RomanArmyTalk

Today I have reviewed my collection. There this a "concentric-circle-Cingulum-plate" too (how I have to write it in English??????) which has attracted my attention.

This kind of attachement I didn't know yet!

What do you mean about?


upper side

underside

It appears to have a central hole for a rivet decoration (now lost).

Is the attachement in this kind of a "tongue" well known?

Quote:It appears to have a central hole for a rivet decoration (now lost).

Isn't it strange that the central hole is such little in comperation to the "tongue"-attachement?

P.S.: The central hole is just about 1.7 mm in diameter

The fasteners are of a split-pin type, and judging from the fact that they are in-situ, they must have been attached to something thin such as leather.

The central hole is small, but this is not too uncommon.

I see it uses the "split-pin" rivet attachment method! oops:

How common have these "split-pins" been?

I first heard of them mentioned by Tarbicus or Peroni relating to Scutum boss fasteners, but considering how common they are today, it is no surprise to me that the Romans would have used them regularly!

I remember that kind of split-rivets used in the atachment of a helmet part (a handle).

That reminds me of the belt plates I use, except mine has a 2nd concentric ring inside the larger one. Not based on any particular find mind you.

Quote:I remember that kind of split-rivets used in the atachment of a helmet part (a handle).

I have one in my collection (probably from furniture though)
65mm wide with pins approx. 25 - 30mm

Split pins seem to have been the common method to attach handles to chests etc., see e.g. Riha, Emilie. Kästchen, Truhen, Tische - Möbelteile aus Augusta Raurica. Forschungen in Augst, Band 31. Verlag Römermuseum Augst (Augst 2001).

Quote:Split pins seem to have been the common method to attach handles to chests etc., see e.g. Riha, Emilie. Kästchen, Truhen, Tische - Möbelteile aus Augusta Raurica. Forschungen in Augst, Band 31. Verlag Römermuseum Augst (Augst 2001).

It is indeed a box fitting in all likelihood, rather than a belt plate. It is of course impossible to be certain without seeing the thing, but it is definitely not saying 'I am a belt plate' to me.

Could I just ask, once again, that if people are going to post artefacts they give some indication of scale/size (either a photographed or scanned scale in the picture - even a coin will do) or written dimensions in millimetres (not inches).

Mike Bishop

Quote:but it is definitely not saying 'I am a belt plate' to me.

Even with the small measurement between the plate and the bifurcated ends of the pins? Wouldn't a box be constructed of thicker wood than what looks like about 2-3mm?

Leather maybe. Wood that thin on a box??? :?

Thank you very much for your committed discussion about my artefact!

What I definitely can say is that IT IS a belt plate!

It has been found with several more identical plates "in-situ".

dimensions:
plate: 51 mm x 55 mm (? additive completed)
circle (outside): 34 mm
between the plate and the bifurcated ends of the pins: 2.7 mm and less