Pugio Database Structure

[Praefectusclassis]

Guys, if you want me to include those classification systems in the db, you'll need to send me a list of the possible options (e.g. Scott: A, B, C, D, etc).

[Martin Moser]

Guys, if you want me to include those classification systems in the db, you'll need to send me a list of the possible options (e.g. Scott: A, B, C, D, etc).

Wanted to ask you about this anyway - I don't know what the system is like, can you add to it/change it once it's set up or would you have to tear it all down again? More specifically, if we take the helmet database as a starting point and copy its layout, can you

-add new dropdown options?
-add entries to existing dropdown options?
-add additional tabs in the single item view?

[Praefectusclassis]

I can change anything whenever. The only risk you run is to have to update all records individually afterwards.

[Martin Moser]

Here is the gist of Obmann's (Obmann, Jürgen. Studien zu römischen Dolchscheiden des 1. Jahrhunderts n.Chr.. Archäologische Zeugnisse und bildliche Überlieferung. Rahden/Westf., 2000.) classifcation (he does not actually propose a system of classification, it's more like the way he structures his work) in all shortness:

========

- Rahmenscheiden / Frame Sheaths: developed from iberian daggers: metal frame sheath with underlaid with organic material or sometimes decorated sheet-bronze. Late republican and early imperial, then again late imperial (Künzing), continual development cannot be proved yet.


- Sheath Typ Mainz: Sheath with (mostly) decorated front and plain back metal plate, On front plate fields A and C are broader and decorated with circular motifs, field B with angular motifs. Wide sheath mouth. Suspension incorporated in sheath body.


- Sheath Typ Vindonissa
:
narrower than Typ Mainz, only front plate on wooden sheath, elongated form makes for less area for decoration; fields of decoration rectangular, often not framed. Small sheath mouth. Suspension protruding from sheath body.

- groupings of ornamentation:

-- Group 1: metal inlay work done only with bronze; field A shows almost always enamel corners (gamma shaped) around a circular medaillon; field B shows rosette or flower of enamel and bronze wire; field C echoes field A; field D is triangular with "angular hooks". Group 1 is almost totally Type Mainz, dated from Auerberg up to mid 1st cent. AD.

-- Group 2: new motifs: pelta, double-axe and medal in enamel, lance wreath and aedicula in silver/bronze with enamel, diagonal silver lined fields, no more angular hooks or flowers, field D subdivided into 2 smaller fields, mostly of Type Mainz, a few are Type Vindonissa. Rivets like in Group 1. Dating: early tiberian to early flavian, Type Vindonissa starting mid 1st cent. AD.

-- Group 3: no enamel anymore, new motifs: palm fronds and rhomb, additionally sometimes vine leaf, running dog, lotus, meander. Dating: from tiberian to early flavian, both of Type Mainz and Vindonissa

-- Group 4: inlay in silver only, often poorly executed. Fields A and C show palm fronds, rhomb and hourglass. Aediculy almost exclusively in field C. field D can be subdivided into rectangle (with palm fronds, rhomb or hourglass) and triangle (with lance). Dating: mid 1st to early 2nd cent. Ad.

-- Special Forms: not according to Groups 1-4 (mentions a few examples)

========

So, we have 2 basic types, Frame and Plate Sheath, Plate Sheath then subdivided into Type Mainz and Type Vindonissa, both of which may again belong to any of Groups 1-4 or Special Forms. No mention of the blade type is made, however, and frankly I don't know whether the blades conform to this at all. What do you think, Crispus?

Back to my leather working, this is so much simpler ... ;-) )

[Crispvs]

Thanks for that Martin.

I don't have Scott to hand as I write this but Obmann's 'Mainz' type is Scott's Type 'A' and Obmann's 'Vindonissa' type is Scott's type 'B'. Scott does not really cover frame sheaths, being primarily interested in decorated sheaths. Scott further divides type 'B' sheath plates into types 'Bi' and 'Bii', with 'Bii' being narrower than 'Bi'.

Obmann's decorative catagories seem good and easy to understand (actually I was already familiar with the basic divisions of his decorative catagories from his summary section - it was just that the length of the 'Motive' section showed that there was a lot more detail to what he was really saying) and are probably preferable to Scott's, but I would need to check Scott to confirm this. The catagorisation of decorative schemes goes on for several pages in Scott 1985 and (I think from memory) goes into either seven or eight decorative catagories.

I am inclined to dissagree with the idea that 'plate' sheaths are one overall catagory. When the constructional aspects of the different sheath types are taken into consideration it is clear that they come from two different traditions. Type 'A' sheaths have overlapping metal front and back plates, whilst type 'B' sheaths were really wooden sheaths with the iron front plate being largely decorative. The fact the type 'A' sheaths may have featured wooden linings does not alter the fact that they are effectively metal sheaths, as opposed to the largely wooden type 'B' sheaths.

