Mord's Conclusions: Viking Armour

[Endre Fodstad]

Leather was certainly known and in use for the era. We have archeological finds of various leather implements. And there are saga descriptions of leather having been used as a coat, even - at least in one case - of someone resisting sword blows with a coat of reindeer hide (Heimskringlasaga, by Snorri Sturluson).

We've been over that above. The coat in question is magical - it has been bespelled by Lapp magicians and exudes "a red cloud" when struck.

I don't think there is any doubt that it would have made sense to use textile armour (and possibly leather - although I still think leather would have been a rarity except in regions where cattle-rearing was abundant, as it is rather costly in the medieval sources where cattle-rearing was far more widespread than in the viking age) for the viking age scandinavians. The problem is again and again that we have practically no evidence for it.

[Owyn]

Agreed. Sagas should be suspect for "details" on general principle anyway, IMHO. I was using it as an example of the technology of leatherworking existing the period (people wore leather coats), not as an example showing how good the Viking period leather armor was.

The problem is again and again that we have practically no evidence for it.

As I said above - actually, I think we DO have the evidence for it. We were just looking in the wrong place.

We've been looking for surviving fragments of leather cuirass, layered linen garments, or padded gambeson type articles. If such had been used, it seems likely that some would have survived. Especially for leather - we have surviving articles of all sorts of leather tools and clothes. Why would leather armor alone of all these objects not survive?

My supposition here is that we've been looking for the wrong objects. That, rather than using dedicated armor-garments of leather and cloth, these people likely used their day to day clothes as armor. We know leather was used as a sea-coat to protect from the elements of the sea. And we know that thick wool garments were likewise worn.

And from my admittedly crude experiment, we can get the idea that doubled wool, and *especially* doubled wool with leather outside, provides surprisingly good protection against sword blows.

All a raider would have needed to do is wear the normal clothes he wore when traveling on a ship, during a fight, and he would rather dramatically increase his chances of surviving that fight.

[Endre Fodstad]

Yes, but that wouldn't be something we can classify as armour. Of course people would have worn something beneath their maille, and of course every little bit helps..."said the mouse, pissing into the sea"

[Arne Koets]

maybe wool will hamper a cut, but most of what they would have worried about are (arrows,) javelins and spears, swords and axes are very much secondary weapons (partly due to range) and a thrust goes straight through cloth unless it is VERY thick.

leather was definately known to vikings and leather trousers have been excavated. i don't think this was seen as armour. raw hide just makes more sence on shields (although there are painted shield fragments which weren't covered.

[valen]

However, when you compare Birka to other sites dated to the Viking age, you sometimes find yourself less than impressed. Look, for instance, at the dig report for Islandbridge and Kilhaim (sp): the report, published in 1910, is really only a catalog of objects. Is there a map of the graves? Is there a drawing of any of the graves and the objects found in situ? Not that I know of.

Islandbridge was a particularly horrific example; I was talking to someone who worked on the construction crew that worked on the site around 1966. They excavated thousands of tons of topsoil from the site to put buildings on them. There was no such thing as archeological surveys at the time in Ireland - builders commented on the number of swords and other bizarre metal objects in the dump-trucks leaving the site, but no one thought to get an expert in to have a look, as it would only delay construction. No one even remembers where the topsoil went. Thankfully, the whole site wasn't destroyed; some day, when funding is found, and they can go through the catalogs & drawings, some decent interpretation can be done.

"Weapons and Warfare in Viking and Medieval Dublin; Medieval Dublin Excavations 1962-81, Ser. B, vol. 9" by Andrew Halpin and published by National Museum of Ireland. is *magnificent* - only book I've seen that does a decent evidence based approach to viking archery and spear use and distribution.

John

[Mord]

However, when you compare Birka to other sites dated to the Viking age, you sometimes find yourself less than impressed. Look, for instance, at the dig report for Islandbridge and Kilhaim (sp): the report, published in 1910, is really only a catalog of objects. Is there a map of the graves? Is there a drawing of any of the graves and the objects found in situ? Not that I know of.

