Pugio bladelength

[Robert]

Salve Omnes,

Having searched the web for a decent photograph of a first century pugio with an inch or centimeter bar alongside, I turn to my comrades in RAT.
Could anyone point me to the correct picture. I have the pugio described as: "a large, leaf-shaped blade 7" to 10" long and 2" or more in width", but is there a typical pugio form in first century hardware? Dit the get wider in time?

[Crispvs]

Robert,

Be VERY wary of anything which says a pugio blade was 'leaf shaped'. It is a very general term and in my opinion very few known pugio blades would fit the description well.

In fact there are three forms typical enough to be classed into a typology and each of these exhibits a range of precise shapes. These three types are:
Type 'A' - a broad blade whose edges curve to a point and featuring an upstanding midrib.

Type 'B' - a blade shaped similarly to a the blade of a Mainz type sword, with the edges normally narrowing slightly from the shoulders to run more or less parallel for much of the length of the blade. Half to two thirds of the way down the blade the edges turn inwards slightly and run to a reasonable sharp point. Type 'B' blades normally feature sunken midribs created by one to two grooves either side.

Type 'C' blades are shaped like an isosoles triangle and the edges run in a straight line directly from the shoulders to the point. Type 'C' blade generally feature little in the way of an ovbious midrib of any sort.

Obviously there is a lot of variation within these descriptions and some blades are difficult to catagorise into a rigid typology, but I hope that gives you some idea. Your description of blade length is reasonable. It seems that pugiones of different lengths and widths happily co-existed. I am not aware of any developmental trend in size over the course of the 1st century AD, but third century examples are much bigger overall, although it is difficult to draw a direct link between 1st century daggers and the daggers coming from 3rd century contexts. Pugio finds dating to the second century AD are sufficiently thin on the ground that very few inferences can be drawn.

Here is a link to Armamentarium showing a reconstruction of the Velson dagger and sheath. It is a good example of a type 'A' blade.
http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/c ... lsen1a.htm

Here is a link to a picture of a pugio with a large type 'B' blade (which I believe can also be found on the Romanarmy.com imagebase):
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b73/C ... gruaro.jpg

Here is a pugio with a very small type 'B' blade:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b73/C ... ndopug.jpg

I don't have any pictures of type 'C' blades in electronic format at this stage I am afraid.

I hope this helps a little.

Crispvs

[Robert]

Hi Crispvs,

Wow, is this most helpful! A laude to you! I had already seen a lot of examples, so I had already understood the relativity of the wording "leaf shaped". I was really amazed at the handle on the Vindolanda pugio (I take it that's what Vindopug stands for?), by the way! Totally different from the very firmly established uniform handle design. This looks like a wooden (given the split) or bone handle. I'm opting for a type B blade, fits my period fine (end first century, first quarter second), will have some fun making the scabbard, having read the discriptions on those. Romancoins carries a lot of good pictures of actual finds, but fail to date them or to photograph them in any meaningful way to get a proper grasp of dimensions. Thanks a lot! Should you run in to anything else, please keep me posted.

[Crispvs]

Thanks Robert,

'Vindopug is indeed my shorthand file name for this picture of a pugio fron Vindonissa. The handle is, in all likelihood, a replacement, as it appears to be a sword grip which has been married up with a dagger which had presumably lost its handle. This might seem haphazard but it would be a good and simple way of bringing a damaged item back into usable service.
Incidentally, you might be interested in something I wrote in this thread about pugio handles, although not really those with rod tangs:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 85&start=0

I would be a little wary of including a dagger in a late 1st / early 2nd century AD impression. The evidence for their use in this period is extremely limited. The latest datable example I know of from a first century AD context is one dating to the mid AD80s from Corbridge. The next example I can think of is the large handle from Bar Hill on the Antonine Wall which would have to date to around sixty years later. From what I read, this handle seems to have more in common with third century daggers than first century daggers and it may well be that daggers were rare sights in the army of the late 1st and early 2nd century AD. There is certainly not much sculptural evidence for them after the mid 1st century AD. I strongly suspect that where they MAY have been issued items during the first three quarters of the 1st century AD, they were purely privately purchased (and possibly even disapproved of) items after that. I am also led to believe that the majority of surviving daggers come from contexts dating the the AD70s and many appear to have been almost new when deposited, suggesting that they may have been deliberately and systematically dispensed with. Of course, there may be a bias inherent in the archaeological sites which have produced the most daggers and the picture may change radically as more daggers come to light but for the time being I would be inclined to err on the side of caution and do without a pugio for a late 1st / early 2nd century AD impression.
However, don't let me stop you having a go at making a dagger and sheath, even if it is simply to use for a comparison with the kit people see you wearing. I would like to see a lot more type 'B' daggers and sheaths around on the re-enactment circuit and so would hardly have a go at someone who wanted to introduce one more. Do be careful of mixing up periods though. Fifity years may not seem like a long time viewed from nineteen hundred years later but it is the difference between World War II and the Gulf War, and as much could chance in that time then as now.

Crispvs

[Robert]

Hi Crispvs,

I'm indeed very aware of "period-mixing" and do want to get it as right as possible. Reading your text does however raise some questions. It would imply the dagger as a militairy item dropped out of site for a long period of time. Your dates on finds suggest this. What's the evidence on belts? If frogs are included in a number of late first century belts, this would suggest pugio's where still in use. I have found a dagger (i.e. a good knife) to be an asset in most survival situations, so would wonder why the gap occured. It's a handy tool. Ah well, novice still, learning each day (and post )

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Fifity years may not seem like a long time viewed from nineteen hundred years later but it is the difference between World War II and the Gulf War, and as much could chance in that time then as now.

Crispvs

However in Desert Storm British SAS were being issued WW2 dated windproofs, along with 3rd pattern Commando knives of WW2 pattern. US troops were still using M3 Greaseguns of WW2 vintage.


Could it be that daggers become a total optional piece of equipment, and soldiers thought they were a useless piece of gear?

[Robert]

Ah, but then why the evidence of use in both early periods (before 70 AD)and very elaborate versions later (2de & 3de century)? How to explain the proposed/assumed gap? Perhaps they stayed around all that time, but with proof lacking in finds we presume they were less popular. As to sculpture, pugio's hung left would tend to be obscured by shields carried left? Like I observed, a good knife is always a handy item to have "hanging around" (forgive the pun). Hench my question on belt frogs (circumstantial evidence).

[Crispvs]

Unfortunately, the best source of information I know of on belt plates only covers plates up to the Flavian period (Grew and Griffiths: 'The Pre-Flavian Military Belt - The Evidence from Britain'). I do not know of anything even vaguely matching their comrehensive treatment for later periods. However, I have never seen anything I could interpret as a frog onany later belt plate I have seen, but then, I have only had the opportunity to personally view a very limited number of later belt plates. Mike Bishop may be able to help here.

Crispvs

[Emeraldweapon7d]

However in Desert Storm British SAS were being issued WW2 dated windproofs, along with 3rd pattern Commando knives of WW2 pattern. US troops were still using M3 Greaseguns of WW2 vintage.

i had no idea that the M3 was still in use so recently. hock: