Armour
Research Society Conference; Chicago 2005
Report by Shane
Smith
ARMA Virginia Beach, VA
ARS Member
This gathering of some of the world's finest minds in the field of arms and armour
collecting and restoration was truly a first of its kind. I would almost say once in
a lifetime if I werent hoping so firmly that that will not be the case. The
depth and breadth of collective knowledge brought to the table by the various speakers is
unprecedented in my experience and the extreme efforts put forth by the Armour Research
Society and its Board of Directors is both highly commendable and worthy in every respect.
The excitement in the room before the event began in earnest was palpable and anticipation
was high. We werent let down in the least by the organizational efforts of ARS
President Brian Rainey and Vice President Douglas Strong. It is obvious to me that a great
deal of passion for the subject matter was the driving force behind their effort to bring
this all-star cast of learned gentlemen together for the benefit of all. When we were all
finally seated and able to settle in, Douglas gave the opening remarks and welcomed both
we ARS members and visiting guests warmly and set the stage for the speakers to
follow
Walter Karcheski of the Frazier Historical Arms Museum; The good, the bad and
the ugly in collecting
Karcheski presented on the history of Western European armour collection and provided
the modern day collector with much needed and valuable insight into the various perils and
pitfalls into which an unwary purchaser may stumble. From the earliest known origins of
active collecting for collecting's sake of authentic medieval armours in the 15th century,
the speaker led us all on a path of discovery that led us through the Tower of London,
where once upon a time unknowing conservators cleaned armours with brick dust
paste, compromising the historical value of many period pieces, through the uncaring
profiteers in the 19th century peddling outright fakes as authentic, and to the 20th
century where men such as Ernst Shmidt and his fellow German armourers made fairly
convincing reproduction armours into the 1930s to feed rising Nazi Germanys
national pride in its knightly past.
All
of the above armours have a place in history certainly, but the big question is how does
the collector determine exactly what hes looking at and considering purchasing
and/or displaying? Karcheski provided much needed answers to that question. He discussed
the various problems caused by past collectors and sellers haphazardly mixing and matching
components from separate armours of sometimes different vintages and even nationalities to
make a full harness to increase marketability of their wares. He spoke of the restoration
of period armours by the replacing of missing bits with modern reproduction pieces, yet
passed off as all original to the unknowing. More frightening yet is his
assertion that many a museum currently still unknowingly displays many such pieces as
original. Indeed, he stressed that metallurgical evidence is often the only way to be
relatively sure of the pre-modern status of many pieces as archaic bloomery steel is
noticeably at odds with modern product. Even then, such does not prove that a piece
remains in its original configuration.
Mr. Karcheski pointed out that the supply of original period harness is fairly limited
and indeed, asserted that any full harness found outside the displays of a major museum is
almost certainly a composite of various period pieces or perhaps even fakes. In fact,
fewer than a dozen complete 15th century harnesses are known to exist worldwide.
Walter expressed concern that as time passes, the ability of future collectors to
distinguish between original pieces and fakes may diminish as we move ever further from
the age of its use. To help us avoid this, he offered the following items for
consideration to the modern collector:
- Does the piece seem useful and functional for the purpose for which it was intended?
- What inspired its form culturally or martially? Is it fanciful in appearance or
execution?
- How does it compare to known originals of the same pattern and vintage?
- Are any occurring decorations or definable patterns consistent?
- Is the metal old or reworked? It isnt cast is it?
- Is the degree of patination right for such a piece with an appropriate history?
Even with the above insights, Mr Karcheski disclosed that many fakes are discovered
only by mistake by curators, conservators, etc. or the maker discloses his work out of
pride for having fooled the experts. If one could sum up the main idea of
informative speech given, perhaps the operative thing to take away is simply buyer
beware
at least thats what I took away along with five pages of
invaluable notes.
Tobias Capwell Phd., of the Glasgow Museums; The real fighting stuff!
Toby delivered an insightful and very interesting presentation on the expansive
armour collection in his care at Glasgow Museums in Scotland. The
armour collection is largely made up of pieces collected by the Scottish
shipbuilder Robert Lyons Scott and bequeathed to Glasgow upon his
death in 1939. Scott prided himself upon collecting working armours
that had seen use and had a bit of character about them,
as opposed to some of the more garish parade and ceremonial harnesses
that some prefer. As a practitioner and researcher of period armoured
combat that spends a great deal of time in harness myself, I can fully
appreciate this focus on practicality. The collection contains a number
of fine 15th century pieces, from the mundane to the unique.
The
armour most often associated with Glasgow Museums is the Avant
armour circa 1440. This piece is a gorgeous harness and Toby was kind
enough to share a bit of its history with us. The dating is achieved
by considering the style of the left gardbrace (the right reinforce
is missing), which is fairly early, and a number of other stylistic,
constructional, and documentary clues. The original left gauntlet
was lost long before the armour left its original home at Churburg
Castle in Northern Italy. In 1928 a reproduction, a mirror of the
right, was made to replace it and so complete the armour. . This addition
draws some level of debate among scholars as some feel that the left
gauntlet should not be articulated at the wrist as is the right. During
the question and answer period following the presentation, I had the
opportunity to share my observations on this issue as a martial artist
working intently with the Italian armoured fencing methods of the
early 15th century as typified by Fiore de Liberis work Flos
Duelatorum circa 1409-1410. It is my experience that the techniques
described in the period Italian source-texts on foot combat in armour
are very much more readily performed with a well articulated wrist
at the left and I shared this thought with the group and followed
by asking if curators look to practitioners and the period source-texts
on armoured combat to aid them in filling in the gaps when a determination
such as the likely original configuration of a now missing part arises
in their collections. Tobias answered that such considerations were
valid and that it is something that should be looked into more fully
in order to ensure a fuller understanding of the piece's probable
form and function when in service.
Only later in an informal discussion with Tobias did I learn that
he is an avid jouster
so hes spent his time in harness
and this is a definite asset for a man in his position in my opinion.
Tobias has a great collection there in Scotland it seems
How
good is it? Good enough that Im going to make a special trip
there this December to see for myself from the point of view of a
guy, like Scott and Capwell, who appreciates The Real Working
Stuff!
Alan Williams PhD, of the University of Reading; Renaissance Milan -
Capitalism and the metallurgy of armour
Dr. Williams spoke on the rise of the Milanese armour trade and the technological
innovations in metallurgy that made the peculiarly Western European penchant for
large-plate armours a possibility. He fascinated the audience with a discussion of early
civilizations that went straight from the stone age to the iron-age, as copper and bronze
were much less common in ores in many places in Europe. That was a revelation for me and
was quite at odds with what is generally accepted and taught as common
knowledge. This wasnt to be the last eye-opener of the speech however.
Williams spoke of the probable recycling of the iron Roman armours in the former empire
into such things as cooking pots, and even pointed to one piece known as the Coppergate
Helm, which he argues is probably made of five recycled lorica segmentata lames of equal
size. His reasoning in this instance is sound, as there are few other explanations that
make sense in light of the seeming absurdity of building a helm in this manner if you had
new plate to work with. I will point out that I have also personally examined a helm in
the British Museum that had been modified with the addition of a few chains to make a
cooking pot, apparently in period.
He also helped us understand that the early method of making helms from several pieces
riveted together was largely a reality of the early bloomeries (iron extraction furnaces)
only being capable of turning out solid lumps of iron of about 1 pound. As you need at
least double the weight of the item you are crafting in iron, it is clear to see that
technology simply left no other choices for many years until the bloomeries became much
more efficient through increased size and innovation.
Bloomeries
of such size required capital investment, and this was one of the mechanisms that drove
Milan to prominence in the field. It was likewise learned that as carbon content is
increased, slag inclusions are greatly reduced, creating a substantially stronger and less
brittle armour. Heat treatment also became a reality, and while much armour in period
remained of relatively soft iron (Henry VIII armoured his own men in iron , not steel
according to Doctor Williams), good heat treated pieces were being turned out at this time
and plate became much more affordable. Indeed, the cost of plate in 1437 was about 4.3
guilders as opposed to a maille shirt at 4.6 guilders in 1388.
By the 1600s, large blast furnaces were in use and the inclusion of carbon to create
steel was more well understood and controllable. Eventually as furnaces grew ever larger
and carbon content increased, the melting point of the iron was finally reached and cast
iron became a reality, and while cast iron is useless for armour, it could be used to cast
cannon. Dr. Williams maintains that the quality of German steel never equaled the Milanese
product in period and for that reason, Milanese armour was superior in protective quality.
All in all, a vast amount of good information was presented and I have almost a
half-dozen pages of notes to digest. Great, thought provoking stuff!
David Edge B.A., Dip, Cons., of the Wallace Collection in London; Preservation
and conservation
David Edge presented a very riveting and informative talk on the preservation and
conservation of period pieces based upon his years maintaining and displaying the
treasures held by the Wallace Collection, as originally held by Sir Richard Wallace circa
1890. The amount of valuable hands-on experience Mr. Edge has in this field of research
and application makes him perhaps uniquely qualified to help modern collectors and
enthusiasts understand what to do, but just as importantly, based on past
conservation mistakes of others as observed by himself, he was able to tell us
just what not to do.
First
of all, he made it frightfully clear that improper attempts at conservation can be
extremely dangerous to both the nature of the piece in question and the health of the
conservator. It drew much laughter from the gathered listeners when David would
good-naturedly mention of one compound after another
We used X to remove
Y from armours for years
until it was found to be highly volatile and
carcinogenic!!!
It seems though that at this point, White Spirits is the
cleaner of choice. The best part? It has yet to be shown to be highly volatile and
carcinogenic!
Kidding aside, Mr. Edge shared a wealth of information as well as cautionary tales and
examples. He showed us a beautifully engraved ivory archers bracer circa 1608 that
someone had hopelessly stained via a sloppy oiling job on the rivets, along
with a French or maybe Dutch iron shield circa 1600 which was backed with vegetable tanned
leather that was being steadily devoured by a bacterial infestation known as Red
Rot. He also expressed his dismay at the damage that improper and careless exhibit
mounting can and has caused throughout the history of many pieces. Some of the insights
passed along?
- Dust is mostly human skin(!) and acidic, so the control of such contaminants is a must.
- Silver is protected from tarnish by laquer after cleaning (Silver will still tarnish
under wax).
- Armour was once cleaned with a mixture of Vaseline and three-in-one oil.
- Greases and oils can cause staining and a yellow laquer-like deposit as they age.
- Acetone will remove the yellow laquer-like deposits left by grease.
- Microcrystaline wax is used to preserve plate armours.
- White Spirits is used to clean armour.
- Parker Hale cold gun blue is okay to touch up minor scratches of patina.
- Always consider the ethical ramifications of a particular conservative act.
- Never polish items which exhibit a stable, if somewhat corroded surface. Wax them and be
content!
- Benzene and White Spirits clean leather well
pat dry.
- Never replace anything unless absolutely necessary.
- Do replace strapping and other structural elements if doing so will preclude further
damage.
- Modern polypropylene makes an excellent alternative to leather strapping for displays.
In all, David really provided the kind of authoritative look at this subject that only
someone in his position can offer and his work with the Wallace Collection is something to
be admired and commended. We all learned a lot from this one.
Jiri Hosek PhD, of the Institute of Archaeology CAS, Prague; Contributions of
Metallographic examinations of Bohemia
Mr. Hosek spoke on the metallurgical properties of the weapons in use circa 14th-16th
century in what is modern-day Czechoslovakia.
