Furca, show yours

[Hibernicus]

Since we do a campaign march at our Sothern Calif chapters every other month or so we've beefed up our FURCAS.. whether we load them with PILA and VALLI or not...

Adding a flat shoulder rest, covered in leather and further supported by wrapped hemp cordage, all covered with beeswax has made carrying a heavy load much easier. The shoulder rest keeps the SARCINA aligned; the leather "pad" reduces wear and damage to the furca and segmentata

The FURCAS are made with ash, about 1.25" to 1.5" / 3.17cm to 3.8cm diameter and about 5.5' to 6' / 1.75m to 1.82m tall. The location of the cross member varies from soldier to soldier.

[Aetius Helvius Merula]

I wondered how you'd keep it from tilting side to side, now I have an idea. Good one! (makes a note to try it out)

[Tarbicus]

Adding a flat shoulder rest, covered in leather and further supported by wrapped hemp cordage, all covered with beeswax

Good idea, thanks Hib.

I used sinew to bind the cross piece to the vertical pole, along with a couple of iron nails. Is that what you've used?

[Caballo]

Looks to me like rawhide soaked wound round tightly and left to dry- which creates creates an incredibly strong bond? Some tribal spears are still fastened like that today.

[Hibernicus]

The crossed sections are notched so that they nest snuggly, drilled, pegged, wedged with iron nails, lashed with either wet rawhide, sinew, hemp cordage, or linen and then waxed. The notches were sealed with rosin or hide glue or a generous quantity of bee's wax to further lessen water penetration.

[Tiberius]

I've got a question. What evidence exists that the furca was cross shaped?
From what I have gathered from pictorial evidence, I see no cross bar to form the t shape. One way to prevent a legionary's load from shifting would be if his kit were placed on a stout, relatively straight branch with a fork at the end. Since there are no furcas left from ancient times, I'm assuming the design of the reconstructed furca used by re-enactors might be backed by pictorial evidence?

[marsvigilia]

The origins of reenactors using the cross bar furca are unknown. There is no extant historical evidence to support this strange tradition. Future archaeologists may long ponder why we do this. Just another mystery they will have.

[Tarbicus]

Trajan's Column, and according to the Leg XX site, Plutarch and Josephus describe the loculus/sarcina (I think more to do with what items were carried).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... cks_01.JPG

http://www.answers.com/topic/loculus

[Hibernicus]

Tarbicus's pic of Trajan's is a good one. You can even see what could be cords crossing up and over the central pole.

We experimented with a "T" shaped furca long time ago. Found that the interpretations and depictions using a "cross" shape were far more practical for loads. We have yet to split and steam bend a furca in much the same way you would make a hayfork.

A cross shaped furca is something that could be grown to shape.

[M. Demetrius]

I'd looked at that, too, and thought. Well, that's one part of Trajan's column we accept at face value as ultimate, constant truth, but if we used that criterion for all other things depicted, well, our segmentata would be quite a bit different, wouldn't it? and we'd all wear dagged hamata (and auxilia tunics would stop two inches past the waist-high hamata hem), and our helmets, well, let's just don't talk about that. Never mind that we'd all fight with clenched fists only, and use the two point "Greek/medieval" shield grip on a clipeus (which would be quite a bit smaller than we make them today).

Now I'm not disagreeing, as the crossed stick seems like a perfectly ingenious good idea, and they work very well for carrying bags, etc. But there are other ways that would work just as well, and since we usually see the marching kit all bundled up, so you can't really tell what is under the bags.

So, with the column and other art, where do we decide what's artistic license, plain sculptor's error, and what is factual representation. If a given sculpture has several proven errors, why would we regard other items as factually correct? Just for myself, although I have made one with the crossed straps outside--all five gazillion stitches, it seems unlikely that every single loculus looked the same, just as helmets differered, gladius hilts differed, etc. I would suspect that there were many sorts of leather pouches and bags in use, but I have no evidence to support that theory.

[Tarbicus]

Well, that's one part of Trajan's column we accept at face value as ultimate, constant truth, but if we used that criterion for all other things depicted, well, our segmentata would be quite a bit different, wouldn't it?....

....So, with the column and other art, where do we decide what's artistic license, plain sculptor's error, and what is factual representation. If a given sculpture has several proven errors, why would we regard other items as factually correct? Just for myself, although I have made one with the crossed straps outside--all five gazillion stitches, it seems unlikely that every single loculus looked the same, just as helmets differered, gladius hilts differed, etc. I would suspect that there were many sorts of leather pouches and bags in use, but I have no evidence to support that theory.

I don't think we're at all hypocritical when it comes to that subject. When it comes to helmets and segs, all we do is follow the actual found evidence, which is undeniably rock solid. Not a single helmet found matches anything on Trajan's Column, and let's face it, there are plenty found (see my sig for an oft cited TC example).

