Brian wrote I would also have to disagree with the idea put forward that the garment was stitched together at the top end in all cases may not be correct for what do we have on the garment of the Camomile Street soldier other than two buttons at the top then below what appear to have been maybe wooden toggles, these buttons would have remained fastened and as also the toggles then when he wanted to throw the garment back over the shoulder he would undo the toggles.
I was not suggesting that the cloak on the Camomile soldier was stitched!!
I have mentioned several times in this thread that there are other methods of closing Paenula cloaks other than what is shown on the Camomile soldier. These would appear to include, stitching the cloak closed near the top and laces. Whatever method is employed it should allow the wearer to be able to lift the sides up on to the shoulders so the side-arms can be shown off.
As usual until physical evidence surfaces, we are at the mercy of the Roman sculptors
I have to disagree that the loop is part of the fastener
As I did not create the terminology I cannot really disagree, as what you suggest does sound logical. However according to Wild it is part of the fastener.
Graham.
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
What I find strange is that in every reference we read of about these things we find they are called button loop fasteners which is indeed a button and a loop that goes over such a button, these buttons need to be fixed to material for them to function and this is where the right angled part of the bracket of this button comes into use where it is stitched to the material.
Then there is what is now the other half of the terminology that is a loop that goes over the button to hold the edges of a garment together and this loop comes from the other edge of the garment, this is where I think that many refer to these as button loop where in fact they should be termed button and loop fasteners.
With all due respect to John Peter Wild who has done a catalogue of these things where it comes out a bit like Russell Robinsons works of the past I have to totally disagree with his idea of the right angle bracket of these buttons being considered as the loop, for the only thing that could ever make them function as loop fasteners is a loop that goes over such a button.
Then we do have a very interesting situation with our Camomile Street soldier where we do not see such loops going over these buttons at the top of the garment, so it the raises the idea that both myself and Mike Bishop would suspect there could even be button holes involved, then lower down the garment we see what appear to be toggles with loops that could be undone much easier to lift the garment over the shoulders.
I feel I need to call you out on a number of points in your last post.
"What I find strange is that in every reference we read of about these things we find they are called button loop fasteners"
But is that what the Romans called them? 'Button and loop fastener' is a modern term which has simply been applied to them, and as such has no bearing whatsoever to their possible actual function. It also contains an implicit assumption about their use which which you appear to have accepted whole heartedly, but which does not appear to be based on anything contextual.
"which is indeed a button and a loop that goes over such a button"
Perhaps, but that is an assumption, as there is no archaeologically attested example of this or a depiction in sculpture, so we cannot know this for sure.
"these buttons need to be fixed to material for them to function and this is where the right angled part of the bracket of this button comes into use where it is stitched to the material."
As was demonstrated in the photo on an earlier page of this thread, the metal loop can easily be used to accommodate a leather strap, so your theory is not the only possibility in town. You have also failed to demonstrate any evidence for them being used as stitching points and have presented only the logical possibility of this, which we all agree with anyway.
"Then there is what is now the other half of the terminology that is a loop that goes over the button to hold the edges of a garment together and this loop comes from the other edge of the garment"
But you do not have any evidence for this, even though it is a likely possibility. You, yourself, admit that the loops you wish for are not visible on the Camomile Street soldier.
"where I think that many refer to these as button loop where in fact they should be termed button and loop fasteners"
That, surely, is simply a matter of semantics.
"for the only thing that could ever make them function as loop fasteners is a loop that goes over such a button"
Not so - we know they can potentially function as sword suspension devices by passing a leather strap through the metal loop while the button holds it in place on a belt, and I suggested above that some with larger metal loops could have accommodated laces or small toggles, with the 'button' sewn into the material of a cloak. It is has also been noted in this thread that they can be used both to hang things from horse harnesses and to connect straps.
Therefore your pet theory of a leather loop which passes around a button whose metal loop has been stitched to fabric is only one of several valid possibilities for their use. We all accept that your favourite solution is a realistic possibility, but I doubt that I am the only one here who is getting a little tired of your continuous dismissal of everyone else's points of view.
Let's all be a little nicer to each other from now on, shall we?
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
Crispvs.
I think that the Camomile Street Soldier is enough to explain the use of these smaller type of fasteners and also the toggle with loop is indeed evidence of how things functioned, and as far as your idea of these right angle brackets of these may have had a strap or toggle under any material that one has to fumble for beneath a garment sounds just a bit strange for any soldier to want to mess around with.
They may well have had other uses however the idea of sword suspension is yet a subject that has no evidence at all only assumption for there is no under view of a belt to give any evidence for this.
"I think that the Camomile Street Soldier is enough to explain the use of these smaller type of fasteners"
I really do wish it was that simple, but it clearly is not, as shown by the fact that we can all debate what we are seeing in the sculpture.
