Pugio frog help (picture identity and period)

[Crispvs]

Brian,

Whilst I accept that it could be true that the button/loops with the shank near the edge could possibly overlap the split to the extent shown if they were employed as clothing hooks, the suggestion made by Tarbicus that the disks could be broaches is no less valid and just as likely (and let's face it, broaches were commonly employed as fasteners on other types of garment). As to how you would fit a pin on the back of a broach perhaps an inch round (I thing '10 cm' is a considerable underestimate), I would respectfully suggest that it would be done in the same way as for virtually every other disc broach which has ever been found. As you say, we cannot see what is on the backs of the discs, so you cannot state catagorically that what we are seeing are button/loops rather than something else. All we can see for sure is that two small discs are shown overlapping the split on the front of the soldier's cloak. Anything past that os nothing more than speculation.

Remember here, as well, that it is not a case of me trying to prove that button/loops are *not* clothing items. It is a case of you attempting to demonstrate that they definitely *are*. It is a point you are trying to prove, not the rest of us. We all accept the possibility but you want to state it as fact, something you have so far failed to do.
Be assurred, if you can find an incontravertable piece of evidence we would all be very pleased to know about it. I for one am always keen to expand my knowledge.

Crispvs

[PhilusEstilius]

Crispvs.

Where you would claim the two discs on the garment of the Camomile Street Soldier as being possible disc brooches, I would claim them to be button loop fasteners. Therefore I think on that subject we should both just agree to disagree don't you think.

[Crispvs]

Ah Brian,

If you read my post carefully you will see that I accept that they could be either, or even something else. This means that we simply don't know, so rather than doing a cop-out and 'agreeing to disagree' I think we all need to accept that we simply cannot catagorically identify what those discs precisely are. We could all have our pet theories but that doesn't get us any closer to seeing what is on the back of something whose back was never carved in the first place. The man who sculpted it knew what it was, his original audience presumably knew what it was, we don't! QED.

Let's not pretend to have knowledge we do not possess. :wink:

Crispvs

[PhilusEstilius]

Crispvs.

I suppose like yourself I don't go much on what you call a cop-out however where you say let's not pretend to have knowledge we do not possess.
It becomes clear you are doing exactly that where you would say there is compelling evidence to say these things could have been used for sword suspension, where is the evidence for this for indeed Dreschler- Erb does not even give photographs of these things but line drawings.

[Crispvs]

True.
However, we do have examples of these items being associated with swords (I seem to recall Christian Koepfler giving a good summary of this), even if we cannot be completely sure of exactly how they were employed, whereas, we have no examples which are associated with items of clothing. Now, this may simply be because clothing does not generally survive, but that in itself does not help button/loops to be definitely identified as having been used with clothes. Believe me, I am not opposed to the idea that some of them might have been associated with clothing. It is just that the evidence is lacking and without evidence we cannot hold the idea up as anything more than a theory which we would like to be true. I would love to see something which proved an association with clothing - really I would, but we need something better than the Camomile Street soldier, because no matter how much we might wish for it, he will never give up the secret of what might be on the other side of those two discs. :|

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

We can only go by theories until the proof is found, as neither can be proved to be fact beyond a doubt.
The point you make about the cloth not surviving also does not rule it out.
I would say it safe for re-enactors to utilise these items in either manner, until there is resounding, unequivical proof
for one or the other, or both..... :|

[Doc]

These are all good points. However as Crispus said, we have to look at what we have and for this moment they were found with swords and nothing else.
The best way to present this to the public during a display is on a sword. HOWEVER, when explaining them, it should be pointed out that although they have been found with swords they could have also been used with clothing as button/loops.

Thus it makes no sense saying that since there is no concrete evidence either way for their use that they can be worn with clothes and/orweapons. There is at the moment more evidence with weapons and none with clothing.

I have to agree with Crispus that a statue does not really tell us much other than what is on the surface and if Trajan's column is anything to go by, we must also caution.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

So there would not have been clothing associated with any deposits because they have not survived?
Naked Romans everywhere......

