Login

Flavius Promotus · 06-23-2004, 05:03 PM

Can anybody tell me where I can find sketches or images of the side hooks on the Stillfried armour which were probably used for carrying the scutum ? 
 
I have already asked Michael Bishop, but he seems to be under a lot of stress

scythius · 06-24-2004, 05:47 AM

You may want to check with Legio VI (Los Angeles) they've got the best Stillfrieds out there... 
 
Guys - you want to chime in? 
 
Scythius 
LEG IX HSPA - COH III EXPG - CEN I HIB 
 
- FIDELITAS - - VIRTUS - - MAGNANIMITAS -

Matthew Amt · 06-24-2004, 01:57 PM

Ave! 
 
As I understand it, those hooks were pretty much the same as those used to connect the collar section to the girdle plates, just upside-down. They were riveted INSIDE the plate (with one rivet) and stuck out through a hole. You can see some of my hooks on my Newstead Lorica page, 
 
www.larp.com/legioxx/newstlor.html 
 
I think they were on the second or third plate from the top (maybe higher on one side than the other). The hooks are covered on the inside by the girdle plate leathers, so they were clearly installed as original construction, before the plates were assembled. 
 
Also, if you ask me, it's a stretch to say these were "probably" for supporting the scutum! A complex rig of straps for slinging the scutum has no more solid evidence for it than a simple shoulder sling (which some folks find works just fine). And there may still be folks who believe the shield was not slung but simply carried in the hand. We're dealing with a lot of great big "maybe's", here! 
 
Vale, 
 
Matthew/Quintus

FlaviusCrispus · 06-24-2004, 04:49 PM

Avete, comilitines! 
 
Prof. Arick Greenberg, aka Dio Draconus Syracusas of Legio VI Victrix, CA, has obtained a detailed schematic of the Stillfried plates from Dr. Bishop. According to him (and I'm paraphrasing, so Dio, if I get this wrong, please correct me!), the original Stillfried reconstruction was apparently turned upside down, so that the hooks, rather than being located on the second girth hoop down, just under the armpit, are actually located on the second hoop from the bottom. In this case, the purpose of the hooks is almost certainly to hold the belt up! 
 
So far, members of Legio VI Victrix have made three reconstructions of the Stillfried-type Newstead, one of the Iza-type (with brass plates covering the entire end of each girth hoop), and one of the Zugmantel-type, for five Newsteads in all. Here's a link to Dr. Greenberg's account of the first such reconstruction: 
 
www.legionsix.org/Newstead%20article.htm 
 
Because we were unsure about the purpose and location of those curious hooks (which, in their original location, seemed in a ideal location to repeatedly gouge a soldier's inner arms!), we left them off our first reconstructions. They have been incorporated into the more recent ones, in their proper location. 
 
T. Flavius Crispus 
Legio VI Victrix Pia Fidelis 
California, USA

**richsc** · 06-24-2004, 07:35 PM

"In this case, the purpose of the hooks is almost certainly to hold the belt up!" 
 
I knew it! and my suggestion to call these the 'suspendarii' some time ago was not all that far off, eh? Legio XX 
Caupona Asellinae

06-24-2004, 08:46 PM

Ah! 
Could it be the end of the great armpit hook enigma? 
It is definitely more logical to see it as a belt holder since experience has proven that without a hook some people may experience problems with the belt slipping down.

06-24-2004, 11:10 PM

suspendarii! I love it! I'm authentic after all. I've been using these, fashioned after those used by legio VI, for awhile now and they work great. I've come to use a pair of hooks, one on either side of my lorica, the with the front of belt tied to the lowest lacing loop.

FlaviusCrispus · 06-24-2004, 11:40 PM

Addendum... 
 
I just got off the phone with Dio, and he clarified some things regarded the Stillfried plates and hooks. The plates were excavated in pretty good shape, with a few hoops essentially intact, and a few others in two or more large fragments. Both of the plates that had the hooks were intact. For some reason, when the girth hoops and fragments were initially reassembled into a complete girth section, the plates with the hooks were placed second from the top. Then someone noticed that neither of the hook plates had any kind of closure-- i.e. the loop-and-slot system for fastening the plates together. Therefor, they had to be one of the two bottom plates, which lack a closure on both the Newstead and Corbridge A cuirasses and are presumably intended to be held closed by the soldier's belt. The hook plates were then reassigned to the second hoop from the bottom, which is the perfect place for holding up a belt. 
 
More interesting tidbits: One of the hooks was copper alloy, while the other was iron, indicating that one or the other was a "field repair." As Matt stated above, each is riveted to the inside of the girth hoop and passes through a hole to the outside. 
 
