Padded Armour

[caiusbeerquitius]

The 'v. Stokar' cited was Walter von Stokar of Köln, and since one of v.S's books was Spinnen Und Weben bei den Germanen, it is not unreasonable to assume he knew felt when he saw it!

Hi Mike!

- Kimmig states at the beginning of the article, that the whole shield has been covered in a lack-like substance for preservation. That was done before his investigation.

- As far as there is neither a material analysis nor a more recent investigation (the one we talk about is from 1941) of the shield, I am, as with so many other theories and judgements that old, very suspicious. That is, why I was talking about an assumption. Until the shield is published with the background of a modern investigation, it is quite difficult to judge wheter both, Kimmig, and v. Stokar were right: It was never published how thick the layer was, how worn it was, what effects the preservation liquid might have had on wool etc. p.p.

Remember: With S. James's publication of the Dura shields, we were able to see how many of the statements of the original excavators concerning material, construction etc. were wrong. They were from the same time.

Thus: IMO not a proven fact.

I do NOT want to say that the shield was not felt covered. I just want to say that sometimes it might be more reasonable to be very careful with what is a 'proven fact'.

Therefore two tools are very helpful:
1.: The historical-critical method
2.: Occam's razor
Both of them should be applied before a fact is stated.

Hence we get the sentence: "The Fayum scutum most probably was covered in felt", and hence I'd say: No, Dan is not right with:

The Fayum scutum was covered in felt,

Cheers!