to put it this way, a lot of items and weapons have often been assumed due to a number of different misunderstandings/ miscalculations that an item was 'ceremonial'

such as the sutton hoo helmet aand shield, the bronze age shield , or the waterloo helmet or the battersea shield

or many many other items...

but id wonder, what examples of stuff do we have that TRUELY was ceremonial and wasnt just badly reconstructed/ measured

now im saying pre medieval/ renaissence primarilky because it was around then that we have a lot more examples of items such as bearing swords for example and certain weapons were tretained but not really expected to be used.

Some of the bronze swords that were ritually sacrificed seem to have been specifically made for the purpose because they aren't fit for combat - missing grips, unsharpened edges, etc.

The stone armours that are being recovered from Chinese tombs seem to have been specifically made for funerary purposes. The gold dagger in Tut's tomb would be another example.

Actually, I suspect that the Villanovan/Faliscan "poncho cuirass" that I reconstructed for my Romulus impression was a ceremonian or funerary piece. Here's me next to the real one:

[ Linked Image ]

It's a completely unique piece, and frankly it's just too darn wide. I made mine narrower than what I determined the original to be, and it does restrict arm movement. I don't know how thick the metal was on the original, though it was likely quite thin as the find was very broken up.

My helmet is typical of the finned type from that time, and I'd say it's a perfectly usable battle helmet. It's a little smaller than the one in the case. However, there is also an example with a MUCH larger crest, a good 2 feet high or more--THAT is not a battle helmet! It's just goofy. I would LOVE to make one, but I'd only wear it on days with no wind...

Matthew

is the waterloo helmet functional?

what about the battersea shield

ok, you wouldnt WANT to have something that nicely done up damaged but does it look like it was decently STURDY enoug to take a hit without crumpling like tin foil?

Plenty of ancient Chinese jade weapons, made in imitation of contemporary bronze weapons, that appear to have been made for funerary purposes.

Hmm. Do Japanese wooden cuirasses count? Opinion is generally split on those, with some people thinking they're real armour while others think that they're just skeuomorphic imitations of metal armour, but I tend to lean towards the latter interpretation.

We have Edo-period bamboo kendo armour.

Yes, sporting equipment. Some illustrations of 18th century kendo gear at http://www2.educ.fukushima-u.ac.jp/~kuro/nakamura/kendo001.html

Are we going to define sporting equipment as "armour"? Can sporting equipment be classed as "ceremonial"?

sporting armour is technically not BATTLE armour, but, laquered bamboo is no slouch either, it wont be nearly as strong as iron but its better than nothing

however im mostly looking at pre 1600's and mostly europe because around the renaissance/ edo period you start seeing, a great deal more purely ceremonial arms and armour , the edo period ESPECIALLY where armourors made armour, copying original pieces, mostly but making them purely as status symbols and gifts to other noble households etc

in europe you start seeing guard units who use pole weapons that are merely badges of rank and not meant to be used, plus the increased usage of processional bearing swords

Not me. I think I read about it in one of Gina L. Barnes' papers or books on the archaeology of armour in Japan and Korea (probably this one: http://www.academia.edu/4209019/Archaeologica...al_setting ), and I remember hunting the citations to find that the footnotes mentioned some Korean conference proceedings or something like that.