There is no problem using the Toggles Ryan, I just thought I would try out the Button method on my new cloak, hence I needed advice.
In fact on my new cloak, an old grey woollen blanket, I shall be using the Toggle type fastening. This will be my "on campaign" cloak. Does not matter if it gets dirty and grotty, can be worn over Armour. My older cloak, a loverly dark mustard coloured lighter wool made by Claire Marshall, shall get the overhaul it deserves....a total revamp of the front and fittings to Button and loop, to become my posher off duty/civilian cloak.
Many thanks for all your input Gents.
One thought is that as possibly wooden toggles broke, they were replaced with round Brooches as suggested in Christians link above. That could be why we have 2 types of fasteners on Mr Camomile St.....Just a thought.
Kevin
Here is another fastener in my collection that is a little different from button loops that I must show for Ryan it is in fact a cast bronze toggle of around 17 mm length that I'm sure would have been held by a cord or leather thong to the material with of course yet another thong to go over it from the other side of the garment.
[attachment=12076]Picture094.jpg[/attachment]
Hi Brian....17mm is very small to get 2 lots of ties around......Am I not reading/understanding this right?
Very little room there for both, for use of a better word, "thongs" to wrap around that small item in the middle? It looks like it was designed for 1 "wrap around" only. Only my opinion....
Kevin
Do we have a date from that please Brian?
One thing omitted throughout this thread was dates.......I do not know if style/designs changed that much over the years for Button and loop?
I do know however that Fibula types did change.
Kevin.
Please excuse the incorrect information the toggle is 25 mm in length I have the measurements mixed up a bit on a few other things.
The dating of that toggle is 2nd to possibly 3rd century from the Wall area and even though still very small it would indeed have had just one wrap around of a thong at its centre groove then stitched to the material, then the second loop would be sewn to the other edge of the garment to loop tightly over the toggle.
What I think we tend to think in terms of is these items being more robust however what we do find is that things were much more delicate than we imagine, in fact at times we even find that the Romans took some of their art decoration of things almost to the point of destruction of the item.
Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons, I have another suggestion which might be worth considering.
If we accept that these items were multifunctional, it is possible to admit that they were used both on clothing and for sword suspension (as shown, for instance, by the positioning of button and loop fasteners in relation to the sword in the Idria grave). If we look at certain depictions of military belts, a button can be seen on the belt either side of the sword scabbard. If these buttons are indeed the visible parts of button and loop fasteners, then the 'loop' part of each must have been pushed through a hole on the belt in order for the strap attaching the scabbard to pass through them behind the belt and limit lateral movement. The 'working end' then, is not the button, but the loop. It is perhaps little wonder that the triangular openings on many are ideally shaped for the passage of straps.
My suggestion then is this: if a button and loop fastener could permanently (or as good as) be fixed to a belt because the loop was thus in the correct position for something to be fastened to it, rather than the other way around, then the same could be true when used to secure clothing. A hole could have been made in the material, simply to fix the button in position (and then be sewn up again around it if necessary), meaning that the loop could have been used as an attachment point for a hook or lace affixed to the back of the other part of the cloak. Thus there would be no need for a true button hole in the material, as the 'loop' part of the fastener would create its own 'button hole' (or perhaps lacing hole) on the back. The 'button' simply exists to keep the 'loop' in place.
Your thoughts, my distinguished fellows?
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" />:!:
Crispus, I think there is merit in the loop being the functional part and the button being the thing that holds it in place...
Ivor
"And the four bare walls stand on the seashore. a wreck a skeleton a monument of that instability and vicissitude to which all things human are subject. Not a dwelling within sight, and the farm labourer, and curious traveller, are the only persons that ever visit the scene where once so many thousands were congregated." T.Lewin 1867
A further thought is that small toggles, rather than laces, could have been passed through the loops for quick and easy fastening. The visual effect on the outside might be similar or identical to the pulling effect visible on the Camomile St soldier's cloak.
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.
Is there any evidence of a sword being suspended by your idea of straps or whatever for that matter going behind such a belt to prove this and where does it come from.