[Crispvs]

Byron, the flaw in your earlier post is that is that proof may never be found, which is precisely why it is *not* 'safe' to use them in that manner until that resounding unequivical proof you speak of for that particular use does come to light.
Speaking with the hat on which I have been given to wear by the group you are a member of, I would suggest that it would be perfectly fine to use brooches for the time being, as we know for sure that they can be associated with clothing of a variety of types and so do not need to justify their use. We do not need to reinvent the wheel just yet.
I think it would also be fine to start experimenting with ways to use button/loops to suspend sword scabbards, as there are definite examples of them being associated with swords in the archaeological record. If we then discover good evidence for an association with clothing you can always take them off your belt and try them out with your cloak. Obviously we can see that they *could* be used for that purpose but what we need to see before we start to use them that way is that they *were*. Until we find that holy grail of evidence we crave, brooches are the way to go. I am certain that Brian could make you a very nice set. :wink:

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

So, you are going to tell everyone to remove these items from their cloaks?
I look forward to this announcement.

Your use of invisible evidence has been noted before Crispus, and you have made a whole argument based on just such invisible evidence for your argument with baldrics, so why is any other theory 'flawed', but not your own?

I would certianly agree that these items are good for a sword, because a sword which is loosely secured to a belt is a liability to a soldier,
but much like modern buttons, these items could also have a wide variety of uses, and more than likely did.

[Crispvs]

"So, you are going to tell everyone to remove these items from their cloaks?
I look forward to this announcement. "

Actually I haven't seen that many of them in use. Some people do use buttons as toggles but there are very few button/loops in use on RMRS cloaks. Take a closer look at what other people actually use. You may be surprised.


"Your use of invisible evidence has been noted before Crispus, and you have made a whole argument based on just such invisible evidence for your argument with baldrics, so why is any other theory 'flawed', but not your own? "

I find that VERY insulting Byron! I have made NO argument based on "invisible evidence". :evil: :evil:
What I wrote in my weapons carriage article was based on observation of a large amount of evidence which showed that no belt is shown passing over a baldric on any Roman sculpture, supported by experiment. An argument based on the Camomile Street soldier alone, which has already been shown to be ambiguous is in no way similar to the amount of work which lies behind my article on weapons carriage. When you actually start to do some PROPER research of your own, then you can feel free to be critical of mine - but ONLY then! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:


"but much like modern buttons, these items could also have a wide variety of uses, and more than likely did."

Which I have been accepting as a possibility all along, as you will see if you actually read my posts instead of doggedly adhering to an argument based on nothing more solid than thin air.

Be extremely careful what you say lest I call in a moderator!

Crispvs

[mcbishop]

Let's not pretend to have knowledge we do not possess. :wink:

Oh, go on, let's!

Button-and-loop fasteners were, truth be told, multifunctional. They are all similar in form because they all do something similar, but let's not stay in an 'either/or' frame of mind but be a little more open-minded about it.

Yes, a version of these things was used to mount swords on sword belts (starting out as button attached to shank, later evolving into the frog). These typically have large heads and single or double-circle loops (like the ones from Vindonissa, As Wild notes (p.146, n.26) one of the Mainz sword scabbards was found with two fasteners attached (Miks appears to have missed this reference in Westdeutscher Zeitschrift, which I guess is a preliminary notice of one of the scabbards subsequently published in that periodical), as well as the Vindonissa belt set (wrapped around a sword, remember). these things are all over European military sites of the early imperial period (Windisch, Kalkriese, and Magdalensburg for starters and seem to be primarily Augusto-Tiberian in date.

The attribution of some types of B&L fastener to clothing comes from the original identification of these things (by Stevenson, followed by Gillam) as having a north British native origin - in fact I suspect it was a matter of 'I think it looks like a button so that's what it must be', so a kind of functional determinism. Wild does not record any specifically attached to textile, although he does note some from burials in caskets at York, so I for one would not rule some of them having a function in fastening clothing. The sort of junk found in the Corbridge Hoard or the Carlisle Millennium mess could easily one day produce one attached to textile (although that would not prove a primary use, but then who needs to?!). These things are inevitably cast (frequently with a triangular loop) so heavy and clunky and much less gracile than the sword suspension buttons).

