The Armour Archive

Hi All-

Our local group took a curator lead, after hours tour of the Kelsey Museum this evening to look at their coin collection. While there they also took us through their temporary exhibit. One of the artifacts on display is the only known extant example of Roman leather lamellar.

The scales were made of a "poorly tanned" leather, possibly rawhide though the docent couldn't tell me for sure. They are working on a grant to have the piece fully analyzed and preserved. The scales were originally backed by a thinner layer of leather. They were also at least partially colored red - the pigment was largely removed during the initial preservation and transport from Egypt to Michigan in the 1920-1930's.

A few more:







I'll try to get the whole album up and linked on Monday when I am using a better connection!

Great find! Finally, proof of a leather cuirass.

Looks like scale armour, not lamellar. The lacing holds the scales to a backing. I'm guessing that it was made in strips and then laced to a foundation. The example from Dura Europos is true lamellar. Where in Egypt was this found? Is there a cite for the dig report?

It is roughly contemporary with the Dura-Europos finds (256-7AD), so this is doubly cool.

Here are a couple of pics I was able to find online of the cuisses:

Len Parker wrote:Great find! Finally, proof of a leather cuirass.

There is already plenty of proof for leather scale and lamellar. There is still very little to suggest that the Romans wore it. The Dura Europos example is just as likely to have been Persian as Roman, and there is no way to tell who wore Greg's example without more info. It was found in Egypt, which was part of the Roman empire at the time, but without some context it is not reasonable to attribute it to a Roman legionary. The Egyptians and all of their neighbours have been wearing leather scale armour since the Bronze Age. However, Roman or not, it is still very cool and I'm looking forward to learning more about it.

Dan Howard wrote:Looks like scale armour, not lamellar. The lacing holds the scales to a backing. I'm guessing that it was made in strips and then laced to a foundation. The example from Dura Europos is true lamellar. Where in Egypt was this found? Is there a cite for the dig report?

Hi Dan-

I've got some more pictures that I'll be putting up that show the lacing pattern. I'm not strong on early armor types, but it looked more like lamellar than scales to me. I'd be happy to be corrected though.

The dig was conducted in Karanis. Again, I have some more information from info cards that I'll be posting soon, but I don't know if there is a dig report published. The museum staff are absolutely fantastic though and I am certain would be willing to answer any questions we have. If we put together a comprehensive list, I will gladly act as the liaison. Also, once I have all of the pictures up, if someone wants something specific photographed more closely I can try to get that as well. (Unfortunately, I don't have a macro lens so some of the detail is just uncapturable. They might let me use a tripod if I ask nicely though)

Cheers,
-Greg.

Hi All-

You can view the full set of images HERE

One of the many arguments against leather armour has been that it's to thin to offer much protection. You can see the scales on this cuirass all overlap halfway, making it double thickness. The same is true of the Eurasian cuirass in the Met. Certainly better than nothing.

I'm not seeing any visual evidence whatsoever for this being scale, unless those strips on the top and bottom are a new way of defining "backing material." Dan, what are you seeing that I'm not?

Len Parker wrote:One of the many arguments against leather armour has been that it's to thin to offer much protection.

No. That is argument against a lot of modern reconstuctions pretending to be armour. And for historical examples of leather clothing that some people claim were actually armour. There has never been any dispute for leather being used as armour in plenty of cultures - but Rome is not one of them. Scale/lamellar is by far the most common type of leather armour.

Russ Mitchell wrote:I'm not seeing any visual evidence whatsoever for this being scale, unless those strips on the top and bottom are a new way of defining "backing material." Dan, what are you seeing that I'm not?

I'm seeing Greg's initial post which says that the scales were attached to a leather backing and I can think of a few other examples that look exactly the same that are made in strips and attached to a backing, but I'd love to see the back of the construction and maybe a few close-up shots. Scale or lamellar it is still a marvellous find.

Dan Howard wrote: I'm seeing Greg's initial post which says that the scales were attached to a leather backing and I can think of a few other examples that look exactly the same that are made in strips and attached to a backing, but I'd love to see the back of the construction and maybe a few close-up shots. Scale or lamellar it is still a marvellous find.

Hi Dan,

I said that the armor was originally backed by thinner leather, not mounted on thinner leather. Whether that backing was also a mounting, I don't know. It is a question we can ask the museum!

We don't have a lot of that lining material there, but it looks to me like very thin material and probably there just for comfort... but now that you mention it, being THAT thin, it could actually have been a backing which as degraded and ripped out. I don't think it's very likely given the plate deformations, but it definitely COULD be the case.

Len, agreed with Dan. I've replicated descriptions here and there and made leather armor that would stop an 80lb composite warbow (think draw equivalent to a 100lb longbow) cold. But unless somebody was an auxiliary, I've never heard of Romans using the stuff.

There is nothing to suggest that even Roman auxilliaries wore leather armour. But it depends on your definition of auxilliary. Is an Egyptian soldier serving under an Egyptian commander in Egypt during the time of the Roman occupation considered a Roman auxilliary?

