Hello. I'm once more going over the practicalities of reconstructing this type of scabbard for a historical reenactment, and I'd like to know if it would be okay to leave it with no facing at all, just paint and some kind of historically-plausible finish. Would it be too easily damaged?

One thing I've noticed with extant European scabbard finds is that they almost have evidence of some sort of binding. In the iron age, the wood would be exposed, but it would still be bound by iron or bronze ribs (decorative but also seemingly functional to keep the scabbard from separating.
In the later migration era scabbards were bound in linen, and later still; leather and fabric coverings. Besides all of these variations being aesthetically pleasing, these all have the common functionality of preventing the wooden halves from separating at glue lines. I suspect that many glues in the period were probably either susceptible to humidity/water or didn't bond strong enough for a durable enough construction that would endure repeated abuse. So the covering, or binding or wrapping was a functional necessity or an improvement.
Realize that the sharp edge of the blades tend to rest right along the joint between the two halves, and would act as a wedge to push the pieces apart without some extra reinforcement like a cover. The jostling of a sword while riding or running, I think would make short work of an uncovered scabbard and cause the possible loss of a toe or two.
-Terry

Yeah, a wooden core inside a composite layer of glue and cord/cloth/leather is naturally a lot stronger than just two pieces of wood glued directly to each other.

Being bound across the grain helps prevent the wood itself splitting, too, and cloth and leather covers provide a measure of weather proofing.

The wood would also shrink and quill due to the changing amount of moisture within.
It would twist and bend all by itself over the time and gaps would appear.
Wire rivets along the glue line would be an option.
The sheaths of Saamiknives come to mind. Most of the time they were made from antler but there are plenty wooden examples as well.
But thats all not ´medieval authentic´ of course.

Thanks for those thoughts. It's also true that I can't think of any examples of wooden scabbards that appear to have never had facings or other reinforcements.

I'd mostly been worried about painting the scabbard with paints that have a historically-plausible sizing, like hide glue or casein, without having them bleed too much if they got caught in the rain. What I've found out so far suggests that this is difficult to do over leather. But maybe linen is a better option.

Oskar Gessler wrote:

The wood would also shrink and quill due to the changing amount of moisture within. It would twist and bend all by itself over the time and gaps would appear.

Would a facing provide much more moisture protection than paint and wax? In particular, I think that the usual leather at the time was similar to chamois, which soaks up moisture like a sponge and which I have not yet figured out how to waterproof.

Hi Dan, You could do an unreinforced wooden scabbard with a modern waterproof glue such as Titebond 3. If you used quarter sawn timber that would eliminate twisting or gaps opening along the glue line from movement.


That being said the belt and braces approach with a covering, and or binding is going to be even more durable.
Caesin glue/paint should be very water resistant when cured, unless you are leaving the item constantly submerged.


If you want to see some seriously beautiful all wood scabbards(and handles), check out yeshuas-sword.com.

Dear Dan,

On Thursday 11 October 2018, you wrote:

Since this scabbard will be for historical reenactment, I think it would be best to do what is achievable with period-appropriate materials. Leather-covered scabbards of this type are known. Question to all: Would you consider a linen facing too speculative? I'd like to paint the facing, but I never figured out how to make a period-appropriate paint on sueded leather that's water-resistant. I understand from some discussions at RAT that milk paint can be applied to glued linen easily enough, and with a coat of paste wax the result is said to be pretty water-resistant and durable.

If it's not attested, it must be speculative. When then does it become "too speculative"?

As the British Museum says in its curator's comments on the example you cited in the OP, " . . . most scabbards must have been made of plain wood or leather . . . " it's probably better to use a water-resistant paint directly on the wood. Both casein and hide glues are reasonably water-resistant when properly cured, and waxing or oiling over the paint should provide adequate additional protection. But it may be better still just to wax or oil the scabbard's unpainted wood.

Keep in mind that this is Achaemenid; most of the replies you've gotten have referred to European scabbards. There isn't necessarily any continuity between Persian scabbards of the Greco-Persian Wars era and medieval European scabbards. But there may be similarities to contemporary Greek scabbards, and they may be more commonly discussed in the archaeological literature. I think that would be a less-speculative way to go, if you depart from the attested examples.

I hope this proves helpful.

Best,

Mark Millman

AIUI - and I'm not sure whether this the case for these particular scabbards, but I think it goes at least for some similar things from the same region and rough time period - it's also not uncommon for the throat and foot to be separate components, made in one piece each, often in some stylishly contrasting material, and fitted over the glued core to help bind it together at each end. Much like on many keris scabbards.

I've seen some period iconography - like this, for example, although some show the suspension more clearly - that shows these being worn tucked under a belt AND/OR on a short baldric or cord, in both cases hilt pointing right and high enough in front of the chest that they were probably drawn with the palm of your hand turned outward (or otherwise using the overhand "icepick" grip).

PS. They're also shown hanging from the belt, like this:

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

I ran some tests of casein paint on chamois over the past couple months.

Long story short: Total failure. It looks fine if kept dry, but an hour in the rain and it becomes blurry/smeary again. Soaking the chamois with hide glue and/or adding a layer of gesso causes the glue/gesso to absorb water and the paint just slides right off it when touched. Paste wax on top of the paint doesn't help.

So now I'm back to either unpainted leather or painted wood. I'd settle for plain leather since it is documented for this period, but I've got an associate who needs a fancier scabbard because he's reenacting as a Persian Immortal, so he wants one that's at least painted if he can't afford an embossed metal facing. I'm going to test oil paint next, even though it's not really documented for our time period.

In the meantime, can anyone recommend a metalworker who might be able to do an embossed facing? I've already written to Manning Imperial but I'd like to have a range of possible prices to communicate.