Wax tablet carrying pouch

[Doc]

Is there any evidence to suggest that wax tablets were carried in a pouch. I would think that they would be carried in a satchel of sorts along with other smaller personal gear.
The reason I ask is because a friend sent me a picture of the attached photo and said that he read somewhere that this was most likely used for wax tablets. I would have to say that IF this is a reconstruction of an actual artifact given its shape, I would have to say that it could have been used for wax tablets. I am also aware that there could be many other uses as with any other pouch.

If the mods deem this pic unappropiate, please let me know.

If anyone has any info on something like this including some pictures that can help me with a reconstruction it would be appreciated.

[jvrjenivs]

Martin Moser once put on a topic about his recreation of a pouch for wax tablets, based on examples from Vindonissa:

link from old RAT

[PhilusEstilius]

Paolo.

I can't remember off hand where I read it but there were wax tablets known as Diptic and Triptic, the triptic may have been used as a contract between two people.
Where each person would write their comments of the contract and an independant person, maybe an officer would verify each statement and keep the thing safe until such time a contract ended.
If there was any dispute he could then lay it before both parties to settle the problem, therefore it may have been kept in a bag for safe keeping with this officer.

[mcbishop]

Is there any evidence to suggest that wax tablets were carried in a pouch.

Dietwulf Baatz long ago suggested* that a rectangular object shown on some Rhineland tombstones may have been such a container (a sort of variant on the old Embleton picture showing diplomas being worn around the neck of the recipient... hmmmm... :roll: ). The problem with this is that soldiers who have 'em make a big show of waving them in your face (they are a status symbol - 'look at me, I can read and write, and I've got an admin job!') so I was never really taken by this argument. I know many re-enactors like to have some sort of dangly pouch to contain their valuables (not shown on tombstones, it should be noted) but I have always favoured the idea that such rectangular containers, worn around the neck, above the belt and over the cummerbund, could quite reasonably have been used as purses... and yes, there are examples (from Valkenburg, possibly - can't lay my hand on the reference at the moment) that would fit the bill.

*Baatz, D. 1983: 'Lederne Gürteltaschen römischer Soldaten?', Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 13, 359-61

Mike Bishop

[M. Demetrius]

Thanks for the link to that picture. While not being an expert at much of anything, I found a couple of things very interesting about that sculpture.
* The belt plates on the two belts are the same.
* The pugio does NOT dangle below the belt on leather loops, but might even have the rings of the pugio fitted directly to the frog. Not clear, so not definitive.
* The buckle on the sword belt is in the front, not around back like many reenactor belts are.
* There are 136 (if I counted correctly) "buttons" on the apron. Hmm...at a dollar and a half each.... :!:
* Sadly, the gladius hilt/grip connection area is damaged on the sculpture, but it really looks like the position indicates it it tied, hooked or strapped directly to the belt.

But back on topic, that rectangle tucked into the belts really does look like a wax tablet. I can't think of why anyone would carry a block of wood there, if it's intended to represent wood.

[Doc]

Thanks all for the reply and the links.

How about these things being carried in satchels like the one from Commacchio? If the wax tablets contained important information (as Brian mentions), you would not want to have them thrown in with other things that could damage them. Thus an item like Martin made would be reasonable.

I do not think that something as bulky as Martin made would be worn as depicted on that stela. I think that if anything, that square could have been a wax tablet wrapped in a cloth or some small soft pouch.

[M. Demetrius]

I don't think that it would be "normal" for any soldier to carry any superfluous gear into battle, especially things like contracts, etc., since they couid easily be lost or damaged. Money bags, valuables, and the like would surely be left back with the baggage...but that's just my opinion, and I don't have any references to support it. :|

[Doc]

David,

I do not think that soldiers carried extra items in battle that would not be necessary. However, I think that carrying things around when not in battle would have been to a certain degree consolidated. I do not think that they would have carried around a little thing here and another there and yet another there and another and......... I think that all small items would have gone into a larger item. This is not a matter of technology or evidence rather it is logic. They did not have to be brilliant to figure out that instead of carrying 4 small items that one could do with the smaller ones in it. Sometimes, evidence is not absolutely necessary.

[PhilusEstilius]

David.
I would also not wish to go OT so far but where you mention the dagger not hanging down on leathers, it reminds me of when I once made the Pompeii belts which had such large frog discs ( as indeed these are ) The dagger had to be fitted with leather thongs instead of having leathers put on the scabbard rings, this is of course a sculpture which may not show this so clearly I wonder. sorry about all that but back to subject.

[Crispvs]

You might like to have a look at what I wrote about the carriage of daggers here:
http://www.romanarmy.net/artweapons.htm

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Daggers

Moving to daggers, there is only one problem with the way most re-enactors wear their daggers. All daggers currently carried by members of the society, as well as those of most other Roman re-enactment societies, are hung from the belt by two straps which pass through the upper suspension rings and which are then hooked over the frogs on the belt. However, a closer look at the sculptural record reveals that these straps do not appear in any known depiction of a Roman soldier. Instead, the Rhineland stelae consistently show the dagger to be suspended from the belt in such a way that the upper suspension rings (the only rings actually used) appear next to and in some cases overlapping the buttons on the frogs, indicating that it is most likely that sheaths were attached to the frogs by tying the upper suspension rings tightly to the frogs with thronging (fig.f and fig.g). This position would limit unwanted movement and is almost certainly more stable than a situation where the pugio hangs from straps some way below the frogs. Both frogs are consistently shown as being virtually in contact with the upper suspension rings on both sides.

Yes....I have often ment to raise that point with you....I have always tied my dagger on with leather tonging.....no credit given at all in your article... :twisted: :lol:

[Crispvs]

Well, in that case, than you for raising it now. :wink:

Crispvs

[Martin Moser]

Is there any evidence to suggest that wax tablets were carried in a pouch.

Dietwulf Baatz long ago suggested* that a rectangular object shown on some Rhineland tombstones may have been such a container (a sort of variant on the old Embleton picture showing diplomas being worn around the neck of the recipient... hmmmm... :roll: ).
(snip)
*Baatz, D. 1983: 'Lederne Gürteltaschen römischer Soldaten?', Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 13, 359-61

For anyone interested, I have once written a little bit about that article and the one that caused Baatz to write it in this thread (spread out over a few postings, so you will need to browse a bit downwards from the linked post)