IT does not look that thin to me really. Thicker than what I use for straps and belts for the most part. Then doubled in this way seems fairly thick.

RPM

Dan,
I wasn't referring to you when I mentioned people arguing against leather as armour. You're probably the most cautious person on the subject. I was referring to comments like "leather didn't protect the animal" and "the bearskin didn't save the bear".

Hi Len

It shouldn't take too long to put together a list of leather armour samples from various museums. That will stop those kinds of silly comments. There are two just in this thread complete with photos.

Said comments are inane in the first place. Living skin != leather.

my mind is very blown at the moment, that looks almost identical to the lamellar i just made with the exception that this one was obviously better constructed. This will be wonderful to stop the arguments in my area about leather lamellar and scale. It's not my time period or my region, but it was done.

Odd

Of course it was done but there is nothing to suggest that it was ever worn in medieval western Europe or Scandinavia. It would be a valid armour type in eastern Europe.

Dan Howard wrote:Of course it was done but there is nothing to suggest that it was ever worn in medieval western Europe or Scandinavia. It would be a valid armour type in eastern Europe.

Until they excavate Stiklestad and find several sets of varied leather armors, plus a couple of dozen helms with horns on them.

Hey Greg, do you have any more info on this armour?

Hi Dan-

I've not gotten any follow up information, no. Sorry to have dropped the ball.

If we put together a list of specific questions, I can get in contact with the museum and see if they can answer them for us.

Would that be a persons armour or a bard?

Mike England wrote:Would that be a persons armour or a bard?

Bards are people too man, bards are people too...

Do you mean a barding? I don't think so - it is definitely cuirass shaped.

Mike England wrote:Would that be a persons armour or a bard?

That's a very good question, Mike. I am not at all sure that one can tell from what has survived.

Does anyone here see something in the remains that sheds any light on this?

Mac

Gregoire de Lyon wrote: Do you mean a barding? I don't think so - it is definitely cuirass shaped.

Greg,

The fragments are currently arranged to suggest a sort of cuirasse; but do we know how they were found?

That might be the edge of a neck opening for a man, but then again it might be a neck opening for a horse. Indeed, it might just be wishful thinking to show it curved at all. It's impossible to tell without examining it. Did you get the impression from viewing it that the curvature of the bound edge was original to the object?

Mac

With the way it is laid out, I think it is for the front of a horse. The opening is too large for a man's neck

I saw the exhibit more than 18 months ago. I'll contact the museum and see if they have a dig report and any additional information that they can share at this time.

The first questions I have are "can we see the back"? "What is the hole arrangement and lacing pattern"? "What are the dimensions of each scale"?

Hi All-

I sent an email to several people at the museum earlier this morning with the following questions:

1. Is there a dig report available for public reading?
2. Could this possibly be horse armor? This question came up because of the seemingly large neckline of the pieces as laid out in the display.
3. Can we see images of the back of the pieces and the liner leather that was mentioned in the information placard?
4. Do you have a diagram of the hole pattern and lacing pattern for the plates/scales that you can share with us?
5. What are the dimensions of each scale?

I don't know if everyone clicked through to the full picture gallery, but here is the full info placard that was adjacent to the display.

http://www.umich.edu/~kelseydb/Exhibits ... elBib.html

1979, Karanis. Excavations of The University of Michigan in Eygpt, 1928-35: Topography and Architecture (Kelsey Museum of Archaeology Studies 5; Ann Arbor)


Scale in the photo.
http://lw.lsa.umich.edu/kelsey/ConAntiq ... armor.html

Conservation documentation revealed many details of the armor’s construction. The small rectangular scales are sewn together with leather thong to form long horizontal rows. The reverse, or interior, of the armor is lined with thin leather. Another interesting feature is that many of the scales are a reddish color. Careful examination revealed that this red color was applied after the scales were sewn together, because it is not visible where the scales overlap.

I think there is an eastern scale horse armor at the Met but I am having trouble finding an image on line.

I think it would look similar to this one although I think it was squuare in front would have a separate peytral to cover the front of the horse.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ ... /e014a.jpg

The hole is not actually for the horses neck but goes beneath the saddle. This piece also seems just to square to go on a person, whereas a horse has good wide area on its flanks that is often not tailored.

Here is the response that I received back from collections manager at the Kelsey:

Hi, Greg. I am happy to hear of your interest in this piece. Sadly, the responses I will give to you may not be satisfactory at this time.

1 - Unfortunately the excavation report never materialized, and any find spot information for this particular piece is lost.

2-5 - For the rest, I don't have those images or drawings, as they never were done. Nor do I think we measured each scale. But hypotheses about the piece will be made available in several publications hopefully by the end of the year. I am not at liberty to say much else about this as the publications are in process, and I wouldn't want to ruin any surprises.

I hope you can understand my position on this matter and why I cannot say much else at this time. But when the publications appear, I will be sure to inform you about them.

I'll let everyone know here when/if I get more information.