Pugio Database Structure

[Martin Moser]

Here is the gist of Obmann's (Obmann, Jürgen. Studien zu römischen Dolchscheiden des 1. Jahrhunderts n.Chr.. Archäologische Zeugnisse und bildliche Überlieferung. Rahden/Westf., 2000.) classifcation (he does not actually propose a system of classification, it's more like the way he structures his work) in all shortness:

========

- Rahmenscheiden / Frame Sheaths: developed from iberian daggers: metal frame sheath with underlaid with organic material or sometimes decorated sheet-bronze. Late republican and early imperial, then again late imperial (Künzing), continual development cannot be proved yet.


- Sheath Typ Mainz: Sheath with (mostly) decorated front and plain back metal plate, On front plate fields A and C are broader and decorated with circular motifs, field B with angular motifs. Wide sheath mouth. Suspension incorporated in sheath body.


- Sheath Typ Vindonissa
:
narrower than Typ Mainz, only front plate on wooden sheath, elongated form makes for less area for decoration; fields of decoration rectangular, often not framed. Small sheath mouth. Suspension protruding from sheath body.

- groupings of ornamentation:

-- Group 1: metal inlay work done only with bronze; field A shows almost always enamel corners (gamma shaped) around a circular medaillon; field B shows rosette or flower of enamel and bronze wire; field C echoes field A; field D is triangular with "angular hooks". Group 1 is almost totally Type Mainz, dated from Auerberg up to mid 1st cent. AD.

-- Group 2: new motifs: pelta, double-axe and medal in enamel, lance wreath and aedicula in silver/bronze with enamel, diagonal silver lined fields, no more angular hooks or flowers, field D subdivided into 2 smaller fields, mostly of Type Mainz, a few are Type Vindonissa. Rivets like in Group 1. Dating: early tiberian to early flavian, Type Vindonissa starting mid 1st cent. AD.

-- Group 3: no enamel anymore, new motifs: palm fronds and rhomb, additionally sometimes vine leaf, running dog, lotus, meander. Dating: from tiberian to early flavian, both of Type Mainz and Vindonissa

-- Group 4: inlay in silver only, often poorly executed. Fields A and C show palm fronds, rhomb and hourglass. Aediculy almost exclusively in field C. field D can be subdivided into rectangle (with palm fronds, rhomb or hourglass) and triangle (with lance). Dating: mid 1st to early 2nd cent. Ad.

-- Special Forms: not according to Groups 1-4 (mentions a few examples)

========

So, we have 2 basic types, Frame and Plate Sheath, Plate Sheath then subdivided into Type Mainz and Type Vindonissa, both of which may again belong to any of Groups 1-4 or Special Forms. No mention of the blade type is made, however, and frankly I don't know whether the blades conform to this at all. What do you think, Crispus?

Back to my leather working, this is so much simpler ... ;-) )