[Lafayette C Curtis]

I think the problem is that most current Archaeology programs in colleges don't make the students take enough credits in other fields, like history or general anthropology or materials engineering; a course plan consisting entirely of classes from the Archaeology department does tend to be rather inadequate for preparing students to work in more specific sub-fields, while the addition of a couple specialization classes from other departments/faculties often makes the student more confident and more capable of actually making worthwhile conclusions in the dig reports.

[C. Gadda]

In re-reading the text in Stead’s book I have come to realize that I have been quite unfair to the gent, and need to retract somewhat of what I stated in the previous post. From page 54 of Iron Age Cemeteries in East Yorkshire

“Although complete when buried, the mail tunic is now badly corroded and partly fragmented; it can never be restored to its original state, but conservation and radiography have revealed full details of its construction. Each link is a ring 8.2-9.2mm in external diameter, constructed from iron wire 1.5-1.9mm thick; each is butt-jointed and linked with four other rings.” (emphasis added)

So this was emphatically NOT based on a mere visual examination as I originally characterized it (serves me right for not consulting the book first before posting…) - Ian Stead did a proper x-ray examination, after all.

Having said that, there can be no doubt that he nevertheless managed to come to a completely wrong conclusion. Certainly, I will take Thom Richardson’s expert analysis over Ian’s any day. But this does beg questions: how could Ian have been so wrong? What was it that he thought he saw that made him think this was butted as opposed to the more sensible riveted/solid construction that is usually found? Unfortunately, Ian does not go into any detail in the text (beyond what I cited above), nor are any photos of the x-ray provided, so it is impossible to judge for ourselves the particulars in this matter.

My suspicion is this: Ian simply did not know, precisely, what to look for, unlike Thom. Perhaps also there was some fault in the equipment he was using that did not show clearly the copper alloy rivets.

In the end I think Dirty Harry’s pithy wisdom applies: “A man’s got to know his limitations.” Ian Stead is a very skilled and well regarded archaeologist. But he is not truly an expert in arms and armour (even though he has written a fair amount on the subject, mostly with regards to Iron Age swords, both in the U.K. and some continental finds). Yes, he has a good familiarity with the material. But I do not get a sense that he has ever tried to, say, hand forge a sword, or learn proper cutting techniques and so forth to get a real understanding of the considerations involved. And in reading some of his other articles they tend to be more focused on artistic, rather than technical, aspects of the artefacts in question.

It is to be noted that in Raddatz’s write up of the Sörup grave finds, he had the good sense to have a specialist write a separate (and remarkably detailed and useful) chapter on the maille found at the site (see Drescher, Untersuchung des Ringgeflechtes auf Sörup I, Grab K 10 on pp. 186-190). Ian probably should have done the same with his material in this instance.

[M. Eversberg II]

I wonder if I need math past calculus to do that sort of work? I've been meaning to figure out what I want to do with my life lately.

Even if corroded shouldn't you be able to see some extant rivets in the piece? That's got the most iron out of the whole thing, so there's bound to be some surviving bits.

M.

[Matt Easton]

A lot of Indo-Persian mail I have seen is butted. Examples in the Wallace Collection.

Matt