RomanArmyTalk

I was speaking with Brian Stobbs and he mentioned that according to Robinson there are scales that belong to squamata and that they are ribbed. However, there is no picture in his book anywhere.

Then I came to know that WorldCat mentions 6 copies of some book or catalog are available in the UK where pictures of them are shown.

Does anyone have any information on this or the pictures themselves or where I can get these photos?

Thanks in advance

Here is the book/catalog/article

Brailsford, J.W., Hod Hill Vol. I, British Museum, 1962 page (p.2, Nos. A22-24)

If anyone has this or can get a hold of it, please let me know. I would greatly appreciate it.

I have my copy of Brailsford next to me. The good news is that scale armour was discovered. The bad news is that he didnt illustrate it....

The citation reads "A22. Fragment of scale armour L 1.0 in. Tinned. Cf Newstead Plate XXIV. A23. As A22. L 1.2 in.
A24 As A22 L 1.2 in."

I assume that these are just individual scales.

Here is a link to Curle to which he comppares these finds.

http://www.curlesnewstead.org.uk/platexxiv.htm

Cheers

Paul

Here's the Hod Hill scale (Durden collection in the BM)
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/se...rentPage=1

Thank you all for the information and the reply.

Caballo, does the article mention the date or dimensions of the scales or gives any description of these scales. Robinson just mentions ribbed at 2.6cm in lenght. But he does not mention much else.

This one from the British Museum appears smooth although a faint line is visible down its center. Are/is these the same scales that Robinson is referring to?

Are these Hod Hill finds 1st C AD?

Thanks

The quote above gives you 100% of the info on scales in the book, I'm afraid....

I think that we have to face the possibility that Robinson could be mistaken. He gives the length of the three Hod Hill scales as 2.6cm but this only applies to A22 in Brailsford's catalogue. In relation to this, Brailsford refers to the Newstead scales but these are not ribbed. The other two Hod Hill scales are bigger and, judging from the rule beside the scale, the photograph on the BM database is probably of one of these, although not enough information is given to reconcile it with Brailsford. This scale is also not ribbed. Hod Hill is certainly 1st century but, unless we can come up with better information than we have at the moment, looks like being something of a red herring.

Renatus,

Am I to assume based on your answer that the scales in question are in fact not ribbed or most likely not ribbed?

Quote:Renatus,

Am I to assume based on your answer that the scales in question are in fact not ribbed or most likely not ribbed?

I am going principally upon the photographs. Robinson himself says of the Newstead scales,"Creased somewhat, though probably through burial, the Newstead scales are particularly subject to damage because they are only 1mm thick and quite flat" (p.154). The photograph of the Hod Hill scale shows no sign of a rib, as far as I can see. I suppose, if I were being absolutely accurate, I should have said that the scales "do not appear to be ribbed."

Thanks for the reply. 1mm thick is really thick scale. Usually they do not go more than .5mm and I have seen several in the .3mm thickness.