08-09-2013, 11:37 AM
Salvete Omnes,
This may spark some heated debate, so I do hope many will contribute their viewpoints, where possible backed up by archeological record.
First, I will outline the reasoning behind the assertion/theorum. Currently, I am doing a replica of the second century semi-spatha (55 cm blade) found in Woerden. The sword found is nearly complete, having a fully preserved handle of lindenwood/basswood, a scabbard preserved for at least 50 %, also of basswood, an iron slider and an iron chape. Nearby were beltfittings and a complete spear, spearhead, hazel shaft and butspike.
So I made the basswood scabbard body and thought it looked really great just the way it was. Well oiled with linseed oil, a thing of beauty ... When I was thinking about the leather covering for the scabbard, I realised NO leather had been found. However, the soft basswood had been preserved in the totaly waterlogged conditions, so why not the leather?? Perhaps because it was never there! Also, looking at the width of the chape, the wooden scabbard was a good deal wider then the sword, lots of room for a solid bond with adhesive.
This started me thinking. The scabbards from the third century bogs do not have leather either, the slide and chape are mounted straight on to the wood. Germanic scabbards found are glued together from strips of ash and bound with iron bands. Why do many scabbards have guttering and crossbands, when a leather cover, certainly is mounted wet, would hold the two halves of the scabbard together just as well? Could this guttering and the long lockets with wraparound bands indicate there was no leather at all, with hideglue or boneglue sticking the halves together and the wood well oiled to be water-repellent?
OK, there have been scant few scabbards found with leather fragments, but could a leather covered Roman scabbard in many cases be a re-enactorisme or "Indianisme", just like the wood-bone-wood handles on every Roman sword massproduced :?: .
This may spark some heated debate, so I do hope many will contribute their viewpoints, where possible backed up by archeological record.
First, I will outline the reasoning behind the assertion/theorum. Currently, I am doing a replica of the second century semi-spatha (55 cm blade) found in Woerden. The sword found is nearly complete, having a fully preserved handle of lindenwood/basswood, a scabbard preserved for at least 50 %, also of basswood, an iron slider and an iron chape. Nearby were beltfittings and a complete spear, spearhead, hazel shaft and butspike.
So I made the basswood scabbard body and thought it looked really great just the way it was. Well oiled with linseed oil, a thing of beauty ... When I was thinking about the leather covering for the scabbard, I realised NO leather had been found. However, the soft basswood had been preserved in the totaly waterlogged conditions, so why not the leather?? Perhaps because it was never there! Also, looking at the width of the chape, the wooden scabbard was a good deal wider then the sword, lots of room for a solid bond with adhesive.
This started me thinking. The scabbards from the third century bogs do not have leather either, the slide and chape are mounted straight on to the wood. Germanic scabbards found are glued together from strips of ash and bound with iron bands. Why do many scabbards have guttering and crossbands, when a leather cover, certainly is mounted wet, would hold the two halves of the scabbard together just as well? Could this guttering and the long lockets with wraparound bands indicate there was no leather at all, with hideglue or boneglue sticking the halves together and the wood well oiled to be water-repellent?
OK, there have been scant few scabbards found with leather fragments, but could a leather covered Roman scabbard in many cases be a re-enactorisme or "Indianisme", just like the wood-bone-wood handles on every Roman sword massproduced :?: .