Islandbridge was a particularly horrific example; I was talking to someone who worked on the construction crew that worked on the site around 1966. They excavated thousands of tons of topsoil from the site to put buildings on them. There was no such thing as archeological surveys at the time in Ireland - builders commented on the number of swords and other bizarre metal objects in the dump-trucks leaving the site, but no one thought to get an expert in to have a look, as it would only delay construction. No one even remembers where the topsoil went. Thankfully, the whole site wasn't destroyed; some day, when funding is found, and they can go through the catalogs & drawings, some decent interpretation can be done.

"Weapons and Warfare in Viking and Medieval Dublin; Medieval Dublin Excavations 1962-81, Ser. B, vol. 9" by Andrew Halpin and published by National Museum of Ireland. is *magnificent* - only book I've seen that does a decent evidence based approach to viking archery and spear use and distribution.

John

Thanks for the information and the citation. I haven't read it (I know you're all stunned ).

Mord.

[Leoric1958]

post more : )

[valen]

So, those who know me know I'm a nasty spear snob, so I feel obliged to try raise the profile of the noble spear!

There have actually been some complete spear shafts found, though none from the viking period that I know of. At Vimose, a massive Danish bog find from maybe 350AD found 67 swords and over a thousand spear heads. The complete shafts that survived were 8' 7", 9 2", 9', 11' and 6' 6". I know it's a long long time before the Viking age, but it's interesting to see so many more Germanic fighters with far more spears than swords, and more importantly a variation on spear length. All the spear shafts that survived were ash.

Just like those described to be owned by nobles in Beowulf, a good number of the heads were inlaid with silver or gold; these were not the weapons of peasants who couldn't afford swords. These were weapons of people who chose a spear, no matter the cost, because they were superior for the task at hand. Vikings were no different; many of the sagas talk about spears as being the symbol of a warrior.

Nydam bog find was similar; 106 swords but 552 spear heads, again many inlaid in silver and gold, and several hundred bits of ash shafts. It's odd that almost all shafts are ash; I've found that hazel and oak are great for darts and small spears, and holly is great for medium to long spears.

John

[Stahlgrim]

It makes sense that spears would outnumber swords as they are easier to make and require less material. They also are easier to hunt with then a sword if you don't have a bow.

[Cisco]

Just like those described to be owned by nobles in Beowulf, a good number of the heads were inlaid with silver or gold; these were not the weapons of peasants who couldn't afford swords. These were weapons of people who chose a spear, no matter the cost, because they were superior for the task at hand. Vikings were no different; many of the sagas talk about spears as being the symbol of a warrior.

I'm certainly new to the area of the actual historical research parts...but I thought that the 'spears are for commoners' era was the later part of the middle ages, Hastings and on....

I would have thought that for fighters who had to fight they'd grab whatever they could find. And for those who fight because it befits their highly station wouldn't have come around until the end part of the viking age (that last part is purely my own conjecture).

Am I way off here?

[Mord]

Just like those described to be owned by nobles in Beowulf, a good number of the heads were inlaid with silver or gold; these were not the weapons of peasants who couldn't afford swords. These were weapons of people who chose a spear, no matter the cost, because they were superior for the task at hand. Vikings were no different; many of the sagas talk about spears as being the symbol of a warrior.

I'm certainly new to the area of the actual historical research parts...but I thought that the 'spears are for commoners' era was the later part of the middle ages, Hastings and on....

I would have thought that for fighters who had to fight they'd grab whatever they could find. And for those who fight because it befits their highly station wouldn't have come around until the end part of the viking age (that last part is purely my own conjecture).

Am I way off here?

Our understanding of early medieval Scandinavian social history is sketchy. Certainly, there are examples of spear-heads with decoration on them--denoting the prestige of thier owners. How that prestige was determined can not be discerned by exclusively examining the circumstrances of the find--usually a grave, btw. Why? because undecorated spear heads have been found in similiar graves or circumstances.

It isn't clear cut.

Mord.

[Motull Flakkari]

so question mord, as a I'm currently getting ready to purchase stuff to build a new mid 9th century viking rig, what type of plate was the most common/ authentic.

[Mord]

so question mord, as a I'm currently getting ready to purchase stuff to build a new mid 9th century viking rig, what type of plate was the most common/ authentic.

Let me see if I understand the question. You're talking about plate armour from 9th century Scandinavia? To be blunt--none. There was no plate, that I know of, in 9th century Scandinavia, or any of the places where the Scandinavian travelled to.

The closest I know about is the possibility of scale or lamellar in Frankia, but this controversal, because the evidence--the Stuttgart Psalter--is thought to have 6th century Byzantine influences.

Mord.

[Motull Flakkari]

sorry about that, I meant lamellar plates. I keep getting conflicting info about scale shapped, tomb stone, and oblongs.

[Mord]

sorry about that, I meant lamellar plates. I keep getting conflicting info about scale shapped, tomb stone, and oblongs.

Lamellar plates were found at Birka, but not in the graves that have been excavated. These plates, of varying shapes, were found in the hill that once acted as a base for fortress--called "The Borg." The date of the plates is probably 10th Century; there is an article about them in the 2005 (?) edition of the "Acta Archaeologica."

I believe Halvgrimr has had the article translated.

Mord.

[Guran]

deleted by author

[Dan Howard]

If not leather then the heavier cloth garment mentioned and discounted as too cumbersome to fold and carry to battle.

Any leather garment that is thick enough to actually offer a degree of protection against spears and arrows would be heavier than cloth armour. Williams has handily demonstrated that layered linen provides far better protection than hardened leather.

So is the consensus here that the Anglo-Saxon common soldier would have access to leather armor while the Viking warrior, whose wealth was measured by the number of cattle that he owned, would not be able to obtain it? That seems a little naive to me.

I'm still waiting for the evidence for Anglo-Saxon leather armour. No way can someone look at a black and white illustration and determine the material from which something is made. Show me evidence of this "battle sark". Where are these strips of leather illustrated? Which primary document tells us how it was made? Why can't the people in the above illustrations simply be wearing clothing? Which ordinance tells lower class fighters to turn up with leather armour? Most are required to have a spear and shield and helmet. Sometimes a bow. That is all.

[Guran]

Post deleted by Guran

[Mord]

I haven't even finished this morning's coffee (it's 7:45), and I can't believe someone is quoting Guy Laking for the use of leather as armour by the English during the Anglo-Saxon Period. I hardly know where to start.

First, I've looked at Laking's 5 volume work--it's up in the stacks of the library in which I work (399 is the call number); Laking isn't that interested in the early middle ages, and our information about arms and armour of the early MA is, well, lacking in 1919 and before. In the same year, Jan Petersen published his well-known sword typology--that publication was the "state of the art" for that time. A lot more had to be discovered/analyzed/interperted than just one source.

Second, it was J.G. Mann in later years (possibly Claude Blair, too) who found problems with Laking's work. The Record is an immense catalog that will probably never be attempted, but it is hardly the be all and end all of anything...

Third, what is the date of the Anglo-Saxon illustrations? AElfric, if I remember correctly, was writing arond the year 1000. This means the illustrations represent a point of view around that time, not, say, arounsd the year 800. We can document arms and armour for the Scandinavians all through the period. Picking only one source for your conclusions seems to be wishful thinking, imo.

There are other problems with your speculation, and I will address them in time, but I've other concerns at the moment.

Will return.

Mord.

[Guran]

deleted by author

[Mord]

Mord, my apologies. I should not have posted on your "conclusions" thread. I am new to this forum and got carried away with the topic.

Sam

There is no need to make an apology; speculation is wholly welcome as much as debate. Your ideas are well stated, which I appreciate. However, I disagree with them, and have been making up a counter-post in my head for a couple of days.

Mord.

[treville]

Just an addendum to Mord's lengthy and thoughtful discussion (was a good read - thanks much for doing it).

