04-01-2009, 10:07 PM
Hi!
None of the deepeeka belts is early Augustan. The pelta-shaped buckles have a terminus ante quem non through Dangstetten, so are not usable for the period you are interested in. Same for frogs in combination with plates. Look into the Dangstetten publications for Buckles and such. If you look at the centurion´s tombstone posted above: The belt looks like it is of layered construction, indicated by the thin lines on it. Look into Jurjen´s thread about double-layered belts. The tombstone will also help you with the frog-problem: If you use this way of suspension you´ll not need the frogs.
The earliest types of the concentric-ring-pattern plates are from Haltern, IIRC, so not usable for you as well. Again, I don´t think belts from this period had plates at all. There are none to be seen on the Domitius-ara or on the tombstone I talked about, or on any other of the earlyer depictions AFAIK.
None of the deepeeka belts is early Augustan. The pelta-shaped buckles have a terminus ante quem non through Dangstetten, so are not usable for the period you are interested in. Same for frogs in combination with plates. Look into the Dangstetten publications for Buckles and such. If you look at the centurion´s tombstone posted above: The belt looks like it is of layered construction, indicated by the thin lines on it. Look into Jurjen´s thread about double-layered belts. The tombstone will also help you with the frog-problem: If you use this way of suspension you´ll not need the frogs.
The earliest types of the concentric-ring-pattern plates are from Haltern, IIRC, so not usable for you as well. Again, I don´t think belts from this period had plates at all. There are none to be seen on the Domitius-ara or on the tombstone I talked about, or on any other of the earlyer depictions AFAIK.
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
