RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Plumbata
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
You need to go back to Chalons for me and start looking. You sniff these out like Truffles.
Robert,
I may be behind the times and you have answered this question in the past but are you intending to draw all this together into a monograph that we can buy in the shops?
The plumbata holder on back of the shield. First it was agreed, then de-truthed. So whats the current theory? Real or not? It certainly would be convenient, except for the extra weight on the left arm.
Quote:Robert,
I may be behind the times and you have answered this question in the past but are you intending to draw all this together into a monograph that we can buy in the shops?
I've been doing that for years! Trouble is, new finds keep cropping up and it would be outdated when published.. I'm working on it though: 3 articles are in preparation.
Quote:The plumbata holder on back of the shield. First it was agreed, then de-truthed. So whats the current theory? Real or not? It certainly would be convenient, except for the extra weight on the left arm.
As far as I know, we do have (up to) 5 plumbatae on the back of the shield (Vegetius), just no clue as to how they were fastened. We have no image of that, no description and no remains. My preference is still for the simple one: a rawhide strip on the right side of the shield, folded double to hold the points, and a leather thong above that.
Later, we know from Maurice (Stretegikon) that several darts were held in a quiver. Again, no clue how many or how large.

Most plumbatae currently reproduced are certainly too large. I can tell by looking at the average weight, although there is no outright standard and heavier ones do occur. However, this really makes a difference in adding 5 of them behind your shield. If you add 5 Deepeeka ones, that would add quite a bit of weight! But 5 smaller ones (I doubt they were longer than, say, 40-50 cm) would not be bothersome.
Robert, I am assuming you have a record of the plumbata in the Corinium Museum? Bottom one of the two (or number 2) The other is described as a throwing spear. Dated to 4th C
The top one is a Verrutum head (the Verruta had a Pyramidal Head, the Lancaea a Leaf-Bladed head, but the terms were interchangeable).

Great pic Macedon!
Quote:The top one is a Verrutum head (the Verruta had a Pyramidal Head, the Lancaea a Leaf-Bladed head, but the terms were interchangeable).
Evan, where do you get this stuff from?
Vegetius. He specifies that, does he not?

Then again, I'm using an abridged version of John Clarke's translation because I have no money to buy a decent copy.
Quote:Vegetius. He specifies that, does he not?

Then again, I'm using an abridged version of John Clarke's translation because I have no money to buy a decent copy.

No chance of having a look at a copy of Milner's translation via a Library then Evan? There is a latin version of Vegetius on-line that you could also consult.
Frankly my Latin isn't that great, is it the Latin Library? I have that linked somewhere I think.
Quote:Vegetius. He specifies that, does he not?

Then again, I'm using an abridged version of John Clarke's translation because I have no money to buy a decent copy.
That puts you at a disadvantage. Apart from being incomplete that version will be based on a text that modern scholars would regard as unreliable. Bluntly, however, if you are forced to use Clarke's translation, there is no excuse for using the abridged version. The full version is available online; I posted a link to it here and on TWC a while back. The Latin text is also available online in The Latin Library and the Internet Archive has Lang's 1885 text. The latter is particularly useful for its Index Verborum. Mike Bishop posted a link to it.

Getting back to the issue, Vegetius mentions lancea three times (3.14.5; 3.24.11;4.29.1). He does not describe it but, in the last reference, he lists it with other weapons, including the verrutum, so he plainly does not regard them as being the same. Clarke mentions the head of the verrutum as being 'triangular', which he will have got from the text he was using, but modern versions omit that word, no doubt because his text is not to be relied upon.
Thanks Renatus.
Quote:Robert, I am assuming you have a record of the plumbata in the Corinium Museum? Bottom one of the two (or number 2) The other is described as a throwing spear. Dated to 4th C

Thanks Moi,
yes, I know it, although the image is new to me. It's one of the 'doubtfuls', because we can't be sure without the lead weight. In fact I know dozens of finds from Germany which look exactly like this, but which are classified as 'throwing spears'. Which is of course possible.

Anyway, this one from Corinium is published as a plumbata, and the article is also online:
http://www2.glos.ac.uk/bgas/tbgas/v106/bg106189.pdf
It's that time of the year again. The total of published plumbatae now stands at 160, including unpublished finds and (no doubt some) fakes the toll has risen to 213:

30 from Serbia
28 from Britain
15 from Austria
14 from France (up from 12)
14 from Slovenia
9 from Hungary
8 from Croatia
8 from Italy
7 from Germany (up from 5)
7 from Switzerland
5 from Georgia/Abchasia
3 from Rumania (up from 2)
3 from Bulgaria
3 from Greece
2 from Liechtenstein
2 from The Netherlands
1 from Belgium
1 from Slovakia
53 from doubtful or unprovenanced origins (up from 48)

Images from a few doubtfuls and unknows include a very heavy one (c. 340 grams) supposedly from Hungary, a detector find from Hungary and a a nice one without any lead at all:

[attachment=9796]139.7mm399.7grHungary.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=9797]unknownhungarian.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=9798]125mmunknown.jpg[/attachment]
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47