Alleroit Pugio

[Doc]

Salvete

I was given the article in which the Alleroit dagger was described in detail along with its provenance. I apologize for not remembering the name of the RAT member who provided the inforamtion to me. Nonethless, your help was and is greatly appreciated.

I have come to the point that the reproduction of the dagger is imminent and to this end I have done some searching to find what the possible missing field of the dagger is and have found some satisfactory data for support.

However, before I venture into the reconstruction, I have a question as to its time period. The article I have by Fernoux is in French and although I studied French quite some years ago it is rusty and I cannot make out many words and nuances.

Does anyone know what part of the 1st Century AD is the Alleroit Dagger thought to be in. The article suggests that several similar examples with silver inlay were based around the middle of the 1st Century AD. However, the section describing the Alleroit confuses me since I am not sure if the author of the article is implying that it had to be lost in the Saone river before 69AD thus putting it into the middle of the first century or it had to be after 69 AD since this is the time Vitellius crossed the Saone and the Rhine river.

Any help before I embark on the reconsturction would be appreciated

Paolo

[Crispvs]

Paolo,

When you mention the possible missing field, do you mean the third decorative field (the one level with the lower suspension loops)?

As to the possible time period, as it is a type 'A' sheath it is likely to date to the first half of the first century AD. Within that, a comparisson with one or two sheaths which display similar decorative elements would suggest to me a date late in the first quarter of the first century AD.

Crispvs

[Doc]

Crispus,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I am referring to the third field from the top. I believe the elements in that field to be religious symbols: vase, patera, and litus. As I said I have some info that is satisfactory but left it at work so I do not have the exact nature of the remianing synbols.

Crispus, do you have the original paper on the Alleroit. I agree that it would be the first part of the first century AD. The paper mentions other daggers having similar motifs in and around 30-50AD such as the dagger with the Primigenia written on it.

However, according to the Alleroit article, when they specifically discuss the Alleroit dagger, it mentions something about Vitellius crossing the Saone river where the dagger was found putting it after 69 AD. However, as I mentioned my French is rusty and I cannot make out the jist of the article. The article may be suggesting that it had to be before Vitellius and I am missreading it.

Paolo

[Crispvs]

Paolo,

The dagger could easily have been produced in the AD20s or 30s but still be in service thirty years or so later. Soldiers served for twenty five or twenty six years and centuriones often served for longer. The army also seems to have had an effective 'buy-back' policy where discharged soldiers (or the parents of dead soldiers) could be paid the value of their equipment so that they could it could be retained and re-issued to other soldiers.
Remember, very little material found in the archaeological record would have been new when lost or discarded. The stratigraphic level an item is found in simply indicates the last date it was in use, not the first date.

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

That is a point I feel is often overlooked Crispus!

[Doc]

Crispus,

You are correct. I never thought of it that way. The same goes for the Newstead Plumata that is said to be around 60 or 80 AD. But the invasion of Britain was 43 AD. Thus this plumata could have been produced in the 40's and came over during the invasion.

Excellent point!!!

Paolo

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Or before......

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Or before......