For a broader and I think stimulating look at the developing economies often mentioned, consider taking a look at...Hodges Dark Age Economics: The Origins of Towns and Trade, AD 600-1000, Second Edition (New Approaches in Archaeology). There have been many reactions to it but it a classic and a definite "must read." Also, Hodges is back again with...
Dark Age Economics: A New Audit (Duckworth Debates in Archaeology) (Paperback) (not yet released last I checked)

Cheers - Janos

[Mord]

Just an addendum to Mord's lengthy and thoughtful discussion (was a good read - thanks much for doing it).

For a broader and I think stimulating look at the developing economies often mentioned, consider taking a look at...Hodges Dark Age Economics: The Origins of Towns and Trade, AD 600-1000, Second Edition (New Approaches in Archaeology). There have been many reactions to it but it a classic and a definite "must read." Also, Hodges is back again with...
Dark Age Economics: A New Audit (Duckworth Debates in Archaeology) (Paperback) (not yet released last I checked)

Cheers - Janos

Thanks for the citations. Hodges is influential, and he certainly knows his stuff--his ideas are the "spring-board" from which I'm working on mail.

Mord.

[Owyn]

If not leather then the heavier cloth garment mentioned and discounted as too cumbersome to fold and carry to battle.

Any leather garment that is thick enough to actually offer a degree of protection against spears and arrows would be heavier than cloth armour. Williams has handily demonstrated that layered linen provides far better protection than hardened leather.

My own experiments (with wool, not linen) showed that leather and cloth in concert are substantially stronger protection than cloth alone. It makes sense, if you think about it. A thin layer of tanned leather (NOT hardened "cuir boille" 13-14th C style stuff!) has enough surface tension to spread impact somewhat and provide a surface mildly resistant to cutting. Layers of cloth under the leather act to absorb the incoming blow and improve the leather's ability to resist a cut.

It's noteworthy that this is *substantially* better against cutting weapons than against thrusting weapons. Leather + wool garments offer very little protection against a spear thrust, for instance. I have not personally tested against a bow, but my spear tests lead me to believe the protection from leather jacket and heavy wool shirt would be even less against an arrow than a spear. That said - shields excel in defense against both spears and arrows.

So is the consensus here that the Anglo-Saxon common soldier would have access to leather armor while the Viking warrior, whose wealth was measured by the number of cattle that he owned, would not be able to obtain it? That seems a little naive to me.

I'm still waiting for the evidence for Anglo-Saxon leather armour. No way can someone look at a black and white illustration and determine the material from which something is made. Show me evidence of this "battle sark". Where are these strips of leather illustrated? Which primary document tells us how it was made? Why can't the people in the above illustrations simply be wearing clothing? Which ordinance tells lower class fighters to turn up with leather armour? Most are required to have a spear and shield and helmet. Sometimes a bow. That is all.

I would hesitate to say "consensus"! =)
To the best of my knowledge, we have one *fairly firm* example of Saxon leather armor, that being the shoulder clasps from the Sutton Hoo find. They've been tested; we know they attached two pieces of leather together, and they resemble late Roman shoulder clasps from breast/back plates enough for some archeologists to theorize they were used to hold a leather back and breast plate together. But the fact that they are ornate, coupled with the lack of other finds, makes the idea of such armor as a generally used object suspect. Was this an actual bit of combat armor, or one of ornamental attire? If such use was common, why don't we find more such clasps, made of simpler materials?

(sorry, the post this is quoted from was deleted, so I don't know what he was referring to about black and white pictures!)

My own comments on leather and cloth above were largely supposition, based on social understanding rather than the archeological record. A "this, then that" approach which while perhaps useful to direct further study should not by itself be seen as any sort of claim to fact. My hypothesis was simply that if Mord's comments about the rarity of mail are correct (which seems likely from an economic standpoint), and we know heavy wool garments were *very* regularly used by seafarers in the era (true), and we have some evidence that leather coats (non armor) were also used by seafarers to keep warm and dry (true for certain among some cultures, but I have no specific Scandinavian reference) -

- then based on my personal research about the effectiveness of simple garment weight wool and garment weight leather being hit by sharp weapons, the guys who failed to take these things off when they got off the boat likely had a higher survival rate. It would not have taken people long to figure out why, and to start wearing their sea-gear into battle on purpose.