"also the toggle with loop is indeed evidence of how things functioned"
That is true, and I don't think most people contributing to this thread, including me, have tried to suggest that the Romans did not use toggles. However, it is one assumption too far for me, to state with such utter confidence that button and loop fasteners were used in the same way as toggles. If they were, why are two types of item so different in form?
"as far as your idea of these right angle brackets of these may have had a strap or toggle under any material that one has to fumble for beneath a garment sounds just a bit strange for any soldier to want to mess around with."
Hmm - I can do up the button on the pocket flap of my shirt with no difficulty with one hand when I am wearing a jumper and jacket as well and I am sure that, as someone who served for so long in the RAF, you can too. Do you find yourself fumbling when securing pocket flaps or does long practice mean that you can do it without looking and almost without needing the think about it? If the answer is 'yes' then might it not be equally possible that the ancient soldier might have little trouble doing something he may have been doing for years?
"They may well have had other uses"
Well - I am pleased we have finally crossed that bridge at last.
"however the idea of sword suspension is yet a subject that has no evidence at all only assumption for there is no under view of a belt to give any evidence for this."
Ah well - the same is also true then for their use as clothing fasteners. There is as much evidence for their use in sword suspension as there is for their use on clothing. Let me remind you too, as you as so keen to point out the invisibility of the rear of a belt, that we cannot see the inside of the cloak either, to ascertain whether or not the fastener is really stitched in
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
Quote:also the toggle with loop is indeed evidence of how things functioned
Are we sure about this 'toggle'? The buttons show up perfectly clearly but the 'toggle', which should, if anything, be larger, is so insignificant that it does not appear in Mike's photograph at all.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Renatus .
I have to beg to differ with your idea of the toggle for I think that Mike Bishop makes this very clear indeed and also he does point out that another point above it is where there is maybe damage that rules out maybe a second one.
I do think that what we see with the Camomile Street soldier is enough to show two very clear buttons at the top that close the garment upper area and what looks to be a toggle where the garment separates with maybe another above it but for damage to the statue as pointed out by Mike Bishop.
Then where you say we have crossed that bridge there is nowhere in this topic I have ever said otherwise about the use of these things, then your underlining clearly does nothing with regards to your assumption about sword suspension.
Quote:Renatus .
I have to beg to differ with your idea of the toggle for I think that Mike Bishop makes this very clear indeed and also he does point out that another point above it is where there is maybe damage that rules out maybe a second one.
I am not convinced. I shall suspend belief until I have the opportunity of examining the sculpture for myself or see a clearer photograph of this detail.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Renatus.
Here is a drawing by Mike Bishop showing the Camomile street soldier and a comment with regards to the toggle mentioned taken from the paper he produced on the subject, the way the toggle fastening is mentioned is very much after the earlier comments you made with regards to the buttons possibly going through the edge piping of the garment.
Quote:Here is a drawing by Mike Bishop showing the Camomile street soldier and a comment with regards to the toggle mentioned taken from the paper he produced on the subject
I have that article. It contains an even clearer drawing of how Mike interprets the fastenings. The 'toggle' is a feeble little thing compared with the buttons. I still want to see the sculpture for myself.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
"your underlining clearly does nothing with regards to your assumption about sword suspension."
The point of the underlining was simply to emphasise something which I felt you had been ignoring.
Compare your statement:
"for there is no under view of a belt to give any evidence for this."
with the statement I underlined in my reply:
"we cannot see the inside of the cloak either"
Any reasonable person could see that these two statements both have equal weight. There are certainly what appear to be buttons on the Camomile Street soldier's cloak, but there is nothing which proves that they are button and loop attachments, nor that they are sewn to the inside of the cloak, although both remain strong possibilities.
Lastly, I would like to ask you, publicly, here on RAT, to stop rudely referring to the idea of the possible use of button and loop attachments in sword suspension as 'my assumption'.
It is not my idea at all. I don't know who first proposed it but it was some years ago now and the idea is now widespread, even if you have not signed up to it yourself.
Also, it is not an assumption either. It is a possibility - a valid one, but still nothing more than a possibility, just like the possibility that they were used for clothing, and I have never intensionally presented it as anything more than this. As you should well know from several years of corresponding with me over RAT, I am not fond of assumptions and regularly call people to account over them. I do occasionally propose possibilities, but I am not so self important that I then treat them with the status of facts.
Please attempt to be a little more polite to other members of this normally calm and reasonable community.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
Crispvs .
I do consider that I try to be as polite as anyone here on RAT for if indeed I was behaving otherwise there are moderators who would very soon bring that to my attention, so I would like to say that both of us should simply agree to disagree and stop taking this subject any further off topic along then give what I think should be our apologies to Kevin Mills.
Quote:They may well have had other uses however the idea of sword suspension is yet a subject that has no evidence at all only assumption for there is no under view of a belt to give any evidence for this.
Brian, this is not correct, there are at least two examples of these objects used in context of sword belts, as i had shown in the thread about this subject a couple of years ago. I did put a link to this thread in an earlier post here. ;-)