T. Flavius Crispus 
Legio VI Victrix Pia Fidelis 
California, USA 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flaviuscrispus@romanarmytalk>FlaviusCrispus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/legiovi/vwp?.dir=/Flavius+photo&.src=gr&.dnm=flavhead2.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 6/25/04 1:45 am

Gashford · 06-25-2004, 12:26 AM

Hello all 
 
I am quite interested in this but have to say I can't follow where the hooks actually are, do any of the illustrations and photos above have the hooks in place? I can't seem to see anything I would hang a scutum from ... I am not a lorica man, being a hairy gladiator I don't have the luxury of hiding my Rotund physique under a lorica (despite public outcry for me too). 
 
Can someone break this down for an interested, out of depth layman? 
 
All the best and lovely work on those lorica ...

Crispvs · 06-25-2004, 11:01 PM

I don't quite see why the second 'hoop' from the bottom is the perfect position for a belt, unless the belt is the wrong size for the soldier and has to be positioned between the two lowest sets of tie loops to stop it slipping down a la the ESG. I've been wearing my belt around the botton pair of girdle plates on my Corbridge 'A' for about six years now and I don't remember it ever slipping down or falling off. Doing the belt up tightly around the bottom girdle plates also helps to transfer some of the weight of the armour to the hips. Please note that I am not trying to discount the Stilfried evidence (which naturally outweighs any modern notions about the nature of armour), but I would like to keep it in mind that whilst a hook projecting from the second to bottom pair of girdle plates could indeed be for the positioning of the belt, it may alternatively have had any one of a number of different purposes. 
 
Crispvs

FlaviusCrispus · 06-25-2004, 11:45 PM

Ave, Crispus! 
 
Our experience has been very different from yours. Virtually every legionary I've dealt with has had trouble keeping the belt from slipping off the last lorica segmentata hoop. Many of us have adopted a set of "S"-shaped hook that loop over the top of the girth hoop and provide support for the belt. Some do this on the lowermost plate, while others use the second plate from the bottom. The problem with these things is that they can easily pop out of place and get lost while you're stowing your cuirass. Permanently attaching the hooks, in Stillfriend fashion, would solve this problem. 
 
On the Newstead cuirass, the lowermost plate has a tendancy to spread out a bit and ride on the hips anyway, and most of those who've worn our Stillfried version prefer to put the belt on the second plate up (my Iza version has a double-wide plate at the bottom, so my belt goes on that lowermost plate). It holds both the second and lowermost plates together, provides the better weight distribution you speak of, and isn't unduly restrictive to the lower extremities. 
 
Also, I believe most of the depictions on Trajan's column seem to show the belt being worn well above the lower edge of the bottom plate. 
 
Dio also noted that the hooks on the Stillfried plate appear to be much lighter and flimsier than the inverted ones which hold the girth hoop section to the chest/shoulder section. He said he doubted they were strong enough to support much more than a belt, and that the weight of a scutum would certainly bend or snap them. 
 
I imagine they could be used for other purposes-- suspending a canteen, or marching pack, or helmet, or as some part of the sword suspension system. But belt hooks seem far more likely to me. 
 
T. Flavius Crispus Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flaviuscrispus@romanarmytalk>FlaviusCrispus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/legiovi/vwp?.dir=/Flavius+photo&.src=gr&.dnm=flavhead2.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 6/28/04 6:15 pm

ambrosius · 06-26-2004, 12:28 PM

Ave Crispus, 
 
Well, sanity has returned to the World, at last! 
I suspect we all guessed that was the true function 
of these hooks, right from the start, didn't we? 
 
I remember asking Dr. Mike Bishop about them a 
few years ago. I asked why the lorica had been 
reconstructed so as to shred the biceps of the 
man conducting sword-drills (as you pointed out). 
I asked him why they wouldn't be better placed 
on the lower two girth-hoops to hold the belt up 
(as so many of us have problems with the belt 
slipping down). He replied that both he and Peter 
Connolly had asked the conservator (who had 
reconstructed the lorica in the first place) the 
same question. But the conservator had stubornly 
insisted that the hook-bearing hoops had been 
found at the 'top' of the hoop assembly! So I 
then said to Mike that he should invite that 
conservator to revise his conclusion. I bet he 
wishes he had, now. (Much egg-on-face among 
the conservator-fraternity, I feel - and hope!) 
 
It just goes to show what a valuable imput can 
be contributed by re-enactors, who can prove 
what does and doesn't work from a practical 
point of view. Let that be a lesson to us all. 
Never be afraid to question the orthodox opinion. 
You may very well be right. 
 
