Pugio frog help (picture identity and period)

[Doc]

The picture below is that of a pugio frog I came across in my files. However, I have two files and one says that it is from Vindonissa while another says its from Mainz.

Once description mentions an emperor while the other says Augustus.

Where is it from and is it really Augustus?

Is this frog from the mid 1st C AD and someone put Augustus (assuming it is him) on it for commemoration or is this from the early 1st C AD or even later 1st C BC?

[jho]

Salve,

According to Künzl, E. 1996: 'Gladiusdekorationen der frühen römischen Kaiserzeit, dynastische Legitimation, Victoria und Aurea Aetas', Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 43, 383-474 this is from Mainz and is kept in the RGZM Mainz as inv no. 12238.

He identifies the person shown as Augustus with lituus and jug.

The confusion in your descriptions may be due to the fact that very similar round items were found in Vindonissa. They show the same portrait only replacing the jug with a victory. However, according to Künzl, they were gladius decorations rather than pugio frogs (M29 & M30 in Künzl's catalogue).

[Doc]

Thank you for the clarification. I really appreciate it.

I was beginning to think how they could be frogs. I can see the leather loop going around the large area with the portrait but then how would you attach it to the belt since all other frogs are attached in a similar fashion to the buckles (as far as I know)

Are the ones from Vindonissa frogs or are they like this one, a gladius decoration?

[jho]

All that I can contribute to this is from Künzl:

The items from Vindonissa are 42mm in diametre and are identified as "scabbard medaillons" (Scheidenmedaillon).

For the item from Mainz no measurement is given but it appears smaller, ca. 2-3 cm in diametre, assuming that my copy is 100% of the original. It is identified as a "cingulum button" (cingulumknopf).

[Matthew Amt]

Looks like a typical cloak fastener, just more ornate than most. Not a belt part at all.

Matthew

[Doc]

Thanks for the replies and data.

Matt, that is an interesting though. If that were the case, I would have one made.

[PhilusEstilius]

Paolo.

I would have to agree with Matt on that a bit like this one that I reproduced from an original I have.

http://www.northumberland-computers.com ... hal069.jpg

[Doc]

I am assuming then that this other pair are also not for pugios?

I found these on an old thread where Cesar posted them for pugios

[PhilusEstilius]

This is what is left of the original and part of another in my collection.

http://www.northumberland-computers.com ... hal070.jpg

http://www.northumberland-computers.com ... hal071.jpg

[Matthew Amt]

I am assuming then that this other pair are also not for pugios?

Can't really tell without seeing the body of it. If it has one or two loops or large holes, it's a cloak fastener, but if it ends in a hinge, it's a pugio frog. But if it's too broken off to tell, you can't tell! As far as I know, the turned-up post on the body always goes to the center of the disc on a pugio frog, but one of the cloak fasteners that Brian showed has the post nearer the edge, so those seem to go either way.

Matthew

[Tim Edwards]

If it has one or two loops or large holes, it's a cloak fastener

Matt/Brian - why? Can you cite a source for button and loop fasteners being used as cloak fastenings? (as opposed to modern 'practical' arguments)

Button and loop fasteners have been found associated with swords in three instances that I know of. An article by J P Wild in Britannia Vol I (1970) discusses this in some depth. The vast majority of button and loop fasteners have been found on military sites, alongside military equipment.

Using these items as general cloak fastenings is another reenactment truism, based on little/no evidence.

[Doc]

Tim,

I agree with your statement in that these items have been found in association swords as Miks points out. I spoke to Matt Lukes and he too mentioned of two instances that these things have been found and it was always in conjunction with a weapon.

Having said this, there could also be merit as posted above about cloak devices as they seem to have that appearence. However, I too tend towards the idea of them being some type of device for weapons. As a matter of fact, I am leaning on making a set of these things and see how they work for my Mainz.

[PhilusEstilius]

Tim.

I am sure there has never yet been a button loop fastener found attatched to a sword at all ( on a belt that is in that sort of configuration ) however they may well have been found in such situations along with weapons that have been found.

In fact what is more to the point why are they called "BUTTON LOOP" fasteners rather than "sword loop" fasteners.
The greater majority of button loop fasteners may well be found on military sites, but only in smaller quantity along with weapons, I think I can speak from experience from the dozens that I have found along with the many more that other metal detecting friends of mine have found ( in fact there are hundreds just laying around all over the outside of military sites )

[Doc]

Brian,

Your point is well taken. However, we cannot make a functional argument based on the fact that someone in the modern world called them button loop instead of sword loop. In other words, just because some person from modern society called it a button loop because its shape resembles that of a button automatically makes it an item used on cloaks not weapons. If the term sword loop was used then it is for swords not cloth. This sort of argument makes sense IF we know what the Romans called it thus describing its function otherwise what a modern person calls is irrelevant if a use can be found for more than one function. Since we do not know what the Romans called it and since we cannot categorically say that they were for swords nor were they for cloaks, we must look at them in context. To this end they have been associated with weapons since that is what they have been found with and it is not necessary that they were attached to the weapon.

Have any of these things been found on any cloth remnants? If yes, then the argument can swing both ways otherwise going with the context in which they were found makes more sense. One could argue that there could have been some cloth item mixed in with the weapons and that the cloth item had this button loop but the cloth has since rotted away. However, one could argue that these things are found all over because during battle they were lost. If you look at them, they do not appear to be THAT strong in structure.

[Matthew Amt]

Sure, I should have said that they were "generally interpreted" as cloak fasteners! So it's really one of those odd things that we are not that certain about. I didn't know they were found with weapons that often, either. However, IS it true they mostly turn up on military sites? I mean, folks like us tend to focus on excavation of military sites, so are we just missing what turns up in civilian settings? Just curious!

In the case of the sword from Mainz (I think it was that one!), where there was a nice scabbard, several belt plates, a loop fastener, and a couple other bits, I had a thought. What if the stuff was wrapped up in a cloak? It really seemed like it was hidden away under the floor or something, or buried, and I for one would be inclined to wrap up a hidden treasure like that. Hence the fastener.

Idle speculation, ha!

Matthew