Question for Graham...Deurne shoe

[Martin Moser]

I agree with Crispus. See the thin parts of some preserved caliga, it's ilogical it have been so thin originally.

Late answer, sorry, but I beg to differ :-) )

IMHO it would be illogical for the leather to have shrunk so much in one dimension (width) only. Some originals quite clearly show 3-4 mm thick leather straps which are less than 5mm wide and of a somewhat to be expected, normal length. Now why on earth should they have shrunk a lot in width and obviously only a little bit in thickness and length? even then, allowing for 30% shrinkage (quite a lot!) e.g., the original of a now 4mm wide strap would still only have been 6mm (or 5mm with 20% shrinkage, 4.5mm with 10%) - still on the thin side.
Then there is e.g. the Cancelleria relief, showing caligae which look a lot like the finds and feature exactly the same, thin straps. Also, there are finds that show that those straps did break - and were replaced by quite thin ones again.

OTOH, there is only one depiction of a caliga (low-cut, below ankle bone) with the very broad straps so commonly seen on many modern reproductions that I'm aware of, showing a civilian worker on a late 2nd/early 3rd cent. relief (from Neuss IIRC).