Folks,
Consider this work product from Wade Allen's recent Armor Study Session. Tom Biliter, Wade, and I had a chance to do some detailed examination of M-2, a mail shirt or haubergeon. My analysis concludes this is likely a European haubergeon of the early 14th century based on its all-riveted construction, wedge rivets, and overall form. I suspect I might well be proven wrong on the date if someone else comes up with a better explanation for the long skirts. Photos, including those taken showing the seams and tailoring, as well a digital microscopic examples of the riveting have now been updated to Wade's site. All of the photos can be enlarged with a click.
http://www.allenantiques.com/M-2.html
My preliminary analysis (without footnotes) including typographical errors is also available.
http://www.allenantiques.com/M-2-Mart-Shearer-Analysis.html
I'll try to answer questions about this as I am able, but I've got to replace a burned out router, so it may take me a few days before I'm operating from home again.
Comments and alternate theories for the piecework construction are welcome
(Cross posting with Armour Archive and Arms & Armour Forum. Please feel free to share.)
| Mart Shearer wrote: |
| Folks,
Consider this work product from Wade Allen's recent Armor Study Session. Comments and alternate theories for the piecework construction are welcome (Cross posting with Armour Archive and Arms & Armour Forum. Please feel free to share.) |
Mart, good photos, I think this was made for use on horseback, the high slit up the front and back would be an indication.
Mart, do you know why this armor would have originally been considered to be Indo-Persian
also I was wondering why you would consider this to be a haubergeon and not a hauberk.
| Quote: |
| it had been assigned a likely Indo-Persian origin and recent dating |
Talking with Wade, I think the "Indo-Persian" label and late dating was simply applied as a default. He hadn't really looked it over well, and since most mail available is of "Indo-Persian" origin, it was something "safe" to label it.
As for the difference in what constitutes a hauberk vs. haubergeon, Richardson has argued that hauberks had attached coifs and mittens while haubergeons did not. I don't know if it was always so cut and dried in medieval usage, but it makes an easy dividing line for modern classification. Most collections simply use shirt or coat of mail.
As for the difference in what constitutes a hauberk vs. haubergeon, Richardson has argued that hauberks had attached coifs and mittens while haubergeons did not. I don't know if it was always so cut and dried in medieval usage, but it makes an easy dividing line for modern classification. Most collections simply use shirt or coat of mail.
| Mart Shearer wrote: |
| Talking with Wade, I think the "Indo-Persian" label and late dating was simply applied as a default. He hadn't really looked it over well, and since most mail available is of "Indo-Persian" origin, it was something "safe" to label it.
As for the difference in what constitutes a hauberk vs. haubergeon, Richardson has argued that hauberks had attached coifs and mittens while haubergeons did not. I don't know if it was always so cut and dried in medieval usage, but it makes an easy dividing line for modern classification. Most collections simply use shirt or coat of mail. |
Most references that I have read refer to mail shirts as hauberk while haubergeon (little hauberk?) seems to refer to a small mail shirt. The question about these names has been going on for a long time as seen in this book "A complete view of the dress and habits of the people of England: from the establishment of the Saxons in Britain to the present time, Joseph Strutt, James Robinson Planché, Tabard Press, 1842".
[ Linked Image ]
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/9...a74827.jpg
[ Linked Image ]
Here is another very similar shirt, this one was also originally considered to be of Indo-Persian origin but it looks European to me.
[ Linked Image ]
| Eric S wrote: | ||
Mart, most references that I have read refer to mail shirts as hauberk while haubergeon (little hauberk?) seems to refer to a small mail shirt. The question about these names has been going on for a long time as seen in this book "A complete view of the dress and habits of the people of England: from the establishment of the Saxons in Britain to the present time, Joseph Strutt, James Robinson Planché, Tabard Press, 1842". [ Linked Image ] http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/9...a74827.jpg [ Linked Image ] Here is another very similar shirt, this one was also originally considered to be of Indo-Persian origin but it looks European to me. [ Linked Image ] |
| Eric S wrote: |
| Here is another very similar shirt, this one was also originally considered to be of Indo-Persian origin but it looks European to me.
[ Linked Image ] |
Allen M-2 definitely has European-style wedge riveting. Tom Biliter spotted this example which I photographed. The rivet has been driven out the side of the overlap rather than through the top half.
http://allenantiques.com/images/M-2-ring-detail-7.jpg
The example you provide appears to be demi-riveted (half solid rings). Although this was the norm in Europe prior to 1300 with "pin" rivets, it seems to have been overcome, though never fully, replaced by all-riveted construction in Europe by 1350. The demi-riveted form remains the primary method of construction in Indo-Persian mail until replaced with butted rings and split rings in the 18th or 19th century. One of the tailoring aspects I have noticed on long-skirted Middle Eastern mail is a wide gap at the top of the skirting split.
The only rivet back I can see on the sample appears to be on a larger (repair?) ring. If you find a missing rivet to study the hole, it might provide more insight on rivet shape.
| Mart Shearer wrote: |
|
The example you provide appears to be demi-riveted (half solid rings). Although this was the norm in Europe prior to 1300 with "pin" rivets, it seems to have been overcome, though never fully, replaced by all-riveted construction in Europe by 1350. The demi-riveted form remains the primary method of construction in Indo-Persian mail until replaced with butted rings and split rings in the 18th or 19th century. One of the tailoring aspects I have noticed on long-skirted Middle Eastern mail is a wide gap at the top of the skirting split. The only rivet back I can see on the sample appears to be on a larger (repair?) ring. If you find a missing rivet to study the hole, it might provide more insight on rivet shape. |
Mart, have you ever seen any Indo-Persian mail that looks like this? I am not sure that you can go on the gap at the top of the skirt split, it may not be as originally made, and as for having alternating solid and wedge riveted links, I believe there are examples of this in European mail. I do not remember seeing Indo-Persian mail rivets that look like this, to me they have the appearance of European rivets but of course I could be wrong.
Outside view.
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a...a08005.jpg
[ Linked Image ]
Inside view.
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f...e6064f.jpg
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
Here is a comparison view of 15th to 16th century Ottoman mail from an krug front plate, you can see the round rivet head on both sides of the links, ( a characteristic of Indo-Persian mail). Outer links on the left, inner links on the right.
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/2...25f09c.jpg
[ Linked Image ]
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/2...25f09c.jpg
[ Linked Image ]
Last edited by Eric S on Wed 02 Jul, 2014 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Mart Shearer wrote: |
|
The example you provide appears to be demi-riveted (half solid rings). Although this was the norm in Europe prior to 1300 with "pin" rivets, it seems to have been overcome, though never fully, replaced by all-riveted construction in Europe by 1350. |
Mart, there must have been some overlap between the time when wedge riveted mail over took round riveted mail, the same goes for alternating solid and riveted links and all riveted links, here is an example of this, it appears to be alternating solid and wedge riveted links, dated from the 14th century, Royal Armouries.
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c...58560d.jpg
[ Linked Image ]
Was this armor ever weighed, I looked but did not see a weight listed anywere.
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum