Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Dedication
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The origins of mail armour
- 3 Distribution and archaeological context
- 4 The iconography of early mail armour
- 5 The naming of mail armour
- 6 Decoration in mail garments
- 7 Padded garments
- 8 The craft of making mail rings
- 9 Weaving patterns
- 10 The construction of mail garments
- 11 Ring characteristics
- 12 Final considerations
- Bibliography
- Database
- Appendix 1 Catalogue of mail armour
- Appendix 2 Catalogue of hybrid armour
- Appendix 3 Catalogue of isolated finds of fasteners and fixtures
- Appendix 4 Finds excluded from the database
Appendix 4 - Finds excluded from the database
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 November 2022
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Dedication
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The origins of mail armour
- 3 Distribution and archaeological context
- 4 The iconography of early mail armour
- 5 The naming of mail armour
- 6 Decoration in mail garments
- 7 Padded garments
- 8 The craft of making mail rings
- 9 Weaving patterns
- 10 The construction of mail garments
- 11 Ring characteristics
- 12 Final considerations
- Bibliography
- Database
- Appendix 1 Catalogue of mail armour
- Appendix 2 Catalogue of hybrid armour
- Appendix 3 Catalogue of isolated finds of fasteners and fixtures
- Appendix 4 Finds excluded from the database
Summary
Not all finds described as (fasteners or fixtures for) mail in the literature have been included in the database. The omitted artefacts are listed below, together with the reason why they are left out.
AUSTRIA
Oberleisterberg
Remarks: its shape makes it unlikely to have functioned as a fastener.
Literature: Karwowski 2014.
BULGARIA
Brunichevo
Remarks: this is probably scale armour.
Literature: Torbov 2004, 60, 61.
Bryastovetz
Remarks: this is probably scale armour.
Literature: Moralejo Ordax 2011, 293-294; Torbov 2004, 65.
Jankovo
Remarks: this is probably scale armour.
Literature: Hansen 2003, 61; Rusu 1969, 289; Torbov 2004, 60, 61; Van der Sanden 1993, 4 (cat. no. 2).
Kjolmen
Remarks: this is probably scale armour.
Literature: Torbov 2004, 60, 61.
DENMARK
Hjortspring(fig. 2.10)
Remarks: the iron rings are the result of podzolic precipitation and are not mail armour.
Literature: Bruce-Mitford 1978, 237; Dedyulkin/ Shevchenko 2017, 51; Ehlton 2002/2003, 7; Fabian 2018, 39; Fredman 1992, 6, 29; Gilmour 1997, 32-33; 1999, 164; Hansen 2003, 63-65, 68, 161 (cat. no. B2); Jouttijärvi 1996, 53; Juncher 2016, 95, 99-100; Kaul 2003a, 153-154; 2003b, 217; Madsen 1997, 85; Malfilâtre 1993, 2; Müller 2003, 434, 436; Nicklasson 1989, 26, 29; 1991, 21; Novichenkova 2011, 277-278; Pauli Jensen et al. 2003, 316; Piggott 1955, 11, 38; Quesada Sanz/Rueda Galán 2017, 33-34; Quesada Sanz et al. 2019, 159; Randsborg 1995, 26-28; Rosenberg 1937, 47-48; Rustoiu 2006, 49-50, 52; Stead 1991, 56; Van der Sanden 1993, 4 (cat. no. 7); 2003/2004, 370, 372; Völling 1998, 562; Waurick 1979, 323, 326 (cat. no. 6); Wijnhoven 2014, 13.
Nydam
Remarks: no mail armour has been found at Nydam. These mail rings must be from another location.
Literature: Sim 1997, 360, 362-365; Sim/Kaminski 2012, 114, 117, 124-125, 127-128, 134, fig. 80, 88.
Vils Høj
Remarks: this mail coif has been assigned to the Roman Iron Age. Examination by the author leads to conclude that it is probably modern, because: 1) the current condition of the coif is unlike that found usually in archaeological mail; 2) the wire diameter is so consistent that it coincides with modern wire; 3) the object is entirely made from butted rings.
Literature: Burmeister/Derks 2009, 77; Fredman 1992, 10; Juncher 2016, 99; Nicklasson 1989, 30-31.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- European Mail ArmourRinged Battle Shirts from the Iron Age, Roman Period and Early Middle Ages, pp. 505 - 507Publisher: Amsterdam University PressPrint publication year: 2021