We were first shown slides of a 14th century longsword that under scientific
examination demonstrated a considerably higher degree of hardening from the mid-point to
the tip than it did from the midpoint to the shoulder. This sword was largely made of iron
according to Hosek, and this pattern of hardening is not unduly uncommon in many period
pieces as the tang is often left quite soft to add toughness and prevent its fracturing
under the stress of parrying and reversing while maintaining a comparatively stiff
business end. This stiffness from midpoint to tip was presumably done to allow the sword
to retain its edge and bite into softer materials with authority. We were also shown a
sword circa 16th century made of steel and a cut and thrust sword of the 16th century that
was made of alternating low and high carbon steels. A rapier of low carbon steel was also
discussed and it was shown to possess relatively low hardness under examination by a
metallurgist. A soft, less than stiff blade is not what is generally sought in the realm
of sharp and pointies (read "rapiers"). It would appear that even at this late
date, the quality of an individual sword blade was likely to be fairly inconsistent as the
technologies involved were not necessarily fully understood by all makers.
Some
of the more fascinating things presented were the form and metallurgical qualities of the
Bohemian war knives that may have fulfilled the same role as the earlier
Anglo-Saxon seax, as the similarities in form are too obvious to miss. The war knife was
used as early as the 14th century but really gained in popularity in the 15th century.
These war knives typically were either of machete or even butcher knife proportion and
were single-edged as a matter of course. The edges were shown to be hardened under
metallurgical examination while the spines, or backs of the blades, remained relatively
soft. Many incorporate a side guard on a single side (somewhat messer-like in that
respect as seen in the German tradition I thought), yet cross guards are not seen. Quality
ran from quite good to atrocious in the sample reviewed, so then as now, you presumably
got what you paid for. All in all, an interesting weapon that gets little mention but
seemingly deserves much.
Hosek's speech covered so much fertile ground that space precludes a full accounting,
yet we were shown examples and data ranging from tiny crossbow bolt tips of extreme
hardness to large, and sometimes brittle, carriage guns (one with a removable and
re-loadable breach!!), some of which had a tendency to rupture when fired in cold weather
and were therefore initially warmed up by firing lighter loads until operating
temperatures were reached.
One particular thing I thought exceptionally noteworthy was the data presented
concerning several 14th century maille samples wherein some individual rings were made of
two vastly different pieces of metal from the metallurgical point of view! Two different
qualities of steel/iron in one maille ring is astounding to my mind. Why on earth would
this be done commonly? Im not sure but it is startling if the several samples
discussed and examined could be taken to suggest a relative normalcy of this practice.
This presentation was thought-provoking indeed.
Pierre Terjanian of the Philadelphia Museum of Art; Armour making in
Germany
Terjanian spoke on the nature of the armour-making centers of Germany as well as its
controlling structure circa 14th to 17th century. He spoke first of the largest of these
centers, the big five of which included Nuremberg, Cologne, Innsbruck, Augsberg and
Landshut. These big five werent alone however and quality armours were being crafted
in Dresden, Ulm and Strasburg besides. Indeed, Terjanian argues that there was a very
widespread tradition and active engagement in armour smithing all across Germany in this
time.
With
such widely scattered production, one may expect many variations in quality and style to
be seen from Germany. Pierre explained that this was not the case however, as the
armourers were self regulating in the form of regulatory bodies known as
handicrafts that were overseen by Master Armourers and fell under the umbrella
of the guilds, yet maintained a degree of regulatory autonomy. The handicrafts made
certain that all armourers under their care adhered strictly to common practices and thus
the inherent quality and even the form of German armours in period was well preserved. In
essence, peer pressure kept all of the various handicrafts on task. If an armourer began
making sub-standard product or those beyond his certification, he was immediately
ostracized by his peers and his workforce would leave as a matter of course to allow their
own careers to move forward under a respected Master. Many such dishonorable Masters lived
their days out in poverty still plying their trade in the countryside as far as possible
from the reach or notice of the handicraft Masters.
The handicraft structure was interesting in that a Master had to prove mastery in each
facet of harness making and would only be certified to make those types of pieces he was
deemed qualified to create after he submitted his sample work to the Masters of the
handicrafts. Thus, many Masters and the apprentices and journeymen in his shop may turn
out only helms or maybe breastplates as their Masters certification would allow. We were
all startled to hear that between 1496 and 1577 only 165 makers were granted certification
under the handicrafts, and of those only 8 were entitled to turn out an entirely complete
harness! For this reason, Terjanian says that the vast majority of German armours, even in
original configuration, are almost certainly composites made of various components being
crafted after a common form by various subcontracted Masters who each contributed their
own specialty to the armour in question. Indeed in this time, in order to assure such
consistency in the works, the importation and exportation of armour from the Country was
expressly forbidden in many German armour-making centers.
