Late Roman belt

[Caballo]

Really good discussion- but I disagree that the belt is a fashion item. It is a part of the insignia of a Roman official/ soldier and so is more a status identifier than a pure fashion item. It means that you are part of the hierachy. As evidence, look at the repairs done on teh Dorchester belt buckle. Practically, it would make more sense to discard it and melt the metal down- but the owner wanted to preserve the belt itself- implying to me that it had a symbolic value separate from the practical value.

In battle, this status could be seen by the gilded helmet/ quality of armour/ quality of sword etc rather than the belt. Similarly, today's army officers wear different belts and insignia when off duty or on parade than in action in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

However, I don't buy the silvered nature of a belt as an indicator that it wasn't used in action. There is a long tradition in the Roman army of wearing silvered (and gilded) items on the field.

On the other hand, I see the Armerina mosaic as a sash, not a belt. But some of the other statues do seem to indicate a belt could worn over armour.

So, I'm still on the fence on this one, but its really got me thinking and questioning accepted practises.

And I've have to agree that "the vast majority of depictions of things that are definately 4th century wide belt sets are shown being worn over tunics."