Late Roman belt

[Medicus matt]

Whilst I see the logic in your argument couldn't you also postulate that in a possession poor society you're not going to leave your valuable goods such as a knife, coinage etc behind in your baggage but actually want it with you.

What happens if the battle goes badly and you have to beat a hasty retreat or are separated from your baggage train or camp, you've lost all those vital bits and pieces which would be useful e.g. tinder box, coinage and other trinkets and personal valuables. Hence doesn't a belt seem the easiest way to carry them?

Counter argument.

Scenario 1.
I'm Limitanei. I'm billeted in a house or barracks. I have a chest with a lock on it to keep my valuables in. If I go out to fight, I'm home by tea time.

Scenario 2. I'm in the field army. I live in a tent (or I'm billeted on some unfortunate local). I have a chest with a lock on it to keep my valuables in. If I go out to fight, I don't want lots of dangly crap hanging off my belt, getting in the way and giving the other bloke something to grab onto. If the battle goes so badly wrong that we don't get to surrender in a civilised manner and reclaim our baggage etc then I've got worse things to worry about than the few coins I might have taken with me or being able to start a fire.

Anyway, I'm not really disputing that you might have a few essentials with you in the field, in a drawstring pouch stuffed inside your tunic (which is where any sensible person keeps their money), just not suspended from one of those belts. I love them, but I'm not convinced that they highly decorated examples with stuff dangling from them were worn on the battlefield.
Many, many small drawstring pouches have come out of the Illerup bog, containing combs, fire lighting kit, bits of shiny stuff...all stuff being carried by a defeated army.