I don't want to beat a dead horse...

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 1:10 pm

but it just occurred to me... we have all these references to double mail, and extra-stout mail (such as Harald Hardrada's shirt "Emma")... there are supposedly some effigies showing 6-in-1 mail on the figures... but might not further evidence for this being the weave be the physical appearance? There are several depictions of mail where the armor has a quite distinct "rows of mail" appearance... it's not universal, but it does pop up, and so far as I recall, typically fairly late in the "age of mail."

I'm just tossing this off prior to getting to lunch, but... any opinions?

ushumgal · Post by **ushumgal** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 1:16 pm

The problem with artistic representations is that - unless it is depicted so clearly that there is no doubt, which is very rare - it could always simply be artistic convention. Take the 'ringmail' on the Bayeux Tapestry, or for that matter, the 'scale' shirts on the frescos at the synagogue at Dura-Europos are just as likely a conventional representation of mail. The only representation of mail clear enough to make our individual links that I know of is that of the Sasanian king Ardashir (I think) at Taq i-Bustan. His helm has a mail aventail that wraps all the way around the face, and if I recall, it is precise enough to make out that it is 4-in-1 mail.

Jamie
LU2.DUB.SAR

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:27 pm

This is true: though I tend to be suspicious of the "convention" argument unless it's very obviously so... my wife's dissertation revolved around an awful lot of what was dismissed as "imagining" and "convention," where the material involved actually matched up perfectly to much that was known to exist exactly...

but I guess that's a ymmv kind of thing...
tnx.