Is this pugio frog cast or sheet?

[Magnus]

I have a picture (thanks Jurjen!) of a pugio frog arm found at one of the sites in England (Jurjen, was that Vindonissa?). Anyway, looking at the base of it there are some decorative lines...thing is, was it a cast piece with the lines in the mold, or a sheet that was stamped/chiseled a bit?

Thanks!

[Peroni]

Cast.

This particular find is from the Sheepen site at Colchester (Camulodunum)

The button may have been applied as a separate piece IIRC. It's quite a small piece too. Dimensions..

L= 32mm (without button)
L=40mm (including button)
W= 20mm

Button diameter = 17mm

[Magnus]

Oh my. So it's probably too small for a 2nd century belt. Darn...I liked the shape too!

Thanks Adrian!

[Peroni]

Yes, it's dated to Neronian/Claudian period.

As the pugio disappeared in the second century, you're quite ok not to have a pugio on your belt.

[Magnus]

I know, but I like them :oops: ...and I'm 105 AD anyway, so I'm not quite at that point.

[PhilusEstilius]

I would agree with Peroni, that the frog is a cast piece. However it becomes a rather bold statment to say that the Pugio goes out in the second century.

[Peroni]

What I meant Brian is that it does not appear on sculpture during the 2nd Century. There is also a big gap in the finds from the first to the third century examples from Kunzing and Coptall Court.

Magnus, the width of 2nd c belt plates and buckle plates is on average 20-25mm. A great deal of them are richly enamelled too. The examples from Vindolanda and Caerleon come immediately to mind. You also have the Antonine period plates which are open-work.

[PhilusEstilius]

I do understand your point Adrian, it just appeared the way it was worded I thought hello somone is drawing a line right at the end of a century here. However you are right, the evidence for the pugio does become a bit rare around this period.