01-03-2013, 10:49 AM
As I'm beginning work on a Late Roman belt, I thought I would put forward my conclusion in regards to the belt plate placement. I know there has been much said over time regarding their placements etc., however I do believe that the key in this whole matter are the rivets attached to the plates (to determine leather thickness). This IMO can give one some logical plate placements, and easily eliminate other layouts that have been presented in the past. both here on RAT, at museums and literature. Part of the difficulty has been a lack of recent work on these belts, and access to complete sets with the majority of their rivets intact (many are found without the rivets)
Interestingly enough my conclusion that the belt plates were placed to the right of the buckle based on my analysis of an original set of plate rivets, was ultimately and coincidentally supported with prior independent research. I noticed that many sources on Late Roman belt plate were referencing material written by Horst BOHME "Geranische Grabfunde Des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts" . I picked up this book, and although in German it has an extensive study of this period, and has a large section on these belts. The argued reconstruction is as follows:
[attachment=6180]Belt-reconstruction.jpg[/attachment]
When I looked further at the references for that reconstruction I found that it was based on a detailed study of a large number of grave finds and belt pieces by J.YPEY "Zur Tragweise fruhfrankische Gurtelgarniturn auf grund niderlandische befunde" 1969. YPEY used a detailed analysis of the length of the rivets on the belt plates to make a logical reconstruction.
Up to this point, this along with my own research was the only material I found that actually tried to support the layout with some empirical data. Everyone else seemed to simply copy museum layouts, other authors etc.
Below is a long winded, yet detailed explanation of the analysis of the rivet lengths(and therefore leather thickness) of an original belt set (as seen in the photo below).
Analysis
When the two triangular plates are laid out on this belt set, they clearly indicate thicker leather than the main buckle piece. Also the one end of one triangular plate has very small gaps in the rivets (more than 1/2 as thick).
This can be logically explained by a system where by the main leather belt goes around the body and has the main buckle plate attached at one end.
Near to the part where the leather ends would join again, a second piece of leather is added. This leather piece runs along in behind the second and continues to act as a "backing" to the where the two belt ends join at the buckle.
The first triangular buckle attaches through both these two layers of leather (4 rivets). The second triangular plate attached through both layers (2) at the beginning (2 rivets), and then only through the top layer, which has now been cut and shaped to the plate and forms the long tie section with the attaching decoration tip. This section then feed through the opening in the buckle plate (from behind) and then continued on through the vertical slide then looping over/around the main belt as in sculptural/pictorial evidence suggests.
I also suggested a division in the top layer of leather between the two triangular belt plates, which differs slightly from YPEY reconstruction. I did this because I felt that the curled over end portion would interfere with attaching to the leather, if they did not overhang the edge, like the main buckle plate rounded end does. This I believe would also allow a natural crease to occur at that location allowing for the belt to curve to the rounded mid section. I also proposed that the original belt plates I looked at had the one triangular belt plate 2 end rivets only go through the first layer of leather (due to the rivet thickness). I think this would also allow that section to flex outward from the belt, again increasing flex in feeding that thin strip through the buckle.
[attachment=6181]BeltSetupdiagram.jpg[/attachment]
I'll let you know how my reconstruction follows once I work on having belt plates made.....
Interestingly enough my conclusion that the belt plates were placed to the right of the buckle based on my analysis of an original set of plate rivets, was ultimately and coincidentally supported with prior independent research. I noticed that many sources on Late Roman belt plate were referencing material written by Horst BOHME "Geranische Grabfunde Des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts" . I picked up this book, and although in German it has an extensive study of this period, and has a large section on these belts. The argued reconstruction is as follows:
[attachment=6180]Belt-reconstruction.jpg[/attachment]
When I looked further at the references for that reconstruction I found that it was based on a detailed study of a large number of grave finds and belt pieces by J.YPEY "Zur Tragweise fruhfrankische Gurtelgarniturn auf grund niderlandische befunde" 1969. YPEY used a detailed analysis of the length of the rivets on the belt plates to make a logical reconstruction.
Up to this point, this along with my own research was the only material I found that actually tried to support the layout with some empirical data. Everyone else seemed to simply copy museum layouts, other authors etc.
Below is a long winded, yet detailed explanation of the analysis of the rivet lengths(and therefore leather thickness) of an original belt set (as seen in the photo below).
Analysis
When the two triangular plates are laid out on this belt set, they clearly indicate thicker leather than the main buckle piece. Also the one end of one triangular plate has very small gaps in the rivets (more than 1/2 as thick).
This can be logically explained by a system where by the main leather belt goes around the body and has the main buckle plate attached at one end.
Near to the part where the leather ends would join again, a second piece of leather is added. This leather piece runs along in behind the second and continues to act as a "backing" to the where the two belt ends join at the buckle.
The first triangular buckle attaches through both these two layers of leather (4 rivets). The second triangular plate attached through both layers (2) at the beginning (2 rivets), and then only through the top layer, which has now been cut and shaped to the plate and forms the long tie section with the attaching decoration tip. This section then feed through the opening in the buckle plate (from behind) and then continued on through the vertical slide then looping over/around the main belt as in sculptural/pictorial evidence suggests.
I also suggested a division in the top layer of leather between the two triangular belt plates, which differs slightly from YPEY reconstruction. I did this because I felt that the curled over end portion would interfere with attaching to the leather, if they did not overhang the edge, like the main buckle plate rounded end does. This I believe would also allow a natural crease to occur at that location allowing for the belt to curve to the rounded mid section. I also proposed that the original belt plates I looked at had the one triangular belt plate 2 end rivets only go through the first layer of leather (due to the rivet thickness). I think this would also allow that section to flex outward from the belt, again increasing flex in feeding that thin strip through the buckle.
[attachment=6181]BeltSetupdiagram.jpg[/attachment]
I'll let you know how my reconstruction follows once I work on having belt plates made.....
![[Image: websitepic.jpg]](http://www.roman-artifacts.com/files/websitepic.jpg)