Ambrosius

mcbishop · 06-26-2004, 01:22 PM

both he and Peter 
Connolly had asked the conservator (who had 
reconstructed the lorica in the first place) the 
same question. But the conservator had stubornly 
insisted that the hook-bearing hoops had been 
found at the 'top' of the hoop assembly! So I 
then said to Mike that he should invite that 
conservator to revise his conclusion. I bet he 
wishes he had, now. (Much egg-on-face among 
the conservator-fraternity, I feel - and hope!) 
 
Let's not be too cocky about this. The job of a conservator is seldom an easy one and piecing together fragments of segmental armour is never straightforward and, like the proverbial diy car service, there's always a box of left-over bits which seem to have no home (in the case of the Corbridge Hoard, a box full of tiny bits and rusty dust). Stuff becomes dislodged during lifting (and if it is in less-than-ideal weather conditions it is all the harder) and relationships between fragments get obscured: it might not even be the conservator's doing if the excavation records were erroneous or misleading. 
 
Also, it is as well to note that the armour has yet to be published, so you can hardly take a conservator's unpublished report as a definitive statement on what current thinking might be. 
 
I would rather we heaped kudos on the heads of conservators and view their efforts as our starting point than crow over how they may (or may not!) have got one detail 'wrong', neglecting the fact that an awful lot of good work has been done. Charles Daniels and Russell Robinson reconstructed the Corbridge type armour incorrectly to start with before getting it right (and there are plenty of other examples of corrected conservation, including the Sutton Hoo helmet and the Portland Vase). None of us are perfect, sadly, least of all me, but I reserve a tiny niche in my Hall of Fame for conservators and it is there that I keep my little-cotton-socks blessing machine ;-) 
 
Mike Bishop

ambrosius · 06-27-2004, 10:30 PM

Mike, 
 
It seems to me that it was the conservator it was 
whose 'cockiness' has caused this problem, rather 
than anyone else for trying to correct the erroneous 
reconstruction. If he insisted to you that the hooks 
were on the upper hoops rather than the lower ones, (despite the fact that - as you say - the relationship between the fragments was obscure) then he's the 
one being cocky in remaining so adamant. If he (or 
the archaeologist) can't recognise how tenuous are 
the conclusions they are drawing from the evidence, 
then they're not very good scientists, are they? And 
if they can, then why are they making such dogmatic 
pronouncements in the first place? 
 
For both yourself and Peter even to feel the need to 
ask him the question in the first place means that 
you already knew the answer - the same as the rest 
of us who had that thought when we first saw the 
reconstruction. If there was any doubt in his mind, 
then all he had to do was to say: "Well, Dr. Bishop, 
you may have a point, there. The hoops were rather 
scattered when we found them, and it is possible that we reconstructed the torso assembly upside-down." 
 
But no. As you told me, they were insistent. They 
have likely never worn a lorica themselves, but can't 
take advice from anyone who has. 
 
A hook for carrying a scutum..........? Okay. And 
how many times can a legionary use his Gladius for 
thrusting before drawing blood.......... his own? And 
in the meantime, in the heat of battle, he trips over 
his balteus, which has slid down around his ankles, 
as there's nothing to hold it up with. 2+2 anyone? 
 
You say that the conservator's report is unpublished 
(so they still have time to correct it) and we cannot take that as a definitive statement. Yet it was 
definitive enough to be included in Lorica Segmentata 
vol. 1 and for several re-enactors to build copies of 
it and try wearing it. 
 
It's not so much a case of anyone crowing about 
someone being wrong. It doesn't matter who is 
right or wrong. All that matters is that we get to 
the truth. As it is, many of us wasted a lot of time, 
energy and money thinking about and building this 
thing; and some (not I) may have been caused a lot 
of unnecessary cuts and bruises in the process. 
Again, if they hadn't been so adamant about it in the 
first place, then the error might be easier to forgive. 
As for cotton-socks, I hope they aren't laughing 
theirs off, as we speak. 
 
Well, I LOVE my Newstead; always have. And now 
the dust has settled, I guess I'll be adding two hooks 
to the second lowest-hoops, to keep my belt up ;Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬) 
 
Ambrosius

FlaviusCrispus · 06-28-2004, 04:13 PM

Ave, Ambrosius! 
 
So, you have a new-model Newstead too? Where are you located, and what unit are you with? 
 
Do you have any photos of your cuirass and/or your impression? 
 
T. Flavius Crispus 
Legio VI Victrix Pia Fidelis 
California, USA

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me