The Camomile Street Soldier. Poor chap, being bandied around as proof of this and no proof of that. As I pointed out in my publication many years ago the two disks could be button-and-loop fasteners. They would arguably make more sense than brooches (which could easily tear through single-thickness material under stress; where they fasten cloaks at the shoulder no such stresses exist) and such considerations must also account for the two 'bars' beneath which I interpreted as toggles of some kind. Are we to envisage four brooches just to fasten a cape? I hear the swishing sound of Occam's Razor pleading common sense here. The disks sit between the two hems depicted on the material so could easily represent a B&L fastened to the back of the cape and slipped through loops sewn on the other half, so no brooches needed. I see no problem in using them as dress fasteners; plenty of re-enactors do much dafter things on much slimmer evidence [cough face masks for standard-bearers cough].

Finally, just to throw a cat in amongst the entrenched pigeons, they may also have found a use in riding or driving harness. Many, particularly LPRIA variants, have come from assemblages of harness odds and ends which suggests some (like Wild's Type I) belong firmly in that camp. It is worth noting that I have never seen a Wild type III from anywhere outside of the UK. They are more British than the Mini (much more so, now, in fact!). They regularly turn up in Roman military contexts from the Flavian to Antonine periods so, whatever this particular type was used for (and the same boss-and-petal motif is found on pieces of horse harness - strap slides, cheekpieces from bits, and mounts - from Traprain Law, Newstead, and Aldborough), the Roman army did it and only did it in Britain.

So there you go. There are at least three functions for these things and, in the tradition of Rumsfeld's 'unknown unknowns', probably many more. Similarity of form does not dictate exclusivity.

Mike Bishop

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Crispus, the flaw in your argument, which I have pointed out before, but which has obviously gone unnoticed, is that only the front of the baldric is visible in the evidence you posted. What is the back(the invisible evidence) doing?
If you can show me re4liefs and sculpture which shows the back of the strap going over the belt, then I will accept your point as valid,
but not before.
As for being insulted ,.......:wink:

[Tim Edwards]

Gentlemen,

The debate so far has been refreshing and reasoned, thanks much!

We have been having similar discussions within my group offline, and there has been a division of opinion.

I am in the invidious position of having to eat my words on this topic (!) having championed the use of button and loop fasteners, being one of the first in the group to use them, and having cast several sets for group members.

I had assumed that because I had seen individuals in other groups using them for cloak fasteners, they must be correct. When other members in our group saw a few of us using them, they copied us, assuming that we had done our research. Thus a factoid is borne.

I have yet to see any evidence for button and loop fasteners used on cloaks. (though as Byron and Brian state, reasonably, this does not preclude their use as such)
[attachment=0:2f6cdcil]<!-- ia0 DSC02675.JPG<!-- ia0 [/attachment:2f6cdcil]
[attachment=1:2f6cdcil]<!-- ia1 DSC02674.JPG<!-- ia1 [/attachment:2f6cdcil]
The trouble is that very few of us actually read books!

Unless someone can correct me, I believe the main study of these items is J P Wild's 'Button and loop fasteners in the Roman Provinces' published in Britannia 1 1970. Has anyone else actually read this? It is not hard to get hold of in the UK.

Some of Wild's comments:

'The theory that they were dress fasteners in the narrow sense of holding clothing together has little to be said in its favour. In studying provincial Roman clothing I have found no representations of fasteners of this type or hints that they might have been used in this connection.' p145.

'The sheath of a sword from Mainz is said to have been found with two fasteners adhering to it as if they were means of fastening it to the sword belt.' p146.

'The number of fasteners found on military sites suggests strongly that they were items of military equipment.' p146.

Hereafter follows a catelogue of 160 odd examples known to Wild in 1970. Clearly many more will have been found and published since, and still more metal detected and unpublished in private hands...

I include images of Wild's typology:

[Crispvs]

Thanks Mike for the wise input.

Thanks also Tim for the images. It is easy to see how some of these could have accommodated a strap or straps.

Byron,

"If you can show me re4liefs and sculpture which shows the back of the strap going over the belt, then I will accept your point as valid,
but not before. "

I don't really want to drag this further into an OT area but you must realise you are effectively asking the impossible. However, when reading over my short article you seem to have missed these two sculptures, which do seem to point to soldiers not feeling the need to use their belts to secure their bladrics. :wink:

http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... temid,135/

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b73/C ... opeXIV.jpg

Crispvs