Is that "armor"? It's certainly not made-for-purpose armor. It's workaday cloths being worn to help ward off blows. It's also speculation, based on a few snippets of saga, a base of cultural knowledge, modern research on effectiveness, and an understanding of a combat soldier's mindset on protection. I don't mean to suggest at all the existence of made-for-purpose leather armor among the vikings, which I do not believe we have enough evidence to support.

From a reinactor's point of view though, it provides another possible "look" for a viking. Mail and lamellar are most commonly used for this recreation, but a heavy wool tunic, sometimes with a light leather jacket over the top, was certainly worn by seafarers of the period and might well have been worn into battle by those not wealthy enough to afford mail.

[Mord]

If not leather then the heavier cloth garment mentioned and discounted as too cumbersome to fold and carry to battle.

Any leather garment that is thick enough to actually offer a degree of protection against spears and arrows would be heavier than cloth armour. Williams has handily demonstrated that layered linen provides far better protection than hardened leather.

My own experiments (with wool, not linen) showed that leather and cloth in concert are substantially stronger protection than cloth alone. It makes sense, if you think about it. A thin layer of tanned leather (NOT hardened "cuir boille" 13-14th C style stuff!) has enough surface tension to spread impact somewhat and provide a surface mildly resistant to cutting. Layers of cloth under the leather act to absorb the incoming blow and improve the leather's ability to resist a cut.

It's noteworthy that this is *substantially* better against cutting weapons than against thrusting weapons. Leather + wool garments offer very little protection against a spear thrust, for instance. I have not personally tested against a bow, but my spear tests lead me to believe the protection from leather jacket and heavy wool shirt would be even less against an arrow than a spear. That said - shields excel in defense against both spears and arrows.

So is the consensus here that the Anglo-Saxon common soldier would have access to leather armor while the Viking warrior, whose wealth was measured by the number of cattle that he owned, would not be able to obtain it? That seems a little naive to me.

I'm still waiting for the evidence for Anglo-Saxon leather armour. No way can someone look at a black and white illustration and determine the material from which something is made. Show me evidence of this "battle sark". Where are these strips of leather illustrated? Which primary document tells us how it was made? Why can't the people in the above illustrations simply be wearing clothing? Which ordinance tells lower class fighters to turn up with leather armour? Most are required to have a spear and shield and helmet. Sometimes a bow. That is all.

I would hesitate to say "consensus"! =)
To the best of my knowledge, we have one *fairly firm* example of Saxon leather armor, that being the shoulder clasps from the Sutton Hoo find. They've been tested; we know they attached two pieces of leather together, and they resemble late Roman shoulder clasps from breast/back plates enough for some archeologists to theorize they were used to hold a leather back and breast plate together. But the fact that they are ornate, coupled with the lack of other finds, makes the idea of such armor as a generally used object suspect. Was this an actual bit of combat armor, or one of ornamental attire? If such use was common, why don't we find more such clasps, made of simpler materials?

(sorry, the post this is quoted from was deleted, so I don't know what he was referring to about black and white pictures!)

My own comments on leather and cloth above were largely supposition, based on social understanding rather than the archeological record. A "this, then that" approach which while perhaps useful to direct further study should not by itself be seen as any sort of claim to fact. My hypothesis was simply that if Mord's comments about the rarity of mail are correct (which seems likely from an economic standpoint), and we know heavy wool garments were *very* regularly used by seafarers in the era (true), and we have some evidence that leather coats (non armor) were also used by seafarers to keep warm and dry (true for certain among some cultures, but I have no specific Scandinavian reference) -

- then based on my personal research about the effectiveness of simple garment weight wool and garment weight leather being hit by sharp weapons, the guys who failed to take these things off when they got off the boat likely had a higher survival rate. It would not have taken people long to figure out why, and to start wearing their sea-gear into battle on purpose.

Is that "armor"? It's certainly not made-for-purpose armor. It's workaday cloths being worn to help ward off blows. It's also speculation, based on a few snippets of saga, a base of cultural knowledge, modern research on effectiveness, and an understanding of a combat soldier's mindset on protection. I don't mean to suggest at all the existence of made-for-purpose leather armor among the vikings, which I do not believe we have enough evidence to support.

