+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Chichester belt plates (/showthread.php?tid=13425)
Pages:
1
2
Re: Chichester belt plates - mcbishop - 08-23-2008
Quote:Dr. Bishop wrote: "Enamelling is obviously around before the 2nd century AD but it only begins to make an appearance on military equipment in the first half of the 2nd century AD".
I agree that enameling was done before the 2nd century AD. However, (unless I am missing the point) enamel inlays appeared before the 2nd century AD on military equipmnet on items such as the Velson dagger and the "Gallic D" helmet. These items were in the first half of the first century.
Imprecise use of language on my part. Should have said (as I very nearly did at the bottom of p.244 of B&C2) 'a widespread appearance' although it might be argued that decorated dagger scabbards (with the use of silver and gold wire inlay and enamel) were heterodox and a special case as they were outwith the normal traditions of military equipment decoration (and the whys and wherefores of that can be argued till the cows come home). The Mainz-Weisenau helmet is likewise outwith the more familiar tradition of asymmetrical junk turned out by the Roman army. It is an intriguing point and one I had never really thought about before. Perhaps now I shall.
Quote:for as Mick says
Always Mike, seldom Michael, never Mick ;-)
Mike Bishop
Re: Chichester belt plates - PhilusEstilius - 08-23-2008
Im sorry about that Michael "Mike" is the English version, however I'm a Geordie.
Re: Chichester belt plates - Doc - 08-24-2008
Dr. Bishop,
Thanks for the response and clarification.