All in all, Pierre offered a fascinating introduction to the arms making industry in
medieval and renaissance Germany and when taken in contrast to the earlier speech on
Milanese armour presented by Dr. Williams, much valuable insight into the similarities and
differences between the rise and development of both traditions is possible.
Jeffrey Forgeng, PhD, of the Higgins Armoury Museum: The cautionary tale of
Paulus Hector Mair
Doctor Forgeng presented on the commonality of the various German source-texts,
specifically focusing on both those collected, and commissioned by 16th century martial
arts enthusiast and apparent practioner Paulus Hector Mair, and discussed the
interrelations and connections to be found between the earliest words of MS 1-33 through
German Master Liethenhauer c. 1370 and forward. Jeffrey really tied all of the various
German manuscripts together and demonstrated the existence and development of a cohesive
German tradition of combat arts in startling clarity, and demonstrated the inherent
consistency to be found among the content and application as realized in Mairs work
through reasoned argument and the presentation of considerable corroborating evidence from
the source-texts themselves.
Forgeng
also introduced Mair the man to those present not already in the know
warts and all. Mair (circa 1517-1579) commissioned the writing of
no less than three extensive manuscripts (1200 pages of beautifully
illustrated plates each!) on the fighting arts of Western Europe and
held no less than seven original works of previous Masters in his
own collection and was an avid collector of period muskets and crossbows
besides. He was truly a man intent on understanding and seemingly
even recreating these combat methods (Jeffrey brought to light seeming
misunderstandings of the MS I-33 on Mairs part among Mairs
own sword and buckler plates that suggests that some application of
the medieval works was perhaps lost by this time
at least to
Paulus) and put his money where his heart was
not unlike many
of we modern researchers in that sense maybe. Jeffrey also shared
an exciting new piece of information: there is a high probability
that a manuscript he has examined recently is an early rough-draft
of Mairs manual heretofore unknown as such. His evidence for
this was most convincing, and I await further development on this
point eagerly.
Now for the warts
As a public official in the employ of the
Treasury, Mair came under suspicion of pilfering funds from the public
coffers for his own, highly unauthorized uses (perhaps to fund his
passionate collecting and commissioning of manuscripts?). He was ultimately
hanged for this crime in 1579. The good news is that his lifes
work survives and one of each of his three manuscripts currently reside
in Vienna, Dresden and Munich. The fourth possible work mentioned
above is as yet not fully proven. Dr. Forgeng is also currently working
on a translation of all 1200 pages of one of Mair's manuscripts for
publication and the boon that this will represent to the WMA community
is beyond any adjective available to me. His previous work on I-33
is still being mined avidly by practitioner-researchers such as ARMAs
own Stewart Feil and Brian Hunt, to name the most notable that come
to mind. ARMA also has several members working on translating portions
of Mair's manuscripts for publication, which we expect will provide
a great opportunity for cross-comparison with Forgeng's translation,
one we can hardly await.
Dr. Forgengs speech was both engagingly delivered and insightfully
reasoned . Whether it be his wielding of sword and buckler to illustrate
a point, or his advocation of a holistic approach to understanding
and interpreting the German source-texts (an approach we in ARMA have
always taken as well), he definitely grabbed and kept everyones
attention!
Oakeshotte Institute Display as presented by Christopher Poor and Craig Johnson
The
Oakeshotte viewing proper followed the conclusion of the speakers' presentations; however,
Christopher Poor and Craig Johnson were kind enough to allow me to personally handle the
various pieces earlier in the day and discuss their historical significance and the
qualities of each of the beautiful swords brought courtesy of the Oakeshotte Institute for
display in turn. As a Swordsman first and foremost, I took great pleasure in examining
these treasures. From the wonderfully quick handling French single-hander with the
beautiful hilt and interesting hollow ground risered blade circa 1450-1460, to the
gorgeous and sinuous 17th century rapier that was no less deadly-feeling in the hand, the
quality and workmanlike feel of these pieces was not to be missed by anyone with even a
mild attraction to period weaponry, much less a hopelessly passionate Swordsman such as
myself and my fellow ARMA members.