From a reinactor's point of view though, it provides another possible "look" for a viking. Mail and lamellar are most commonly used for this recreation, but a heavy wool tunic, sometimes with a light leather jacket over the top, was certainly worn by seafarers of the period and might well have been worn into battle by those not wealthy enough to afford mail.

For the repudiation of R.L.S. Bruce-Mitford's speculation that the Sutton Hoo shoulder clasps were attached to "Romanish" officer's leather lorica, please read E. Cameron's "Leather and Fur Aspects of Early Medieval Trade and Technology," (1998). ISBN: 187332514. If you are interested in the making and use of leather during early middle ages, this is probably the best in English. Also, please be aware that Sutton Hoo is dated to the early 7th Century, a good 150 to 200 years before the Scandinavians began their expansion.

As for your experiment, Owyn, why did not complete it by documenting your work? Do you expect people to simply believe you? Your conclusions can not be validated without someone else repeating your work.

Finally, it's well-known that leather did exist in the early middle ages, and that a suit of leather has survived, and that it was used for sea-faring. One suit does not a trend make, and we have no reliable proof that it was used for armour.

Intellectually, you are clutching at straws.

Mord.

[Dan Howard]

In order to conclude that a particular clasp was from a Roman-style leather lorica, one must first demonstrate that the Romans, in fact, ever wore leather loricas. This has most definitely not been done. There is only one bit of evidence for Roman leather armour and that is a lamellar leg guard found in the Middle East (Dura Europos). If you want to see a master of "clutching at straws," take a look at D'Amato's latest offering, which is on this very subject.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arms-Armour-Imp ... pd_sim_b_1

I wouldn't spend any money on it but, if you can borrow a copy, it has hard to find photos of some more obscure Roman artefacts.

[Dan Howard]

It's noteworthy that this is *substantially* better against cutting weapons than against thrusting weapons. Leather + wool garments offer very little protection against a spear thrust, for instance. I have not personally tested against a bow, but my spear tests lead me to believe the protection from leather jacket and heavy wool shirt would be even less against an arrow than a spear.

Whereas Williams DID test his samples against both a lance head and a bodkin-style spike. His quilted linen sample provided far better protection than cuirbouilli. Since the greatest threat on these battlefields was from spears and arrows, any test against a sword cut doesn't tell us much.

FWIW any discussion about leather armour needs to be prefaced with a discussion on "clothing" and "armour", and on the difficulties in telling the difference between the two in the available evidence.

[Mord]

In order to conclude that a particular clasp was from a Roman-style leather lorica, one must first demonstrate that the Romans, in fact, ever wore leather loricas. This has most definitely not been done. There is only one bit of evidence for Roman leather armour and that is a lamellar leg guard found in the Middle East (Dura Europos). If you want to see a master of "clutching at straws," take a look at D'Amato's latest offering, which is on this very subject.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arms-Armour-Imp ... pd_sim_b_1

I wouldn't spend any money on it but, if you can borrow a copy, it has hard to find photos of some more obscure Roman artefacts.

Sorry, Dan, I used the wrong word for the "Romanish Officer's Armour." I think it's "musculata" or somethng like that. Anyway, Bruce-Mitford's speculation has been proven to be wrong.

Mord.

[Dan Howard]

Sorry, Dan, I used the wrong word for the "Romanish Officer's Armour." I think it's "musculata" or somethng like that. Anyway, Bruce-Mitford's speculation has been proven to be wrong.

I was referring to musculata also. There is nothing to suggest that the Romans ever made it from leather.

[Mord]

Sorry, Dan, I used the wrong word for the "Romanish Officer's Armour." I think it's "musculata" or somethng like that. Anyway, Bruce-Mitford's speculation has been proven to be wrong.

I was referring to musculata also. There is nothing to suggest that the Romans ever made it from leather.

Interesting. My knowledge of Roman armour is limited to "The Armour of Imperial Rome" by Robinson, and the 2nd edition of Bishop and Coulston's book.

