Wearing of belts

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

A detail of the belts (posted in other earlier posts.. :oops: )

[Cacaius]

Probably roman belts were more flexible, being made usually of two layers of goat leather, not one side of thick cow leather as our belts.

Where can I read about that ? Its interesting ....
Are there many findings saying that Romans mostly did like that =
two layers of goat leather for a belt.

I have a lot of goat leather at home

[Cacaius]

Does anybody can help to find it :

Grew, Francis; Griffiths, Nick. 'The Pre-Flavian Military Belt : the Evidence from Britain'. Archaeologia, 109 (1991), 47-84

in pdf version or in paper ? I would like to read it.


I have related question to the subject o wearing belts .

I know that niello decorated cast bronze plates are mostly for begining of 1st c. AD .. and that embossed mostly for flavian times.

But I have no idea how late in 1st. c. AD niello decorated plates can be in use ? .. and what can be percentage of niello and embossed belts in army for 80-90 AD impression.

Can you recommend me any articles that I could read about that ?

Cacaius

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Nothing! I have don't have so many material as Byron... :lol: but i have some kinds of armour, belts and helmets, and so, i have to make some "rotation" to can wear all of them. When i don't wear some piece of equipment, some comrade of Germanica do.

I don't have a squamata....
or 2 belts....([size=75:g02ovo95]yet[/size])

So a wider belt with one such as the style Lucius or myself has would be ok too I imagine?
I am sure there is a relief that depicts a narrow and wide belt at the same time....

[Robert Vermaat]

A detail of the belts (posted in other earlier posts.. :oops: )

Ah, great material, drool......

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Thanks, Robert.

In other way, i want to know if the nielloed plates were originally chased, engraved from the base, or wax lost casted.

If there were chased, why the backing is not deformed? Any pictures of the back side of the plate.

[Crispvs]

Type 'A' and 'B' plates are found together on many sites, indicating that they were contemporary with each other. It is tempting to think that type 'A' plates may have entered service first, given that there are plain type 'A' plates from Kalkriese and Velson, but the niello inlaid type 'A' plates seem to be absolutely contemporary with (normally) embossed type 'B' plates, which tend to be somewhat wider and feature a central motif of some sort. These plate types seem to have been going out of fashion during Flavian times, being replaced in the archaeological record with openwork or enamelled plates.

Crispvs

[PhilusEstilius]

I think that to try to classify particular types of beltplates into use and period might be like trying to walk thin ice, there used to be those who said that the lorica segmentata only came into being around the mid first century until excavations at the Kalkriese proved otherwise. Indeed in another subject some one was asking if a Mianz sword could be used with a Pompeii style belt or does it have to be the Pompeii style sword, who in the world can answer that one. I think it boils down to the old saying that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and we should not take at face value all that is written.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think that to try to classify particular types of beltplates into use and period might be like trying to walk thin ice, ....n.

or like trying to herd cats.....

[Crispvs]

Brian,

You make some good points and certainly we cannot be absolutley sure about anything. However, when we consistently find two items in the same archaeological context we can be fairly sure that they were used contemporaneously, although it does not tell us which was introduced first or fell out of use first. Because of this we use termini anti quem and and termini post quem, but trends are often visible. If a site is known to begin at a certain date and one type of item is present but not another which was previously associated with it, the terminus post quem for the missing item, if it it found on no other site dating to that time, is some time prior to the founding of that site. That does not rule out its use, but it does mean we have no evidence for its use in that period. If at the same time, a new type of item is consistently found in sites with the later date which is not found on sites of earlier dates but fulfills the same function as items found in earlier contexts then it is reasonable to assign it the same role and give it as terminus anti quem of the founding date of the earliest site it appears on. If new evidence emerges to change the picture so much the better, but until that happens we must rely on the evidence we have. If undecorated type 'A' plates turn up in contexts datable to early in the 1st century AD but not in later contexts, while type 'B' plates and inlaid type 'A' plates are found in later contexts but not undecorated plates and then, further that contexts datable to the last quarter of the first century shows no evidence of either type 'A' or type 'B' plates but does show evidence of openwork plates and enamelled plates, then we do not know that all five of these plate types were not used throughout the first century, but the picture we are given does tell us at least that plain type 'A' plates were in use during the early part of the century, that both type 'B' plates and decorated type 'A' plates were in used during the middle of the century and that both openwork and enamelled plates were in use during latter part of the century. That much, at least, is not controversial.

