Newstead Plumata

[Doc]

I know that this may sound like a silly question :oops: however, in which museum is the Newstead Plumata housed? Is it the Newstead Museum in Scotland or was the plumata found in Newstead but it is in another museum.

As you all know, sometimes things are found in one place and then show up somewhere else on display.

Thanks

Paolo

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Erik D Schmid's post on the old red/black RAT topic:

http://p200.ezboard.com/Lorica-plumata- ... =978.topic

This is the Erik's post:

Hello,

First I would like to apologize to you Matt if my last e-mail was little to grumpy.

Now the piece of plumata I examined was from the Newstead find and is housed in the reserve collection at the NMS. The piece is in a fragmented condition and is quite fragile. However I was able to obtain some rather decent information from it.

The riveted links measured 4.62mm OD and 3.34mm ID. They had a thickness of .58mm and were of an ovoid section. The rivets were also ovoid in shape and looked to be made from flattened wire.

The solid/whole punched links measured 3.3mm ID and 2.19mm OD. They had a thickness of .31mm and a width of .71mm. As can be seen by these measurements they had an obvious rectangular section.

The scale was 7.52mm wide, approx. 1mm thick and had a length of 13mm which takes into account the folded portion where the four holes were pierced to accept the mail links.

Bear in mind that these measurements can vary by several hundredths of a millimeter or more.

In the Antiquities Museum in Newcastle there are two pieces of squamata. The smaller of the two has scales that are similar in size to the plumata from Newstead. Because of this one might conclude that the plumata could be mass produced. This may be true of the scales, but the links are another matter. When you look at the amount of work that is invlolved with its overall construction this idea quickly loses steam.

On a side not I am in the process of getting the proper materials together so that I might construct a small piece of this armour. However, it will not be something that will be for sale. I would like to keep what is left of my sanity. I have lost most of it doing what I do now.

Anyway, after discussing this at length both Brian Stobbs and myself came to the conclusion that this armour was mainly for prade wear or other function where the person wearing it would not be exposed to much combat. At least not in the position where they would be actual combatants. This is completely due to the physical properties of this type of armour. In my opinion a good solid thrust with a sword will penetrate this defense without much effort. To say nothing of what a spear could do. Now if the person were wearing a quality subarmalis like yours John it would still not make much of a difference. In fact the subarmalis would more than likely provide more protection on its own than if it was combined with the plumata.

The one thing that this type of armour has over others of the same time period is how it looks. No matter your tastes you have to acknowledge the beauty of this stuff.

Other examples of Roman mail are much more robust and as such would offer much better protection.

Hope it's helpful I add for the newcomers that the NMS is "The National Museums of Scotland" .

Vale,

[Tarbicus]

Daniele, that was what he said four and a half years ago.

This is what he said two months ago :wink: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 869#155869

The strength of the mail is increased through the use of scales. For one thing they cover the mail thus protecting it. At any given moment there are at least two scales covering the mail and often times three. So, that gives you a common thickness of just under 1mm for this armour.

It has been suggested that the links of this type of mail would be quite frail due to the thickness of the wire used. What you have to consider though is the fact that the scales essentially turn four links into one. The scales turn this mail, which under normal circumstances would be worthless in terms of defensive capabilities, into something quite formidable in my opinion.

The manufacture of the scales strengthens them as well. This is accomplished through the introduction of the well known central rib. This rib is created through the use of a coining process and not simply whacking the underside with a hammer and chisel. The underside of the scale is flat. This indicates that the scales were made by coining. This process would thus work harden the scale thereby making it quite sturdy.

My research into this type of armour has taken me quite a distance from my first impression of it being parade/show armour.

Just making sure nobody goes away proclaiming plumata to be parade armour only.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

He was back here not long ago examining the armour and maile in museums, so he is definately not resting on his laurels, but forming an indepth knowledge of the maile and scale armour...opinions evolve with time and knowledge... :wink:

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Hey Jim, put your cane away!
I just wanted to help Paolo about which museum is the Newstead Plumata housed (the NMS), and that post gave this info, I was not going to add anything to the plumata discussion... :wink:

Vale,

[Tarbicus]

Hey Jim, put your cane away!

Don't picture a cane, more a floppy willow twig with the leaves still on. :wink:

[M. Demetrius]

Wow! That could give a stinging flog, Jim!
:roll: :lol:

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

A sort of finnish sauna birch twig... Humm, Jim, may I be flogged by them instead?



Vale,

[Tarbicus]

A sort of finnish sauna birch twig... Humm, Jim, may I be flogged by them instead?

No. David wisely pointed out injury could occur, so I need to check out the sauna first.

[Doc]

Thanks for the reply. I was not sure if it was the National Museums of Scotland or something to do with Newstead since NMS starts with N.

Yes, originally Erik thought that it was parade like armor. However, having made a piece of it, the truth begins to reveal itself.

I have a small sample piece Erik made that I have since returned and I can vouch for the strenght of this stuff.

At a first glance one could say that the stuff looks flimsy but once you start squeezing it between your fingers and start pulling on it, you can see that it is quite strong. Let us not forget, it is still a hard metal not plastic.

The scales are somewhat pliable on their own, but once you try to bend two or three of them together, given their small size, it becomes way less pliable or to ply it requires a substantial force.

Large squamata scales at the plumata scale thickness would be greatly pliable even if you have three together.

So, if I may, and Erik correct me if I am wrong, not only do the scales have strenght from their rib and not only is the armor strong because of the weave of the garment (scale/mail) but also the small size imparts a certain rigidity since there is a smaller area exposed to a stress.


Paolo



Paolo

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think it is the National museums of Scotland.

Which I found hard to locate when I was there last, despite being sure before leaving for the south..

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Ave,

When it's said that the Newstead Plumata is in the National museums of Scotland... how much of it is there? How much of it was actually found?

Is the Newstead Plumata only a few pieces of the garment and the re-construction more of an archeological hypothesis (e.g. the way experts believe it looked when complete)?

Anyone have photo?

[Doc]

Antonius,

The Newstead piece unlike the Augsburg piece is a fragment with some scales and mostly mail. It is a relatively small sample. The Augsburg piece on the other hand is more complete since the size of it is quite large. There were also small fragments of other plumata found. They were all primarly made of copper alloy (both mail and scale) while I believe the Usk piece is all of iron.

One thing that they all have in common is that generally their scales are quite small as are the mail rings. Each sample found, has rings and scales of the approximate same size. Also all the fragments found had the same mode of construction with respect to how the garment was assembled. Since there is a consistency, it make the issue less hypothetical.

For the most part, any reconstruction, using the evidence avaible, has an element of hypothesis. Look at Musculata armor. No Roman sample has ever been found. Yet people reconstruct them solely based on Greek finds and Roman sculpture. We do not even know what the roman materials for such armors are. At least for plumata, squmata, hamata, and segmentata, there is evidence as to the materials making it way less hypothetical.

The same is for the "plumata" and squamata. Generally one cannot categorically say that every sculpture that has scale armor is "plumata" nor can it be said that it is squamata. Thus, like in the musculata case, we use scale armor sculpture to ascertain a particular design that could have belonged to a "plumata" or squamata. Except that in the scale armor case, we have actual finds to prove their construction materials and approximate method of construction.

The design therefore, becomes somewhat hypothetical since there is evidence for its appearence and actual evidence proving its existence.

The same cannot be said for musculata strictly regarding roman armor

Paolo