03-22-2012, 04:06 AM
Brian,
of course you may suggest that the excavators are complete idiots who do not know their profession (which is basically what you imply), but normally as far as the excavating (not the interpreting) goes most know what they do. So they will certainly have dug down to grown ground, which is archaeology 101. This could easily be seen from the excavation drawings, stratigraphy etc.
If we want to state that something was so-and-so and base reconstructions on it, then we need to come up with material evidence. We above see all complete belts from that period we could get a hold of. They all have fewer plates than most reproductions do.
Indeed the belts collected above are a small number, but so are the Rhineland stelae. That doesn´t help us, we have to go with little what we have. But for reconstructions I suggest to go with the actual artifacts before using iconography. Similarly, if there are artifacts, there is no need to go after iconography. If we did that truly, we´d dress Romans in limestone tunics.
of course you may suggest that the excavators are complete idiots who do not know their profession (which is basically what you imply), but normally as far as the excavating (not the interpreting) goes most know what they do. So they will certainly have dug down to grown ground, which is archaeology 101. This could easily be seen from the excavation drawings, stratigraphy etc.
Quote:In fact as you mention yourself the "standing soldier" type stelae from the Rhineland generally show belts covered with plates, so we can't realy just take a small percentage of plates found to say that belts did not have a full compliment of plates.
If we want to state that something was so-and-so and base reconstructions on it, then we need to come up with material evidence. We above see all complete belts from that period we could get a hold of. They all have fewer plates than most reproductions do.
Indeed the belts collected above are a small number, but so are the Rhineland stelae. That doesn´t help us, we have to go with little what we have. But for reconstructions I suggest to go with the actual artifacts before using iconography. Similarly, if there are artifacts, there is no need to go after iconography. If we did that truly, we´d dress Romans in limestone tunics.
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
