new armour find

[Anonymous]

Link;forums.swordforum.com/sho...adid=42450<br>
<br>
FYI <p></p><i></i>

[Matthew Amt]

Ave!<br>
<br>
Actually, we've been talking about bits of this find for a couple years on RAT--it's the Carlisle Millenium site find. The conference to unveil it all from its cloak of secrecy was this past weekend:<br>
<br>
p200.ezboard.com/fromanar...1146.topic<br>
<br>
We're definitely looking forward to more details!<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
<br>
Matthew/Quintus <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

What are the chances of images being published anytime soon ? <p></p><i></i>

[Crispvs]

In case anyone hasn't been looking at the Carlisle conference today thread, planty of leather was found but no actual straps to articulate the armguards, although these survived as the usual rusty imprints often to be seen on horse gear. The armour was deposited when still articulated, giving an accurate, if slightly squashed, picture of the size and form of these pieces. As has been noted elsewhere, the armour appeared to have suffered battle damage and it was pointed out that each item was actually made up of the recycled remnants of several others. Mike Bishop suggested that it may have been deposited rather than further re-used due to the Romans feeling that there was no further life to be got out of these pieces which had clearly lived several lives already.<br>
The highlight for many though, was the illustration of a piece of wood which shows Peter Connolly's saddle frame to be correct. Saddle covers which were also illustrated revised Connolly's interpretaion of the leather component of the saddle. These covers were more complete than other previously identified covers and featured large fringed leather curtains which hung down from the bottom of each side of the saddle cover, which meant that the leather could not have been sewn under as had previously been thought, but must instead have been pulled over and held by the four saddle horns. Needless to say, Peter Connolly was thrilled to finally be vindicated on his reconstruction of the frame and was equally pleased that someone had updated his reconstruction of the leather attachment with something concrete.<br>
It was also revealed that the first building of the fort had used alder and ash wood, which is thought to have been plentiful in the area of the river the fort stood next to and could have come from clear felling of the area immediately surrounding the fort to create clear lines of sight. When it was rebuilt a few years later the fort was built almost entirly of oak, which is much longer lasting than alder or ash, and which suggests that when they first built the Carlisle fort the Romans took the most readily available timber around the immediate area of the fort rather than venturing into potentially dangerous woodland in hostile territory. Only ten years or so later (it may even have been five - I don't clearly remember) they used oak, which suggests that they were now able to wander at will (and presumably with much less risk of hostile action) around the woodland to seek out and select the best building material for the fort, rather than just the most convenient. The oak fort, rather than being demolished when Hadrian's Wall was built, as had previously been thought, continued in use for centuries more, despite a new fort only a few miles away at Stanwix. This parallels Vindolanda's proximity to Housesteads and similar situations along the German limes. With Stanwix being slightly closer to the frontier than Carlisle, the role of the latter appears to have changed, although in exactly what way is still unknown, although it is possible that it performed a support role for supply and repairs.<br>
I hope this sheads a little light on the Carlisle conference.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>