Mord.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

In order to conclude that a particular clasp was from a Roman-style leather lorica, one must first demonstrate that the Romans, in fact, ever wore leather loricas. This has most definitely not been done. There is only one bit of evidence for Roman leather armour and that is a lamellar leg guard found in the Middle East (Dura Europos). If you want to see a master of "clutching at straws," take a look at D'Amato's latest offering, which is on this very subject.

There was some Roman (possibly Byzantine?) armor found in Egypt made from crocodile leather. There has been at least one cheek piece found still attached to a Roman helmet. The book I found that in suggested that it may not have been that uncommon since so many helmets were found without cheekplates at all...

[treville]

I am wondering if Mord or someone might not be able to check on the Roman leather industry records. (I suggest Mord here because his background is, well, with documentary literature ). I suspect that archaeologically there is little chance of finding much in the way of leather armor (if it existed) unless it is deposited in a water-logged or otherwise rare depositionary environment. While we have the occasional workshop or other special preservation situation (such as from Lloyd's Bank, York), burials are often in less forgiving environs and it is extraordinarily rare for perishables to survive.

The advantage to checking the Roman industrial records might have is that any sizable industry would have been taxed or recorded through patronages etc. Perhaps someone has already done this and I have missed it (if so I apologize).

[talaananthes]

There are several fairly lengthy reenactors' articles discussing the likelihood or lack thereof of leather as a material for musculata construction, and while there isn't any strong evidence, the possibility of leather musculatae has a strong presence in popular culture (or what passes for popular culture among us nerds ), which leads many to believe that they DID exist, despite the lack of evidence.

But, to return briefly to the shoulder clasps from Sutton Hoo, I have my own opinions, but Mord (and others with a good background in the archaeological literature), what is yours? What do you think they were supposed to be?

[Mord]

There are several fairly lengthy reenactors' articles discussing the likelihood or lack thereof of leather as a material for musculata construction, and while there isn't any strong evidence, the possibility of leather musculatae has a strong presence in popular culture (or what passes for popular culture among us nerds ), which leads many to believe that they DID exist, despite the lack of evidence.

But, to return briefly to the shoulder clasps from Sutton Hoo, I have my own opinions, but Mord (and others with a good background in the archaeological literature), what is yours? What do you think they were supposed to be?

Actually, my educational background is in history and literative. At least that's what the nice, embossed chunks of papers from SUNY Binghamton & Ithaca college sez. However, my interest is in the Early Middle Ages, which means I have to have some understanding of archaeology, because material culture (the study of objects) is a major source on imformation.

I do not claim to be an archaeologist

And I certainly don't claim to be an expert; just years of on and off study and the ability to occasionally obtain various esoteric sources.

My perspective is made-up of the following elements:

1. The historiography of the concerned disciplines: reading archaeological (or any other discipline) publications in chorological order can be very enlightening.

2. An attempt to understand the time and place of a find. A 5th century helmet (for instance) found in 7th century burial mound does not represent an 8th century culture--hell, said object may not represent a 7th century culture.

3. That sources of information have their limits. An object can not be understood until context and conditiion of the sources is investigated, and even then there is room for doubt.

What do I think of the gold/garnet clasps from Mound 1 at Sutton Hoo? First, I think they are unique--I've not seen any other such clasps that date from the place and time. Second, I think they are prestigious and damned specacular--whoever owned them was rich and powerful. If that was King Readwald then are we looking at an aristocratic grave? Third, I think the garnets are indicative of some sort of contact with The Continent, and possibly the Merovigian Franks, possbly trade. This idea is re-enforced by other finds in the burial. Fourth, I'm not sure how they were used, and until we find better or/and similiar information, speculations will continue.

Mord.

[Dan Howard]

I suspect that archaeologically there is little chance of finding much in the way of leather armor (if it existed) unless it is deposited in a water-logged or otherwise rare depositionary environment.

The problem with this is that there are tons of extant Roman leather artefacts: tents, shoes, belts, shield covers, horse tack, even leather fittings for metal armour. It is strange that all the leather armour deteriorated while all the other leather items survived.