There would be little if any difference in the performance of mail with iron rivets and mail with copper rivets. The difference would be noticed later when the galvanic reaction between copper and iron increased the deterioration of the copper-riveted mail.
| Timo Nieminen wrote: |
| A step too far? Metallurgically, copper rivets should be fine. Economics might say it's a step too far - or conspicuous consumption. (Though pure copper doesn't put us into the iron vs bronze comparison, which depends on tin prices.)
With rivets, you care about the toughness of the metal. Hardness doesn't matter. |
Do we know the price of copper vs. iron during the age of the Sutton Hoo burial? Copper might have been cheaper for all I know.
Hardness does matter with nails. The rivet has to be hard enough to push through a drifted hole which might be too small or not completely pierced through. But as has already been noted, copper alloys can be harder than wrought iron.
The use of brass rivets discussed from "A HABERGEON OF WESTWALE", THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL 46 A BY WILLIAM REID, F.S.A. Scot., and E. MARTIN BURGESS.
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
Sorry for the delay -- I haven't been home much.
Interesting piece Eric. Thank you for that.
Dan -- it is true that there is potential for galvanic reaction, but I am not sure that the makers/customer(?) would have been too bothered about it. It is also true that there are a number of later mail examples, employing different metals that have survived for several centuries and are now in museums. Presumably the Sutton Hoo mail survived long enough to be buried in the tomb. If mail is looked after well, surely the potential problems can be avoided? Would the reaction be a bigger problem than the possibility of the iron oxidising.
I am afraid that we don't know the relative values of iron and copper during the 6th and 7th centuries, at least I am not aware of any studies concerning them. I would suggest copper rivets weren't included for economical reasons, as almost every other personal item is of superb construction, particularly the jewellery.
Interesting piece Eric. Thank you for that.
Dan -- it is true that there is potential for galvanic reaction, but I am not sure that the makers/customer(?) would have been too bothered about it. It is also true that there are a number of later mail examples, employing different metals that have survived for several centuries and are now in museums. Presumably the Sutton Hoo mail survived long enough to be buried in the tomb. If mail is looked after well, surely the potential problems can be avoided? Would the reaction be a bigger problem than the possibility of the iron oxidising.
I am afraid that we don't know the relative values of iron and copper during the 6th and 7th centuries, at least I am not aware of any studies concerning them. I would suggest copper rivets weren't included for economical reasons, as almost every other personal item is of superb construction, particularly the jewellery.
| Paul Mortimer wrote: |
| Dan -- it is true that there is potential for galvanic reaction, but I am not sure that the makers/customer(?) would have been too bothered about it. |
Yep. I doubt they even knew about the phenomenon.
| Quote: |
| It is also true that there are a number of later mail examples, employing different metals that have survived for several centuries and are now in museums. Presumably the Sutton Hoo mail survived long enough to be buried in the tomb. If mail is looked after well, surely the potential problems can be avoided? Would the reaction be a bigger problem than the possibility of the iron oxidising. |
AFAIK the only way to stop it from happening is to completely isolate it from moisture. If you look on the Galvanic Series listing then iron and copper are far apart, meaning that the corrosion effect is particularly strong. http://www.preservationscience.com/materials/metals/PGC.html
| Quote: |
| I am afraid that we don't know the relative values of iron and copper during the 6th and 7th centuries, at least I am not aware of any studies concerning them. I would suggest copper rivets weren't included for economical reasons, as almost every other personal item is of superb construction, particularly the jewellery. |
From the end of the Bronze Age until today, copper has always been more expensive than iron - usually many times so. It is almost certain that copper rivets were used for decoration.
| Mart Shearer wrote: | ||
| There are a number of late 12th and early 13th century references in various chansons of "saffroned" hauberks and byrnies. There has been debate over whether this refers to latten mail, latten borders on mail, or some other sort of latten patterns woven into the mail. It could be that these copper-alloy rivets fit the bill.
From the Hervis de Metz (Garin le Loherain), l. XLV http://books.google.com/books?id=JYSupMhje0sC...mp;f=false
|
To revive this older thread, I've found a more relevant passage from the Roman de Garin of Hervis of Metz. So apparently the numerous references to "saffroned" hauberks found in the 12th and 13th century literature refers to the rivets, and not the latten edges.
ll.9402-9405
Li Rois Eudairs se fait bien atorner:
Chasse chassait blanche com flor de pret,
Et puis vestit .I. blanc hauberc safrei,
D'argant la maille, li clavains fut dorez;
The King Eudes has done his turn well:
...........
And then dressed in 1 saffroned white hauberk
The mail of silver, the nails were of gold;
Page 4 of 4
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