The great value of the Oakeshotte Institute as I see it lies in their willingness to
allow those with a sincere interest in the martial heritage of Western Europe to literally
get their hands on a piece of that history, be it through hands-on examination of the
weapons and armours themselves, or thumbing through the written works of its namesake, Mr.
Ewart Oakeshotte whose own passion drove him to collect and catalog the many forms and
patterns of the sword. In fact, it is he who originated the standard nomenclature used by
modern collectors to identify the various blade and hilt types. If this were his only
contribution, his place in history is assured, yet his legacy lives on with the Oakeshotte
Institute and the efforts of Christopher and Craig to bring his lifes work to the
forefront through educational displays abroad, and this will continue in the the new
Oakeshotte Institute Museum which is planned once a suitable location and funds become
available.
We
also discussed the needs of modern day practitioners concerning quality replicas, and it
was a pleasure for me to hear that Craig at the least is a knowledgable fellow on the
German tradition of longsword combat . This revelation came about during my handling and
commenting on a very manly 15th century German longsword with particularly nice figuring
of the pommel and cross guard accompanying a heavy-duty, full-length risered tapering
blade that had a nice nose-heavy-ish chopper feel about it due to the blade being of
substantial width from shoulder to well into the weak of the blade. We discussed how such
a weapon may be just whats called for to set aside another blade in the application
of the nearly single-time master cuts of the German tradition (In period, this piece may
have been a bit tough to twitch a flurry of zwerchauen with though) and it was a
treat to hear that degree of martial understanding from a maker of replicas or a caretaker
of a very impressive arms collection.
Craig had a replica of the period rapier discussed earlier made by Arms and Armour on
hand for direct comparison and while it wasnt a perfect match in feel or form (and I
myself will readily concede that I am more of a medieval cut and thrust researcher and
practitioner), it felt pretty darn close and the blade seemed quite stiff. A very nice
effort it seems. I am now anxious to get my hands on Arms and Armours replica of
that lovely, slightly nose-heavy German longsword.
Christopher Poor and Craig Johnson were definitely top-notch guys as representatives of
the Oakeshott Institute and it seemed to me that with them at the helm, the Oakeshotte
Collection has a bright future and is certainly in capable hands. Thanks for the
hospitality gentlemen!
In closing, let me simply say that this was a wonderful opportunity to meet and learn
from some of the most influential arms and armour collectors and caretakers to be found. I
think it was very worthwhile that we practitioners and our thoughts and input on martial
practicality were welcomed by these researchers as valid sources of information to further
everyones understanding of Medieval/Renaissance arms and armours and the manner of
using them in period. This concept of a holistic approach to understanding is what makes
the participation of the practitioners of period fighting methods within the worldwide
armour collecting community a must in my opinion. Simply put, once collectors and
restorers have access to skilled men with first-hand knowledge of how the man and his
armour interacts when put to use in authentic historical combat methods, they have one
more valuable source of data and experience to draw from when a piece of armour throws
them a loop in the form of an unknown characteristic. Is this characteristic an original
job that makes life easier for the fighting man or is it a 19th century add-on that was
done simply to appeal to the warped fashion sense of some incompetent
"restorer"? Only through studious comparison of the piece in question with other
pieces of similar style and vintage, along with pictorial evidence combined with input
from hands-on experimentation in the fighting arts for which such armours were originally
designed, does a more accurate picture emerge. For this reason, I maintain that the fields
of study represented by both collectors and practitioners are not two separate endeavors,
but rather two wings of the same bird and imminently complementary of one-another. This
New Renaissance in vintage arms and armour is very much in its infancy and
much hard work remains yet to be done. I call on martial artists and collectors alike to
work together closely to the benefit of both fields. Only by working together can we
achieve maximum results and find the answers were all after as researchers of the
Western European military heritage. |