The Marks and Their Patterns

As useful as the marks can be in determining the types of tools used, their greatest value is as evidence for the techniques and processes used by the armourer with those tools. Here is demonstrated how the marks can be used to read the armour, the patterns and combinations of marks all together showing how each piece was made. Of course, as has been seen above, planishing presents a problem but only to a degree; planishing marks are useful and valuable in and of themselves, and not every piece has been

312

See for example the 'payr of pynsonys' in the 1485 inventory, p. 39. 313

Richardson, ‘Armourers’ Tools in England’, p. 30. 314

See Figure 70. 315

planished. The other difficulties in this task are corrosion, which can obliterate the marks very easily, and modern coatings applied by conservators to prevent corrosion which can hide or obscure the marks. Despite these obstacles armour surfaces offer a wealth of information which is often very well preserved, even after centuries of use, abuse, neglect, and restoration.

It is not enough to simply link patterns to specific techniques because there are many possible combinations which may or may not produce the same shape. Therefore, the context of the pattern within the armour must be used in conjunction with the mark type and pattern to deduce the technique. For example, concentric patterns may be seen in both raising and doming, and the overlap of tool marks and corrosion of the surface may hide all but the faint outline of the pattern itself, which is usually visible even when the details have been rusted away. Type of piece, a helmet instead of a breastplate, would indicate that raising was the technique, and the concentric pattern on the interior would confirm this. Further information, such as whether the helmet was planished or the means by which the medial crease was created and when it was laid, can be further gleaned from the tool marks if they are present.

This last also highlights another value of the mark patterns, their use in demonstrating the order of construction either through one set of marks overlaying another, or a feature cutting though an existing mark pattern. Thus it is possible to demonstrate the order in which flutes were laid, whether a helmet skull was planished before the medial keel was created, as well as other details about the order in which techniques were used to create the object.

There are two primary patterns which the tool marks form, concentric and linear. These two broad groupings of patterns are created by several techniques, but their ubiquity demonstrates how the armourers tended to favour particular ways of doing

things since it can be seen with what type of hammer they were made and if they were hammered on the interior or exterior. The mark patterns also show how the armour plate itself was moved under the hammer, another clue concerning technique.

Concentric patterns are created when the armour plate is moved in a circular motion while the hammer strikes over the stake, with raising being one of the best and clearest examples of concentric patterns. After making a full 360° turn the plate is repositioned and another row laid, making concentric circles of marks.316 In the case of raising, the oblong hammer paired with a usually horn-shaped stake produced oblong marks on the interior so most raising, when it has not been obliterated by planishing, can be described as a concentric pattern of oblong marks, with the width of the mark being a variable which depends on the exact shape of the tool faces. IV.580, an early sixteenth-century brow reinforce for a close helmet or armet, very clearly demonstrates these marks, and also that it is possible to locate the exact centre of the plate as it was worked, which is slightly forward of the centre of the plate itself.317

Linear patterns tend to be in rows as well, but with the major difference that they were made by hammering in a straight line then stopping, going back to the start point, and laying the next row above or below. Thus the motion of the plate is side-to-side, not circular, resulting in a linear pattern.318 This particular pattern is most commonly found in curved pieces such as lames, upper and lower cannons for the arms, and all the plates of the leg harness except the main poleyn plate.

Linear patterns are also associated with long features such as flutes, creases, and ridges where they are the result of creating these forms. When this is the case they are said to be running parallel with the flute or other feature, and they can be inside, on the

316

See Figure 71. 317

See Figures 72 and 73. 318

edge of, or spaced from it as long as they are running along it and can be associated with it. Another pattern possible along these features is for the oblong marks to be at an angle or perpendicular to the path of the feature. These are grouped separately from parallel marks because even though they follow a linear path the differing orientation of the plate in relation to the tools can have various effects on the shape of the plate.

There are several types of mark patterns which do not fall neatly into these two main categories. The largest is planishing mark patterns, which would best be described as no pattern. According to Untracht, ‘When properly supported, the undersurface of the work becomes smooth and bright’ during planishing.319 Even though the piece is moved in a similar way during both planishing and raising, planishing does not create a definable concentric pattern due to the extremely close and overlapping hammer blows and the possibility of going over the same area more than once. Indeed, the point of planishing is to remove the ridges which the raising or doming process could create, making the smoothest surface possible with the hammer before moving on to polishing.