When it comes to segs we follow the same rules of using what's been found, and the same criteria apply for me at least.

We just have no found sarcina, so we have to use our scruples and decide if we follow something that's at all possible. If one were found then it might be different. But it's also possible to apply the priniciple of helmets and segs: the seg was made from bands of metal, the marching pack was on a crossed pole. It's when we get down to the detail that the finds differ, which can easily be explained by one of two things: the artists never saw a real seg and were going by descriptions, and the helmets were those of the vigiles in Rome (Italic A's IMHO); or, those types of panoplies just haven't been found yet. I personally go with the former.

I think it's okay to apply the general form and construction, but the details should be looked at sceptically. Far better to refer to the Adamklissi Metopes, again IMHO.

[M. Demetrius]

Ok, agreed, and honestly, I'm not being argumentative. I like the look of dagged hamata. I'm seriously considering reworking the hem of mine for that purpose, since it's safe to say, it's repeated many times on the Column. But I don't think it makes much sense to shorten it to the length shown. Seems like none of the auxilia wear the cingula, either, but I do, when I'm portraying an auxilia, and for the reasons you've mentioned.

What I'm really asking is this: if we see A FEW crossed stick furcae on TC, and we adopt that as the "standard", wouldn't it also be allowed a reenactor the liberty to use a forked branch if one were found of the suitable size, or perhaps lash a horizontal rod onto that same branch? The stick that carries your gear isn't art, probably not regulation-specified. When it's in your hand, it's just a tool. It would need to be smooth and splinter free where the hand touches it, but beyond that, the only requirement ought to be that it did what it was supposed to do: support the gear pack bundle. I can think of lots of good uses for a short branch that sticks out past the shoulder.

I just was wondering where art is allowed to be art, and where to draw the line. Adamklissi, if it disagrees with Trajan's Column about equipment, which one do we believe? And why? What about art in mosaics, frescoes, and so on? I promise, I'm not trying to start a fight, but this is a question I've asked many times. If there's no evidence in archaeology to support or deny a premise, well, do we accept or reject it solely on the basis of what we *think* would be right?

[Tarbicus]

wouldn't it also be allowed a reenactor the liberty to use a forked branch if one were found of the suitable size, or perhaps lash a horizontal rod onto that same branch?

I'd say go for it. Just putting theory into practice, and when people see what I'm doing to the eyes on my Krefeld Italic D...

I just was wondering where art is allowed to be art, and where to draw the line. Adamklissi, if it disagrees with Trajan's Column about equipment, which one do we believe? And why? What about art in mosaics, frescoes, and so on? I promise, I'm not trying to start a fight, but this is a question I've asked many times. If there's no evidence in archaeology to support or deny a premise, well, do we accept or reject it solely on the basis of what we *think* would be right?

Adamklissi all the time for me. I don't believe it was made by soldiers, but by locals as it seemed common practice for the Roman military to patronise the local artisans in the provinces. Regardless, I think they are based on actual legionaries and auxilia, and not what you would find within the city walls of Rome, and I'm pretty certain we can cross match, e.g. Adamklissi helmets, to what's been dug out of the ground.

[M. Demetrius]

All right, AFAIK, what you say about Adamklissi monument depictions is true. Knowing this, then, why do people make life-and-death arguments over some soldier's shield pattern (or similar minutia) found on Trajan's Column, I wonder.

Things change, styles change, equipment changed, so because I'm a dumb Texan (just ask anybody) all it actually shows, concerning the furca on TC, is that a few of them may have been made with a short crossed bar, during the time of the Column's construction, and that might have been for as short a period of time as the use of the caliga, or the Mainz gladius, for example. Right?

My furca is made just that way, because it makes sense for me, and it's documentable, sort of. FTR, it's carefully notched, glued, drilled, dowelled, and the dowel (also glued in) is fitted with a small armor band scrap wedge on both sides, like a modern hammer or hatchet (cross grain, even), then wrapped very tightly with wet a rawhide thong. The joint is probably three times stronger than the ash shaft and crossbar.

[Flavius Promotus]

There is an image of Roman soldiers on the march on the Adamklissi monument (interestingly also with their scuta on the right side - like on TC), but the soldiers don't carry any additional equipment except their combat gear (which - furthermore - is mostly hidden by their paenulae)

??? hock: :? ???

According to Cassius Dio (or was it Herodian?), Septimius Severus ordered his soldiers to carry only the most necessary equipment when he started his march from Carnuntum to Rome in order to topple his rival Didius Iulianus.

Maybe the relevant stela from Adamclissi likewise shows legionaries on a forced march with reduced impedimenta?