Scott divides tangs into two types, namely type 'I' or 'frame' tang, which takes the form of either the whole or part of the overall shape of the handle, and type 'II' or 'rod' tang.

As far as blades go, Scott defines three types of blade, namely types 'A', 'B' and 'C'. Type 'A' is described as 'broad with an upstanding midrib'; type 'B' is described as being somewhat narrower with a midrib formed and defined by grooves either side; and type 'C' is described as being long and narrow with little or no midrib. He notes that both type 'A' and 'B' blades are associated with type 'A' sheaths, whilst type 'B' and 'C' blades are associated with type 'B' sheaths.

That said, I think this needs some revision, as some examples do not fit well into that last statement. The obvious example is the Velson dagger, which is a type 'A' blade but the sheath plate is of type 'Bi'. Additionally, to my mind, extant blades do not divide up quite so neatly into the three catagories and in my own mind I have now simplified type 'A' and 'B' into upstanding versus sunken midribs, with width of blade being less important.

I will try to have a look at Scott 1985 tonight and will post more on his decorative catagories soon.


Crispvs

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

We can make a codification, with references at the diferent parts of the weapon.

1. HILTS:

1A: Construction:

1A1: The hilt is made of an organic material covered with a iron "skin". That skin can be made in two pieces, one for each side, or in one piece folded over the pommel.

1A2: The hilt is made of an organic material, thin, covered with a triangular section plates.

1A3: The hilt is made of organic material, without metal parts. Ivory and/or bone hilts.

1B: Tang.

1B1: Plain tang
1b2: Rod Tang


2. BLADE.

2A: Section

2A1: With Midrib

2A2: With grooves defining a midrib.

2A3: Without midrib or grooves.

2B: Shape:

2B1: Triangular
2B2: Leaf shaped.
2b3:

3. SHEAT.

3A. Construction.
3A1: Frame type.
3A2: Two metal pieces, conformed.
3A3: Frontal metal plate.

3B. Decoration.
3B1: Enamel and inlay.
3B2: Only inlay.
3B3: Undecorated.
3B4: Incised lines.

3C: Suspension sistem.
3C1: Rings
3C2: Buckles.

Its complicated.

One exemple: My recreated pugio:

1A2B1, 2A1B1, 3A3B2C2

[Martin Moser]

Hi Cesar,

thanks for your proposition!

Its complicated.

One exemple: My recreated pugio:

1A2B1, 2A1B1, 3A3B2C2

Yes, indeed :-) )

But the problem with respect to the database is, I think (judging from the helmet database), that we need a system where a pugio can be allocated to one single place. For example, if we had only sheaths we might do it like this (simplified, just to show):

|
---Frame Sheaths
------early
------late
---Decorated Sheaths
---------fully enclosed
---------------Group 1
---------------Group2
---------------Others
---------front plate only
---------------Group 1
---------------Group2
---------------Others

This would make sure that every sheath was just in one category.

We could of course split this in three, so that you have thre parallel entry points to look/search through the database, like

|
|
---Hilts
------(subgroups)
|
---Blades
------(subgroups)
|
---Sheaths
------Frame Sheaths
---------early
---------late
------Decorated Sheaths
------------fully enclosed
------------------Group 1
------------------Group2
------------------Others
------------front plate only
------------------Group 1
------------------Group2
------------------Others


if the database frontend structure allows this without having to maintain the data seperately for all the major categories under which a pugio might fall (Jasper?)...


And, probably the most difficult of all, we'll have to decide on a classification after all - high hopes on you, Crispvs :-) )

[Martin Moser]

Hi Cesar,

thanks for your proposition!

Its complicated.

One exemple: My recreated pugio:

1A2B1, 2A1B1, 3A3B2C2

Yes, indeed :-) )

But the problem with respect to the database is, I think (judging from the helmet database), that we need a system where a pugio can be allocated to one single place. For example, if we had only sheaths we might do it like this (simplified, just to show):

|
---Frame Sheaths
------early
------late
---Decorated Sheaths
---------fully enclosed
---------------Group 1
---------------Group2
---------------Others
---------front plate only
---------------Group 1
---------------Group2
---------------Others

This would make sure that every sheath was just in one category.

