THE ICONOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

Excavated mail remains are often in poor condition, being fragmentary or corroded, which makes it difficult to make out their original shape and appearance. As will be seen in chapter 10, there are some exceptions that prove very informative, but these are still few and far between. Therefore, iconographic evidence is key to reconstructing the development of the mail coat's look and design throughout the centuries. This type of evidence includes military tombstones, state monuments and frescoes, among other imagery.

Nevertheless, iconography must be approached with caution, as what has been depicted is not always clear or reliable. Interpreting representations of mail is challenging. Even when realistically portrayed, images of mail are always simplified or stylised. Many artistic conventions were used to represent mail, from realistic to highly figurative. During the 19th century the phenomenon of artistic conventions was less well understood. Scholars of that period tended to interpret each variation as a separate type of armour, which they gave descriptive names such as ‘ringed’ or ‘mascled’ armour, and ‘single’, ‘banded’ or ‘double chain-mail’. In the early 20th century, J. Green Waller and later F.M. Kelly proved that these types were not real, but all comprised different conventions to indicate ‘regular’ mail.

Realistic renderings of mail can show individual interconnected rings, although much larger than their actual size. In many cases the weave is not properly illustrated (i.e. the 4-in-1 pattern with rows positioned horizontally; see chapter 9), and simply shown as a mesh. The more stylised images may include a number of possibilities, like circular or crescent shapes, horizontal or vertical squiggly lines, dots, circular holes, and crosshatching.