Scabbards, covered in leather or NOT?

[Robert]

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 :?: .

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I think the Pouan Blade had Leather found, but I'm not 100% sure. As far as I know Roman Blades had leather for the scabbard, never thought to question it.

[Medicus matt]

The scabbards from the third century bogs do not have leather either, the slide and chape are mounted straight on to the wood.

From the research I've done on Danish bog finds, there is evidence that some of the scabbards were covered in very thin (ie parchment thin or even onion skin paper thin) untanned hide. The best example of this is on one of the Nydam II scabbards, where a decent sized piece of hide is still in place at the chape end, moulded over the carved wood of the scabbard core but other traces have been found between the wooden core and metal fittings.

The lack of any evidence of the same sort of covering on the Illerup Adal scabbards is almost certainly due to the highly alkaline nature of the environment, the same is true of the 300 or so leather belts that were deposited. Many, many fittings but no leather or hide products remain.

[Medicus matt]

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?

Partially for decoration, partly for durability?
You get guttering, crossbands and a variety of other technically superflous metal fittings on early medeival scabbards (most notably on some of the Vendel period scabbards) which were covered in 'skin product' (as we're supposed to call it now )

[Charlie]

I personally would like to see more scabbards in beautiful timbers rather than hidden under leather. It makes perfect sense to me that some must have been made this way. I am currently looking for some exotic timbers for handles for some swords my friend and I are making. Surely the Romans traded in exotic hardwoods from places like South America and used these for hilts and scabbards etc.

[Robert]

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?

[Charlie]

Yes Robert those timbers you listed are all in fact spectacular, and I have some holly on order for a grip. Though some of the exotic species are quite incredible and unique.

[Epictetus]

Surely the Romans traded in exotic hardwoods from places like South America and used these for hilts and scabbards etc.

South America?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Yeah I was a little confused by that one too. There is almost no evidence for even accidental voyages to the Americas by the Romans. I'd imagine they could get exotic woods from India and Africa though.

[Gaius Colletti]

Yeah I was a little confused by that one too. There is almost no evidence for even accidental voyages to the Americas by the Romans. I'd imagine they could get exotic woods from India and Africa though.

Umm how about no evidence. The closest thing we have are alleged Roman wrecks found off the coast of Brazil, but there is no evidence the Romans were even alive when the ships sank. The Brazilian government has since denied the wrecks but also destroyed them.

Simply, the Romans did not trade overseas with the Americas

[markusaurelius]

I am of the belief that various swords did not have leather. An obvious type which would not need leather are the swords with a metal side brace/band running along the edge of the two scabbard halves. The metal which was nailed to the scabbard at various points would help hold and secure the pieces together. There seem to be enough original examples of sword with no leather to justify the existence or swords without a leather covering.

[markusaurelius]

I am of the belief that various swords did not have leather. An obvious type which would not need leather are the swords with a metal side brace/band running along the edge of the two scabbard halves. The metal which was nailed to the scabbard at various points would help hold and secure the pieces together. There seem to be enough original examples of sword with no leather to justify the existence or swords without a leather covering.

[Vindex]

Surely the Romans traded in exotic hardwoods from places like South America and used these for hilts and scabbards etc.

Do you really mean South America?

And yes, olive wood would have spectacular decoration. But holly is my favourite.

[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.

[Medicus matt]

There seem to be enough original examples of sword with no leather to justify the existence or swords without a leather covering.

Can you name some please? I can't think of any that were found in a context that also contained surviving skin products from other items to prove that their absence was as a result of anything other than decomposition?


Robert, the example from Woerden, were there any belt fittings and, if so, did any leather or textile survive on those to prove that it wasn't just the environmental conditions to blame for the absence of skin product on the scabbard (and is there a report)?

A genuinely interesting subject.