My loculus

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

Well its the answer we've all been using and unless you have something to the contrary other than rumour, its the one to go with.

As for your last remark specifically, to tie this all together, until something else is made public ie published, easy is what you are goiing to have to settle for. It is pointless to make useless inferences to speculation.

I think it's not useless. This is just an unpublished find, but not any less interesting. I'm willing to use all possible sources.

[Magnus]

Keep it in context Titus, unublished means no access for us. That means for the time being it is quite useless as a *source*.

[Doc]

Actually Magnus,

It is not useless as a source per se. You would not use it because it has not been made public. So if a source is not in public domain according to you it ceases to be a source. In other words, if a person on this forum knows of a source you are going to dismiss it simply because it was not put into the public record?

[jvrjenivs]

Well, first if you want a complete picture, you have to include all the sources. I included that remark, and told immediately I haven't seen any drawing of it, so it has no influence in my answer to the question I was addressing. Secondly I meantion I didn't see any drawings so far. That's something totally different of it being unpublished or 'hold out of the public eye'.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Well, I can help out. Drawings of the finds are in this article, also reference were they were found and originally published. :-)
M. Volken, The water bag of Roman soldiers, JRA (Journal of Roman Archaeology / University of Michigan - Portmouth, RI) 2008.

[caiusbeerquitius]

And here our Reco:

[Magnus]

Titus....for the love of logic and common sense, if the public (including us) does NOT have access to something, how the hell can you count it amongst items to take into consideration when making equipment? It is impossible.

But as we see, christian posted it, and it doesnt appear to have the side pannels anyway.

But simply claiming something without posting evidence of it, is simply hearsay. In this case, its better to go with the scant evidence, or interpretation thereof.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Matt wrote:

But as we see, christian posted it, and it doesnt appear to have the side pannels anyway.

This is true, but it also isn´t a "loculus". The original fragment(s) also show the hose-like opening which is on the upper left of my pic. Makes using it as a regular bag rather difficult... ^^

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

Titus....for the love of logic and common sense, if the public (including us) does NOT have access to something, how the hell can you count it amongst items to take into consideration when making equipment? It is impossible.

But as we see, christian posted it, and it doesnt appear to have the side pannels anyway.

But simply claiming something without posting evidence of it, is simply hearsay. In this case, its better to go with the scant evidence, or interpretation thereof.

I got the message, you don't have to say it twice without me having posted something in the meantime. After all, it did prove to be published anyway and not inaccessible.

Now, if I may ask: all depictions of what we call 'loculus'; would these all be leather bags (as most of us regard them now), would these be all water containers (as Mrs. Volken thinks), or would there be both types, just looking similar?

[Doc]

Matt,

It was I that answered your post not Titus. If someone states a source that they know of specifically and they are sharing that information even if the source is not in public domain, then it is not hearsay. Just because you do not know does not mean it is nonsense. There is information that people know, because they come across data, that may or will not be published.

Besides you make it sound like the person just made a statment just for the sake of writing a post. Concrete evidence is good but there are times that inferences can be made that do not require absolutes. Outside of what Christian said, the evidence for a bag is a sculpture. How about reconstructing a bag/sack that was actually found like that of the Comacchio. In effect this is more plausible to use than what is on the sculpture.

[caiusbeerquitius]

would these all be leather bags (as most of us regard them now), would these be all water containers (as Mrs. Volken thinks), or would there be both types, just looking similar?

This cannot be answered, I guess. What you can say, though, is:

Is there proof that these objects were containers for liquid? Yes.
Is there proof that these objects were bags? No.

So a sensible reconstruction / reproduction would be a liquid container.

As Doc said above, there are indeed other options for bags, where we even have originals extant. That should be the way to go.

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

I'm looking for something to hang from the furca and more or less as big as the furca if that's possible (after all, just the type of bag I'm going to make is changing, not the things I'm going to put in it).

This Comacchio bag is a possibility. Any more?

Thanks a lot!

[Doc]

Titus,

That is the best reconstruction up to date based on the evidence of this bag. I will be making the same bag at some point soon.

[Peroni]

Nice reconstruction Christian!

Looking at the Column of Trajan, it looks to me like the soldiers are marching with what appears to be both loculus AND separate animal skins for water.. There is also a UK find of the remains of a leather 'loculus' with a corner cut out which could have had a bladder or water-tight skin lining. (There is a reconstruction of it in Dan Peterson's book Roman Legions in Colour)