06-08-2020, 03:24 PM
Hi all,
Nice to finally meet, long time roamer here. But now finally with a question of my own that i would love some experts to shine a light on. I just finished my thorough read of 'pugio gladius brevis est' hoping to find the definitive answer and evidence to my question, but alas ...
1) my first question is actually very simple;
were pugio handles made purely of organic materials (bone, ivory, wood), meaning WITHOUT being covered by the external metal plates/'grip plates'. And if so, how common could this have been?
Surprisingly enough i could not find the answer to this question in the forementioned book. It only mentions two cases where the handles were made of ivory without any metal covering plates (both following the later 'tight insertion technique') but both with the abnormality of a recess in one side of the handle surface, with the other side of the handle being normally shaped and clearly finished. The recess is assumed to be the fitted with an iron part.
So aside from those two 'abnormal' ivory handles, the book never mentions any handle or even the possibility of a handle purely made of organic material without the metal plating over the organic 'filler' handle.
A clue to the answer might be that there have been found many pugio blades without any hilt parts. The reason for the hilt parts missing might be that these were made of purely organic material. If these pugios would have had hilts with the metal plating over the handle, the metal plating should have been found (in some cases anyway). However simple and logical this answer might be, i find it suspicious the book never mentions this (possibility). That's why i wonder if i'm missing something obvious, and would love some feedback on this subject.
2)
While i'm at it i would like to discuss something else, as i feel somehow my first question might have an easy answer to it anyway. This is where it gets interesting:
In the book the argument is made that many pugios were fitted with handles similar to gladii. This happens with the introduction of the rod tang on pugios. This rod tang didnt have the 'biglobular' shape and thus allows for other shapes of handles instead. The book presents certain evidence for the gladius-shaped handle;
- gravestone of 'Firmus'
- Vindonissa wooden grip found without a blade - the hole in this handle is supposed to be too small for a gladius and thus made on purpose for a smaller blade
- Vindonissa pugio (with a rather small blade of 17,7 centimers) and a wooden/bone grip of gladius-shape
- pugio of Saalburg found with a metal plate (as its guard) similar to construction method of certain gladii, and the conclusion that the rest of the handle probably also is similar to that of (that kind of) a gladius
- many of the pugios with rod tang and without hilt have a tang that is beaten at the end; this would be done AFTER insertion of the guard and handle but before the pommel (IIUC) IF the pommel was made of wood (because wood would be glued on top of the handle)(if the pommel was made of metal the tang would not be beaten because the pommel would be inserted on top of the tang in a similar way to the guard and handle)
- the "virtual test" works as an example to show a certain gladius handle on top of a certain pugio without handle. My problem with this example is that i think it would have been relevant to add the lenght of the blade of this specific pugio, as it seems very long indeed, almost like a gladius. I couldn't find this pugio in the list with 216 pictures of all found pugios either, so couldnt find the measurement of the blade there either.
- this argument is actually not brought forward but i think it's relevant anyway: the pugio find in Herculaneum shows a gladius-like handle of wood. The book says this weapon can not definitively be classified as pugio. Why is this? The size seems to be right from the pictures. There's one picture on google where it is laying besides the gladius also found at the exact same location. The gladius is clearly a lot longer.
So the first three arguments i understand, but the one about the beaten tang not so much. Is the (implicit) argument being made here that many gladii (with wooden pommels) had a beaten tang, so if pugios had a beaten tang as well then they would likely have a similar handle? What if the handle would be a regular bi-globular one, and the D-shaped pommel would be made of wood for example. Wouldnt the tang be beaten in that case as well? So how is the beating of the tang in that case an argument for gladii-formed handles on pugiones? I would love some insight in this. Having said all that i really appreciated the book greatly, thanks authors!
Thanks!
Floris
Nice to finally meet, long time roamer here. But now finally with a question of my own that i would love some experts to shine a light on. I just finished my thorough read of 'pugio gladius brevis est' hoping to find the definitive answer and evidence to my question, but alas ...
1) my first question is actually very simple;
were pugio handles made purely of organic materials (bone, ivory, wood), meaning WITHOUT being covered by the external metal plates/'grip plates'. And if so, how common could this have been?
Surprisingly enough i could not find the answer to this question in the forementioned book. It only mentions two cases where the handles were made of ivory without any metal covering plates (both following the later 'tight insertion technique') but both with the abnormality of a recess in one side of the handle surface, with the other side of the handle being normally shaped and clearly finished. The recess is assumed to be the fitted with an iron part.
So aside from those two 'abnormal' ivory handles, the book never mentions any handle or even the possibility of a handle purely made of organic material without the metal plating over the organic 'filler' handle.
A clue to the answer might be that there have been found many pugio blades without any hilt parts. The reason for the hilt parts missing might be that these were made of purely organic material. If these pugios would have had hilts with the metal plating over the handle, the metal plating should have been found (in some cases anyway). However simple and logical this answer might be, i find it suspicious the book never mentions this (possibility). That's why i wonder if i'm missing something obvious, and would love some feedback on this subject.
2)
While i'm at it i would like to discuss something else, as i feel somehow my first question might have an easy answer to it anyway. This is where it gets interesting:
In the book the argument is made that many pugios were fitted with handles similar to gladii. This happens with the introduction of the rod tang on pugios. This rod tang didnt have the 'biglobular' shape and thus allows for other shapes of handles instead. The book presents certain evidence for the gladius-shaped handle;
- gravestone of 'Firmus'
- Vindonissa wooden grip found without a blade - the hole in this handle is supposed to be too small for a gladius and thus made on purpose for a smaller blade
- Vindonissa pugio (with a rather small blade of 17,7 centimers) and a wooden/bone grip of gladius-shape
- pugio of Saalburg found with a metal plate (as its guard) similar to construction method of certain gladii, and the conclusion that the rest of the handle probably also is similar to that of (that kind of) a gladius
- many of the pugios with rod tang and without hilt have a tang that is beaten at the end; this would be done AFTER insertion of the guard and handle but before the pommel (IIUC) IF the pommel was made of wood (because wood would be glued on top of the handle)(if the pommel was made of metal the tang would not be beaten because the pommel would be inserted on top of the tang in a similar way to the guard and handle)
- the "virtual test" works as an example to show a certain gladius handle on top of a certain pugio without handle. My problem with this example is that i think it would have been relevant to add the lenght of the blade of this specific pugio, as it seems very long indeed, almost like a gladius. I couldn't find this pugio in the list with 216 pictures of all found pugios either, so couldnt find the measurement of the blade there either.
- this argument is actually not brought forward but i think it's relevant anyway: the pugio find in Herculaneum shows a gladius-like handle of wood. The book says this weapon can not definitively be classified as pugio. Why is this? The size seems to be right from the pictures. There's one picture on google where it is laying besides the gladius also found at the exact same location. The gladius is clearly a lot longer.
So the first three arguments i understand, but the one about the beaten tang not so much. Is the (implicit) argument being made here that many gladii (with wooden pommels) had a beaten tang, so if pugios had a beaten tang as well then they would likely have a similar handle? What if the handle would be a regular bi-globular one, and the D-shaped pommel would be made of wood for example. Wouldnt the tang be beaten in that case as well? So how is the beating of the tang in that case an argument for gladii-formed handles on pugiones? I would love some insight in this. Having said all that i really appreciated the book greatly, thanks authors!
Thanks!
Floris