We could of course split this in three, so that you have thre parallel entry points to look/search through the database, like

|
|
---Hilts
------(subgroups)
|
---Blades
------(subgroups)
|
---Sheaths
------Frame Sheaths
---------early
---------late
------Decorated Sheaths
------------fully enclosed
------------------Group 1
------------------Group2
------------------Others
------------front plate only
------------------Group 1
------------------Group2
------------------Others


if the database frontend structure allows this without having to maintain the data seperately for all the major categories under which a pugio might fall (Jasper?)...


And, probably the most difficult of all, we'll have to decide on a classification after all - high hopes on you, Crispvs :-) )

[Praefectusclassis]

Uhmmmm...This might be more complicated than possible (ànd necessary?) You guys fight it out first. :wink:

[Martin Moser]

Uhmmmm...This might be more complicated than possible (ànd necessary?) You guys fight it out first. :wink:

Nice escape ;-) )

[Martin Moser]

Well, I'd suggest to do a database structure based on sheath types - opinions?

[Crispvs]

I would be the first to admit that I do not know anything about databases, but could the pugio database not be arranged in much the same way as the tombstone imagebase, so that there could be different search criteria. On the imagebase one search criterion is selected and all stelae to which it applies come up.

Thus criteria could be on the basis of (for example:

BLADE TYPE
- type A
- type B
- type C

TANG
- frame tang
- rod tang

GRIP
- thin organic inner plates with triangular section metal grip plates
- thicker organic inner plates covered by thin iron 'skin' either in two pieces or one piece folded over
- fully oganic grip

Etc, etc...

Thus, only one catagory could be selected so if, for instance, you searched on blade type you could not search on any other catagory at the same time. Within blade type you would specify a type, for instance type 'B'. Any dagger which was listed as having a type 'B' blade would come up, regardless of what type of tang, or grip plates it had.
This would be in the same way that on the imagebase if you select 'Legio XIIII GMV' from the 'Unit' catagory all Legio XIIII stelae would come up but if you selected 'full figure' from the relevant catagory all full figure depictions would come up, regardless of unit.

Could the pugio database not be realised like this?

If so, we can apply full descriptions and classifications to each piece, and any defined feature could act as a search criterion. I do not think that search criteria based purely on one thing, for instance sheaths as Martin suggested, would be nearly as satisfactory as the ability to effectively search both up and down and accross.

As has already been pointed out pugiones can get complicated quite quickly. To use the notation Cesar gave us above, my pugio would be 1A2B1, 2A1B3?, 3A3B2C2. Interesting (and quite useful) as a system of notation but much too complicated to use as a search tool. We need a large number of easily understood search criteria which can all be used independently of the others.

On another front, one thing I think we need to agree early on is the nomenclature for the various elements of pugiones, in order to organise our descriptions and search criteria. I find that writers use terms such as 'suspension ring' in too many different ways, and I believe strongly that we need to accurately define what we will be describing. Thus, for instance, in the terms I would normally use, a suspension ring is the part of the sheath which connects directly to the leather pieces on the dagger frogs, whether it is round or of type 'B' shape. Its function dictates its name. A suspension loop, on the other hand, I would define as the piece of metal which passes through the suspension ring (in type A suspension) and is attached at both ends to the body of the the sheath itself.
I have a drawing of the three sheath types on which I have noted the name of each element, which I could try to get scanned so I could post it up to see what you think. I will try to do this in the next couple of days.

Crispvs

[Praefectusclassis]

but could the pugio database not be arranged in much the same way as the tombstone imagebase, so that there could be different search criteria.

Yes Paul, that is possible. In fact, the system (goes for all databases) will go one further and allows you to combine criteria. So in the Imagebase you could search for all (e.g.) full length tombstones of Legio XIIII GMV.
In the Pugio database, you could combine blade & tang this way.

[Martin Moser]

Crispus,

thanks for your detailed thought and I think you're right on! I should have taken a better look at the imagebase, it's all there :oops:

So, let's try to boil this down and discuss it from here - how about:

BLADE TYPE
- type A
- type B
- type C

TANG
- frame tang
- rod tang

GRIP
- thin organic inner plates with triangular section metal grip plates
- thicker organic inner plates covered by thin iron 'skin' either in two pieces or one piece folded over
- fully oganic grip

SHEATH
-frame sheath
-metal enclosed sheath (better wording?)
-metal front plate sheath (better wording?)

DECORATION (by Obmann's grouping)
-Group 1
-Group 2
-Group 3
-Group 4
-Special Forms

NOW KEPT
(should we have this?)

Anything else we need? Place found perhaps? Thanks for all opinions!

[Praefectusclassis]

NOW KEPT
(should we have this?)

I'd say yes, because there we put the link to the museum. Always nice to be able to say you help their promotion, even though we didn't have to. Besides, if anyone wants to see them for real, they can find out there where to go.