[Jesse Zinn]

Hello all,
I've been searching around on myArmoury (both in the features and forums), as well as other popular forum sites, and I haven't been able to find anything to go off of. Can anyone point me in the right direction(s) regarding the early history of mail/maille? Specifically, I'm looking to see if there's specific chronology for the introduction/appearance of riveted mail, and specific examples with documented proveniences.

Is Erik Schmid still around...?

Thanks all,
-Jess

[Nathan Robinson]

I have moved this topic to the Historic Arms Talk forum.

Please note the description for this forum:

"Discussions of reproduction and authentic historical arms and armour from various cultures and time periods"

Thank you.

[Jesse Zinn]

Apologies, Nathan. I had looked at only the forum titles, not the descriptions. Thank you for your correction.

Sorry for the trouble. Cheers,
-Jess

[Dan Howard]

There is a lot of debate about whether early mail finds consisted of butted or riveted mail. Many early reports were done by archaeologists who had no idea about how mail was constructed. Some finds that were initially reported as butted have turned out to be riveted upon more detailed analysis (i.e. using x-rays, etc).

There are practical arguments against the use of butted mail during the iron age. Firstly, the most common threat on any battlefield came from arrows and spears. Butted mail provides virtually no defense against these. Secondly, The relative costs of producing iron age mail is different to today. In the past, much more of the cost of a mail shirt lay in the production of iron wire. It is conceivable that a butted mail shirt actually cost more to produce than a riveted one since butted mail requires a heavier gauge of wire (i.e. more iron). It depends on the relative costs of iron and labour.

Personally I don't think butted mail was ever worn in battle until the 18-19th centuries - with the exception of Japanese mail which was constructed in a different manner. If true, then there is no "evolutionary progression" from butted to riveted mail. It was riveted from the start. The only evolution came from attempts to increase the speed of production - e.g. using alternating rows of solid and riveted links.

[Patrick Kelly]

I agree with Dan in that there is no progression to riveted mail. Functional mail was/is always riveted. European style mail made in the butted fashion is useless as a stand-alone defensive garment. If butted mail was ever made for serious defense I don't think it took more than one or two men going onto the battlefield wearing it to realize it wasn't a good idea. I strongly suspect that any original butted mail found is a form of ceremonial dress or votive offering.

I don't really know if I'd term mail made from alternated rows of riveted and solid rings a form of progressive evolution. Some of the earlier forms of mail were made in this fashion and were replaced with all-riveted mail during the later medieval period, so it may be just a case of back and forth priorities if anything. I've done both and the alternating rows are much faster to assemble so I can't think of a reason to go to all-riveted, other than to simplify production with only one ring type being made.

[Patrick Kelly]

Here's Erik Schmids e-mail: erikdschmid@charter.net

Erik's always more than willing to discuss mail matters so I'd contact him on this issue.