It is true, as you say, that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but a reliance on contextual information is a very good guide to getting at least an incomplete picture of reality rather than a complete picture of an artificial construct, as can be gained from some books and particularly webites. Contexts can give us vital information which the items themselves (in a picture in a book or cabinet in a museum for instance)cannot, so examination of the items outside their original stratigraphic and geographic context it laden with potential gulfs in vital information which their original context would have provided. Thus adherance to the original contexts of finds (where known) allowed Grew and Griffiths in 1991 to make very accurate assessments of plate chronologies and produce termini anti quem and termini post quem. If you haven't read their article I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Finally, I know that you know most of what I have said here already but I am also aware that other people will be 'lurking' here and will take lessons from what they read here.

Regards

Crispvs

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Crispus,

The belt plates from Vindonissa are all of the first half of first century? There are a lot of them!! More than decorated ones...

Another matter with stratigraphical contexts is that you can find some material in a layer that is not in use in the moment of formation.

With pottery happens frequently. We found lots of pottery in layers with datation of formation very later than the ceramics itself.

The datation is alway given by the later item. If we have two belt paltes, one augustean and one flavian, the layer is flavian or posterior.

[Crispvs]

There are several different styles from Vindonissa. Certainly the vast majority are of the types which seem to have been in use during the middle third (or thereabouts) of the first century AD, but there are other types present there which match with examples from later contexts elsewhere. Since Grew and Griffiths published their article I have never seen anyone challenge their conclusions.

Another point worth considering, given the vast number of plates of certain types from Vindonissa, is that the fortress seems to have been host to different units at different (and sometime the same) times. As more evidence emerges from different sites and as practicioners of more disciplines start sharing information with each other a picture is steadily emerging of differences in the paraphenalia of different units. We know, for instance, that particluar styles of pottery can be identified with particular units and there are strong indications of a particular helmet type and cresting arrangement being used by the two Adiutrix legions. It has also been pointed out elsewhere that in Britain, figural type 'B' belt plates have only been found in places where the Legio II Augusta is known to have operated, although the stamp from Colchester Sheepen suggests use or at least manufacturing by Legio XX. We also know that particular units favoured particular styles of building, such as the known practice of Legio XIIII of building barrack blocks where the centurio's quarters were separated from the rest of the block by a corridor (or perhaps it was a completely separate building). Interstingly, belt plates are seldom found at sites associated only with Legio XIIII, suggesting that their use may not have been as widespread with this unit.
The predominance of the plates of one period over those of another at a site such as Vindonissa may indicate a number of things, but one certainly worthy of consideration is that some units who were stationed there may have made much greater use of belt plates than other units stationed there at different times. Equally, some units may have used better methods for attaching plates to belts than others.

Crispvs

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

or like trying to herd cats.....

That might be hard for a rookie, but not for a pro - see here

[Cacaius]

Hello

So as I see it can be still quite probable that the legio from 80 -90 AD will use more belts with type A, decorated plates, then type B embossed pieces .... also because its fabricae was still preferring this style the most, or had longer traditions to make this style and no the other ?

So if my group will use mostly decorated type A for the 80-90 AD impression, it is not so unhistorically correct as I thought before ?

This is very important question for me since I have almost 20 recruits in my group, and no one has a belt yet. I dont want to make any mistake in this expensive subject.

[Peroni]

A lot of the Vindonissa type A plates are also mirrored in finds in the UK. The Colchester/Vindonissa link springs to mind in particular.

Also..

Also bear in mind that two belts worn together do not have to be worn 'cowboy' style, as demonstrated by this gentleman from Cologne:

http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

Don't the plates on these belts look the same as the Facilis stele? :wink:
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/