're doubling the "bars."
Cadaverine doesn't actually smell all that bad, but it tastes terrible in your coffee. If you thought a fresh hide smelled bad, just be glad you're not doing a period bate.

I'm going to keep using "rawhide," and hope it doesn't offend you -- there are simply too many ways rawhide can be treated and played with, "dried hide" being one of them, to start playing with new terms at this point.

[PartsAndTechnical]

I saying that rawhide tends to paint the image of baseball or native american raw hide. This reminds me of the term green woodworking. In the period woodworking community we have debated the merits and meanings of the word...because in reality oak cleaves and rives great when wet....but planing it is much harder and riskier when wet.

Im proposing "dried hide" simply because it avoids native american, baseball, or dog chew toy connotations implies water reduction rather than tanning.

Ive used 2x4s before on cowhide. Worked fine. Just cross rib them. The air still gets to the skin. I suggest 2x4s because they are easier to work with and build up if necessary, hence as you say, something thicker.

[Russ Mitchell]

Dude. YOU use whatever terms you want. If I mean parfleche, I'll say it.

[Kel Rekuta]

After some thought, Im eschewing the term "RW" and hardened hide in favor of "dried hide" to avoid misinterpretations, the DH I got my hands on came freshly slaughtered in a five gallon bucket.

The tanning trade has particular terms for all of these -
Freshly slaughtered fresh or green hides = what you ended up with. Frequently frozen for those demanding customers who bribe the floor manager of the abbatoir with homebrewed beer.
Salted and dried but not fleshed - what most tanneries purchase or import. Smelly and gross but manageable like a truly disgusting sheet of plywood. Each chemical step after that adds its name to the pretanned or tanned product.
Wet blue is the most commonly sold and shipped semi-finished product. The name comes from the colour of the hides after chromium tanning without any further processing including retanning.

There is no need to invent new terms, simply learn the one that have been in use in English speaking countries for ... a couple centuries. Just because people misuse correct terms is no reason to invent new ones that need to be explained to the knowledgeable and the rest equally. Dried hide is actually a less useful term because it only describes the lack of moisture in some piece of animal skin, not its state of tannage or lack thereof.

BTW, you'd have to use a lot of 2x4" and screws to survive the tension drying cowhide can create. Easier to use fence posts which are cheap like borscht and strong like moose... If you assemble them with mortise and tenon joints, they are easily dissassembled and stored when not in use. Use the cheapest baling twine and some river pebbles or marbles to tie off the hide. As it dries it stretches uniformly allowing a more balanced hide to scrape as needed.

[PartsAndTechnical]

Poll 100 people and they will assume youre referring to dog chew toy rawhide.

You can use fencing posts I guess. Ive used 2x4s with great success. I preferred to suggest balsa wood and foam tubes for the frame but I knew that would annoy you guys.

[Kel Rekuta]

Would you poll a hundred random people to research an academic topic? Or would you seek information from the industry or field most closely related to your topic of interest. To do otherwise would be a waste of time resulting in more pop history based on anecdote and misconception.

Does that annoy you?

[Russ Mitchell]

Not to mention, if folks would start using the right terms, they'd have an easier time finding what they're looking for. Granted, there aren't MANY tanners willing to make half-tanned leather, or give you a raggy hide for use in making a buff coat, but they're out there....

[Mac]

Russ,

What's "raggy hide"? I searched it in quotes like that, and only got three hits, (almost a "google whack"), none of which were about leather.

Mac

[Russ Mitchell]

Tragically, the leather industry regards a nice, thick, soft leather hide that's open, breathes great, and has drape like fabric as "raggy," and something absolutely not to be produced, because it's so unlike regular leather that there's not a ready market for it. "Raggy" being the opposite of "boardy," i.e., leather that's wayyy too stiff and neither forms nor tools well.

[PartsAndTechnical]

Would you poll a hundred random people to research an academic topic? Or would you seek information from the industry or field most closely related to your topic of interest. To do otherwise would be a waste of time resulting in more pop history based on anecdote and misconception.

Does that annoy you?

[PartsAndTechnical]

I am now coining a new term.

Sloughed Hide.


This implies it came off but avoids death or pain to the animal. I now demand this term be used and want total credit for it.

[Kel Rekuta]

I am now coining a new term.

Sloughed Hide.


This implies it came off but avoids death or pain to the animal. I now demand this term be used and want total credit for it.

Perfectly valid for snakeskins...

[Dan Howard]

Kel has a point. We get annoyed when people use superfluous terms like "chainmail" when there are perfectly valid terms already in use by the armour community. If the leather industry has terms for different types of leather and hide then it would be silly and counter productive to arbitrarily change the definition of these terms.

[RandallMoffett]

So where is a good run down of these terms, hopefully in one place?

RPM

[PartsAndTechnical]

Im not annoyed Dan. Just being a dork

[Dan Howard]

Im not annoyed Dan. Just being a dork

I didn't think that you were annoyed. I'm thinking that those involved in the leather industry would get annoyed when trying to read some of these threads. Personally I'd get annoyed if I tried to search for some of these products and discovered that the people involved in supplying this material use completely different terms for what I'm trying to find. I second Randall's call for a rundown of all of the various leather/hide products and how various terms are defined - maybe a thread marked as a sticky or at the very least a link to a single site where these things can be found.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

I am now coining a new term.

Sloughed Hide.


This implies it came off but avoids death or pain to the animal. I now demand this term be used and want total credit for it.

I once told a vegan, among mutual friends, that I only ate humanely raised veal. It was raised in a crate so that the big bad world couldn't hurt it, and only the parts that stuck through the slats were sliced off so that it would be more comfortable in the crate.

Everyone thought it was funny but her, imagine that.