12-17-2008, 11:22 PM
John,
I don't see why it would need to have pugio frogs. The depictional evidence strongly suggests that not all Roman soldiers carried daggers so we should not necessarily expect to find them in an assemblage. Alternately, the owner of the sword may have worn two belts, with his dagger (assuming that he had on) on the other belt. To be honest, what confuses me most about this assemblage is why it was deliberately buried in the way it was in the fist place (sorry to be slightly OT).
Crispvs
I don't see why it would need to have pugio frogs. The depictional evidence strongly suggests that not all Roman soldiers carried daggers so we should not necessarily expect to find them in an assemblage. Alternately, the owner of the sword may have worn two belts, with his dagger (assuming that he had on) on the other belt. To be honest, what confuses me most about this assemblage is why it was deliberately buried in the way it was in the fist place (sorry to be slightly OT).
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