We have been over this a number of times before, but here it is again. We can be confident that button and loop fasteners were involved in sword suspension. I mentioned examples of evidence above. We do not know precisely how they were employed, but with them positioned on the belt either side of the scabbard with the 'buttons' on the outside and the 'loops' on the inside it makes sense to think that a strap or thong may have been passed through the loops. This makes even more sense when you consider that this strap or thong could also pass through all four of the scabbard's suspension rings. The strap may have been secured by a small buckle, and that may explain the presence of the buckle and the double looped fastener which was found with the sword and belt from Vindonissa. Thus the strap would secure the scabbard to the belt and the button and loop fasteners would prevent it from shifting from side to side along the belt.
The idea is not mine. Eckhardt Dreschler-Erb proposed the strap years ago and the method involving the fasteners is illustrated in Christian Miks' book on Roman swords.
Anyway, this is off topic, so let us return to clothing.
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 like many others you are loosing the idea of what is the loop in this whole system of clothes fasteners it has nothing to do with the triangular part of the dress button cast integral with the button which is stitched into the inside of whatever garment it was used on, the loop is in fact a thong that goes over a button that comes from the other half or side of a garment such as shown by Graham earlier with his picture.
What you refer to as discs either side of a scabbard would appear to be two possible different style belt plates for there is no evidence whatever of what is on the underside of these discs to claim them to be such types of fasteners, and as you admit we do not know precisely how they were employed, but with them positioned on the belt either side of the scabbard with the buttons on the outside and the loops on the inside.
These things on the inside of a belt you refer to are in fact not loops at all but the right angle cast part of a button, if however there is pictorial evidence of the inside of this belt you refer to where is this evidence of them being what you suggest.
I am not losing the idea of anything. You are simply making too many assumptions, while at the same time ignoring the possibility I suggested.
When I talk of 'button and loop' fasteners, like most people, I am referring to the button and the cast loop (which may or may not be triangular) which is integral to the piece. That much is concrete - everything else (including thongs which pass around buttons) is merely theoretical. We need to be able to distinguish between concrete facts and theoretical assumptions.
Like most other people who have so far contributed to this thread, I accept that these items could have been employed in a variety of roles. As I see it, you are in a party of one, when you insist on them being associated only with clothing. The rest of us seem to accept that they were probably used with clothing and probably for other things too. I think you need to be more flexible in your thinking.
I know you don't like the idea that 'button and loop' fasteners may have been used to attach sword scabbards, but the evidence is there to look at, in the Idria burial, whereas the archaeological association of 'button and loop' fasteners with surviving pieces of clothing would appear to be somewhat lacking. You may be right about the bosses either side of the scabbards on the sculptures being round belt plates, but I feel confident that the Idria burial stands as evidence that they may indeed be the 'buttons' of 'button and loop' fasteners.
You state as fact that the 'loop' part of the fastener was stitched to the inside of a garment. This seems like an assumption to me.
You asked me for evidence though, which I have provided. Let me hold you to the same standard.
If, in your admirable collection of 'button and loop' fasteners, there is one which is still sewn to a piece of material or which has the remains of stitching still adhering to it, then put a photo of it up here and end the argument. If you cannot do that, then perhaps you should not so quickly dismiss what other people suggest to you or tell you. You cannot use the Camomile Street soldier as empirical evidence for 'button and loop' fasteners as all we can see is the button, which may or may not be a 'button and loop' fastener.
I think it is entirely possible that these items were used to secure cloaks, but, in the absence of known button holes. what we are trying to get closer to in this thread is how that might have been achieved.
I think that the suggestion is reasonable that the fastening for the paenula could have been in the form of a lace or toggle inside the cloak which passed through the 'loop' part of a fastener, whose 'button' had the function of stopping the 'loop' from becoming detached.
I would like the thoughts of others on that point.
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.
Where you may have any doubts about the Camomile street soldier I would suggest that you take these up with Dr Mike C Bishop who has published his paper The Camomile Street Soldier Reconsidered you might find it a very interesting read.
Then your suggestion to assume that the fastening of a paenula could have been done by a lace or toggle passing through the metal part of a button fastener does not make much sense whatever.
Then the Idria Burial evidence I do not think shows much about a sword suspension at all just as much as these two discs you refer to on either side of a scabbard for there is no evidence of these being buttons for we only see the front side of them.
There may indeed have been other uses for these fasteners but it needs yet other more realistic evidence to confirm this did happen but not to just assume sword suspension.
Cesar.
That is of great interest and appears to work very well indeed but is the any provenance for this particular use of such a fastener if so it would be good to see this evidence.
