01-22-2007, 10:00 PM
Thanks for that Martin.
I don't have Scott to hand as I write this but Obmann's 'Mainz' type is Scott's Type 'A' and Obmann's 'Vindonissa' type is Scott's type 'B'. Scott does not really cover frame sheaths, being primarily interested in decorated sheaths. Scott further divides type 'B' sheath plates into types 'Bi' and 'Bii', with 'Bii' being narrower than 'Bi'.
Obmann's decorative catagories seem good and easy to understand (actually I was already familiar with the basic divisions of his decorative catagories from his summary section - it was just that the length of the 'Motive' section showed that there was a lot more detail to what he was really saying) and are probably preferable to Scott's, but I would need to check Scott to confirm this. The catagorisation of decorative schemes goes on for several pages in Scott 1985 and (I think from memory) goes into either seven or eight decorative catagories.
I am inclined to dissagree with the idea that 'plate' sheaths are one overall catagory. When the constructional aspects of the different sheath types are taken into consideration it is clear that they come from two different traditions. Type 'A' sheaths have overlapping metal front and back plates, whilst type 'B' sheaths were really wooden sheaths with the iron front plate being largely decorative. The fact the type 'A' sheaths may have featured wooden linings does not alter the fact that they are effectively metal sheaths, as opposed to the largely wooden type 'B' sheaths.
Scott divides tangs into two types, namely type 'I' or 'frame' tang, which takes the form of either the whole or part of the overall shape of the handle, and type 'II' or 'rod' tang.
As far as blades go, Scott defines three types of blade, namely types 'A', 'B' and 'C'. Type 'A' is described as 'broad with an upstanding midrib'; type 'B' is described as being somewhat narrower with a midrib formed and defined by grooves either side; and type 'C' is described as being long and narrow with little or no midrib. He notes that both type 'A' and 'B' blades are associated with type 'A' sheaths, whilst type 'B' and 'C' blades are associated with type 'B' sheaths.
That said, I think this needs some revision, as some examples do not fit well into that last statement. The obvious example is the Velson dagger, which is a type 'A' blade but the sheath plate is of type 'Bi'. Additionally, to my mind, extant blades do not divide up quite so neatly into the three catagories and in my own mind I have now simplified type 'A' and 'B' into upstanding versus sunken midribs, with width of blade being less important.
I will try to have a look at Scott 1985 tonight and will post more on his decorative catagories soon.
Crispvs
I don't have Scott to hand as I write this but Obmann's 'Mainz' type is Scott's Type 'A' and Obmann's 'Vindonissa' type is Scott's type 'B'. Scott does not really cover frame sheaths, being primarily interested in decorated sheaths. Scott further divides type 'B' sheath plates into types 'Bi' and 'Bii', with 'Bii' being narrower than 'Bi'.
Obmann's decorative catagories seem good and easy to understand (actually I was already familiar with the basic divisions of his decorative catagories from his summary section - it was just that the length of the 'Motive' section showed that there was a lot more detail to what he was really saying) and are probably preferable to Scott's, but I would need to check Scott to confirm this. The catagorisation of decorative schemes goes on for several pages in Scott 1985 and (I think from memory) goes into either seven or eight decorative catagories.
I am inclined to dissagree with the idea that 'plate' sheaths are one overall catagory. When the constructional aspects of the different sheath types are taken into consideration it is clear that they come from two different traditions. Type 'A' sheaths have overlapping metal front and back plates, whilst type 'B' sheaths were really wooden sheaths with the iron front plate being largely decorative. The fact the type 'A' sheaths may have featured wooden linings does not alter the fact that they are effectively metal sheaths, as opposed to the largely wooden type 'B' sheaths.
Scott divides tangs into two types, namely type 'I' or 'frame' tang, which takes the form of either the whole or part of the overall shape of the handle, and type 'II' or 'rod' tang.
As far as blades go, Scott defines three types of blade, namely types 'A', 'B' and 'C'. Type 'A' is described as 'broad with an upstanding midrib'; type 'B' is described as being somewhat narrower with a midrib formed and defined by grooves either side; and type 'C' is described as being long and narrow with little or no midrib. He notes that both type 'A' and 'B' blades are associated with type 'A' sheaths, whilst type 'B' and 'C' blades are associated with type 'B' sheaths.
That said, I think this needs some revision, as some examples do not fit well into that last statement. The obvious example is the Velson dagger, which is a type 'A' blade but the sheath plate is of type 'Bi'. Additionally, to my mind, extant blades do not divide up quite so neatly into the three catagories and in my own mind I have now simplified type 'A' and 'B' into upstanding versus sunken midribs, with width of blade being less important.
I will try to have a look at Scott 1985 tonight and will post more on his decorative catagories soon.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
