Pugio blades in the 1st century AD

[Marcus Mummius]

Salve omnes,

Does someone know what kind of pugio blades were most common in the second half of the 1st century AD? Simple flat blades or blades with a raised midrib? Blades with fullering?

I want to try my hand at a reconstruction of a Type B pugio in the future and want to know what blade I have to get...

Vale,
Jef

[Crispvs]

Jef,

When you say "Type B pugio" I take it you meant to say 'type 'B' pugio sheath'.

As to the correct sort of blade, based on the evidence from Vindonissa, a type 'B' blade would probably be your best bet, although a narrow type 'C' blade might also be appropriate. To an extent the choice may be dictated by how wide you plan to make your sheath. Actual type 'B' sheaths vary considerably. In addition to this, one sheath plate from Mainz, although quite wide, appears (from the photos I have) to have accomodated a blade slightly less than half its width. The fact that the Velson sheath was accompanied by a type 'A' blade should remind us however, that type 'B' sheaths were not limited to narrow blades. If you are making a type 'B' blade it should probably have a sunken midrib defined by grooves, although an upstanding midrib is not beyond the question. A type 'C' blade should have little or no midrib. I would also suggest that any dagger intended to represent a dagger of the 2nd half of the 1st century AD should have a type II (rod) tang.

I wrote a bit about blades in this thread:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=11167

Also, for anyone else reading this, I posted up a number of picture of both original and reconstructed sheaths in this thread:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... ight=pugio

I hope this helps a little.

Crispvs

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Hello,

Crispus, your comments on pugio topics are very good and useful. Thanks a lot.

I want to know some more details, in order to make a good replica. I want to know how is made the hilt.

I know is made of a organic core sandwiched between some metal plates.
But... If it's a rod tang... there was two wood layers or it's only one?

If it's a type I tang, how is the metal plate section? Is it a thin metal covering a wood with triangular section, or is a triangular section metal covering a flat section wood?

Many of that things are not clear at photos nor scientific publications...

Thanks and sorry, because i know my questions maybe are not very clear.

[Robert]

Salve! The pugio Cesar is recreating (other thread) does not have a rod tang more common to the 1 st century pugio. I am most interested in the answer to his question regarding the hilt. Does the presence of rivets in the hilt suggest a two piece wooden hilt, clamping the tang between them, then covered by metal sheat?? Or are the rivets to hold the metal sheat in place?? Most confusing

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

At the picture posted by Caius Tarquitius, seems that the metal parts of the hilt of the pugio are make of a triangular section piece of metal, and not form a "skin" of thin metal covering the wooden parts.



It's a bad intepretation, or really it's make in such way? Or, probably, in both ways?

I'm confused.

[Marcus Mummius]

There are a lot of grip plates with a triangular cross section in Obmann's book.

[Robert]

It would seem the wood parts are quite thin, then. Only two to three millimeters on each side. It will be hard to clamp a tang in between these, I would think. It makes you wonder why they bother with the wood at all. The triangular cross section is easier to make then thin sheething over a raised wooden core. In this way, you cut the shape of the handle and file the edges down to size. Thanks for the post!

[Crispvs]

Of course, there is the possibility that the handles attached to rod tangs may have had a single piece of wood with a hole drilled through its middle between the grip plates rather than two thin pieces. There is no evidence which I know of but to my mind it is a possibility. Some surviving rod tangs have been peened over to form a wider lump on the end. If this was done in conjuction with a metal top plate it could such a grip more secure. Again this is speculation but I think worth bearing in mind as an idea. To my mind it would certainly seem a lot more secure than having two narrow wooden plates which were recessed to grip the tang. Mind you, I do not possess the same mind as a Roman so such an idea might seem reasonable to them. I shall wait for more evidence before I make anything more than a tentative suggestion on the matter.

In answer to Cesar's earlier question regarding type 'I' tangs, both types are known. A dagger from Colcester had shaped bone plates covered by a thin layer of iron embossed to the corresponding surface shape. Other daggers, such as the one you posted up, have triangular section plates.

Crispvs

PS, Cesar, thank you for posting up that picture. Do you know the publication it is taken from?

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

I agree with the wooden one piece for the rod tangs. The flat tang needs two thin woods parts, one by side. But it's another possibility:

In my reconstruction (how to make a pugio), i make a one piece with the midle "carved" with a saw to get in the inside the flat tangs.

I have reconstructed in that way because many flat tangs don't have the pommel in the tang. Constructed following "my" interpretation, the pommel are more rigid and acts as a cohesion zone for the rest of the hilt.

Crispus, please ask Tarquitius, who posted it originally.

[Crispvs]

Cesar,

The dagger I mentioned earlier from Colchester also features this shortened type 'I' tang which omits the pommel expansion. On that example a thick lump of bone took the place of all three of the normal internal layers (tang and two organic plates) and sat on top of the shortened tang. Your reconstruction seems quite reasonable however.

Crispvs

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Nice!
:wink:
I hope that new year, i will get some time to finish my hilt!