Scabbards, covered in leather or NOT?

[Medicus matt]

Salve Matt,

I am aware of some of the scabbards out of the bogs having very thin rawhide, I am not argueing leather was NEVER used, I am putting up for discussion if it was nearly ALWAYS used, as we are doing now. It seems to be gospel, just look at Evan's post.

Really, there is no need for exotic woods. Cherry, linden, chestnut, walnut, holly, hazel, ash, brilliant types of wood. For spectacular, what of an olive wood scabbard?

Ahh, my misunderstanding. The title of the thread gives the impression that you thought it was an either/or situation.

Of course it's possible that some scabbards had no covering. The most obvious example of a 1st century wooden scabbard with no covering would the one found at Stanwick, where a series of copper alloy bands served to both secure and decorate the body of the scabbard.

However, a skin covering does more than provide additional structural integrity (which was obviously needed, given the very thin nature of some of the wooden lathes from which scabbards are usually made). It also prevents helps to keep moisture out of the scabbard and away from the blade where otherwise it might soak into the wood and seep through whatever adhesive was used to join the lathes.

I'm not even going to get into a discussion about the use of exotic South American hardwoods.