How To.. wear the Pugio and Gladius (belts, fasteners)

[Tarbicus]

Jim The frogs on a beltplate are firmly fixed to the plate the plate is firmly riveted to the belt which if we think of cow hide it may be around 3mm thick. This SINGLE cloak fastener that we see in Miks drawings has a shank that comes down some 5-10mm before it turns through a right angle which would flop around all over.

But if the shank is shorter then can it be pushed through the leather at all with that button at an angle? I seriously doubt it - it needs some leeway. The button wouldn't have been riveted on after the shank alone was pushed through the belt, and that would be the only reason for the fastener to be flush. Furthermore, surely the whole idea of it being used on clothing is moot as the shank would be way to long by your same reasoning?

How many pugio frogs have been dug up in pairs, even ones attached to a pugio ring?

[PhilusEstilius]

If these studs had been meant to go thro' to suspend a sword they would have been cast with a shorter bend to them in order to match the thickness of leather say around 3mm. Then where we consider beltfrog pairs the Chichester set not only has two it also has it's buckle along with plates including a one that has a ring on it. The one with the ring may have taken a hook coming from a strap on a bottom ring of a scabbard, to act as an anchoring device for a sword held on a shoulder baldric.

[M. Demetrius]

So what were they for, then?

[PhilusEstilius]

David These studs were used for clothes that is the smaller head types, then the one shown in the Miks article would more than likely have been used on a cloak.

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Those pieces can be multipurpose items. Today you can use a button to many purposes.

Probably button and loop could be used in diferent ways, and in diferent periods.

Another thing is to think there were belts without metalic plates. Those belts probably need such things to atach the pugio and/or the sword. You can argue that there aren't belts without plates represented in tombstones... Well, tombstones are from wealthy soldiers, with many money. So, it's possible to think the soldiers with less money don't have belt plates and can't afford such tombstones...

:roll:

[Tarbicus]

So what were they for, then?

Probably not used to fasten fabric clothing, as the shank is too long to make it practical as a cloth fastener.

[PhilusEstilius]

Jim. I would like you to expand a little on the statement you make where the length of the shank rules out there being used as a clothes fastener.

[jkaler48]

So what were they for, then?

Probably not used to fasten fabric clothing, as the shank is too long to make it practical as a cloth fastener.

Are they ever found associated with keys?

[PhilusEstilius]

John. I would have to say that I can't see any connection these studs might have with keys, the Romans did have all manner of keys of course. These were of all sizes and indeed shapes even down to finger ring keys, that tend to give the indication of maybe a personal nature where we all have our own private secrets and belongings that we don't want tampered with and so when the box is locked we put on the ring and our goodies are out of reach. I have a few pieces of original finger ring keys also in my collection along with some of these studs we are all talking about here. However these studs were for clothing and I think that many are trying to read too much into these things from some having been found along with other things such as weapons.

[Tarbicus]

Jim. I would like you to expand a little on the statement you make where the length of the shank rules out there being used as a clothes fastener.

I already have Brian.

[Tim Edwards]

many are trying to read too much into these things from some having been found along with other things such as weapons.

Not at all Brian, at Vindonissa the belt set was wrapped around the sword. To me the association is clear and not at all tenuous. The button and loop fastener was directly incorporated into the belt system, not in loose association within the same archaeological context.

Arguing that the button and loop fastener has nothing to do with the sword belt is dubious to my mind, having read the archaeological report. I have difficulty in accepting that it has accidentally become wrapped up in the sword belt.

One might argue on practical grounds that the function of the button and loop fastener on the Vindonissa belt was not for sword suspension, but then an alternate explanation is required.

It could have served as an alternative to using a belt buckle, for example, but its there nonetheless!

If you haven't done so already, read 'A gladius with a relief decorated sheath and belt pieces from the legionary camp at Vindonissa by E. Deschler-Erb in Arma vol 10.

Also look at the publications on Vindonissa and Kalkriese that have already been cited. There are then further instances where button and loop fasteners occur with swords, though none so clear as the vindonissa example. If you are struggling to find these PM me and I will do my best to get you the info.

However I would agree with you on at least one point:

I imagine that the vast majority of button and loop fastenings, such as you have in your own collection, are nothing at all to do with sword belts.

In my opinion there is a distinct type of button and loop fastening that could be incorporated into sword belts. Relevant examples have been found at Windisch, Idria, Verdun and Magdalensburg.

I cannot however remember such specific examples occurring in the UK, where all the button and loop fasteners that I have seen are of different forms to the Windisch example, as you said likely clothes fasteners.

To me this suggests that the incorporation of a specific type of button and loop fastener into belt systems, unusual or not, likely fits into a limited time period, and perhaps limited geographical distribution.

Otherwise I fear we are perhaps reaching an impasse.

Maybe we must agree to disagree, no harm in that!!

[PhilusEstilius]

Tim I have to admit that I have not read E. Deschler- Erb but you say that the belt set was wrapped around the sword, therefore one has to take it that the leather of the belt was intact with this stud still fitted into it. Where you mention that there is a distinct type of button and loop fastener which could be used with sword belts, then they must surely be of the type shown in Miks drawings with a disc of around 30 to 40mm in diameter. These are a very common type found and there are hundreds of them all over the UK in various museums, I have a couple of such types in my own collection.

[Tarbicus]

Tim I have to admit that I have not read E. Deschler- Erb but you say that the belt set was wrapped around the sword, therefore one has to take it that the leather of the belt was intact with this stud still fitted into it. These are a very common type found and there are hundreds of them all over the UK in various museums, I have a couple of such types in my own collection.

You're making assumptions. Can someone give dimensions?

[PhilusEstilius]

Jim I don't think it is me who is making assumption for both Crispvs and Tim are telling us that E. Deschler Erb is the one who has said that a belt set was wrapped around a sword. I would surely think that to make such a statement one has to have some sort of evidence to substantiate this. Then of course where you have made a total misquote of what I wrote, on average these studs are in the region of 30 to 40mm diameter for the disc with around 30 to 40mm length for the shank that curves round to the horizontal with the disc some 10mm from the rear of it. I think that is a reasonable explanation of the dimentions of these things.

[M. Demetrius]

Whoever is making the assumptions isn't really the issue, though, is it? If a denarius had been found in the wrapped up belt/gladius mass, we'd have no sure explanation as to why it was there. It could have been in a now decomposed leather pocket, glued to some component, or simply dropped coincidentally into the leather belt or gladius scabbard when it was put where it is. What we could not say with certainty is exactly why it was found where it was found. Same with the belt toggle (or whatever it actually was).

There is a possibility it has nothing to do directly with hanging a sword. It could have been some kind of adjustment link we don't know much about, a place to hang something other than a sword, or who knows what. Isn't that what you were asking, Jim, sort of?

Then again, it could be any number of things. So it gets down to best guess sometimes, seems to me. But guesses aren't a good foundation for argument.