04-07-2009, 03:53 PM
Regarding the closure of the girdle plates with straps and buckles, I think Bishop's thinking here was that if the Corbridge type replaced the Kalkriese type, then it must have incorporated improvements over the Kalkriese type. The hinges are of a different form but functionally they are hardly inferior. Therefore it could have been that the main improvement was in the closure system, in the same way that a major difference between the Corbridge and Newstead types is in the system of closing the girdle plates.
One thing which seems to be completely absent from assemblages of Kalkriese type fittings is tie loops such as are seen on Corbridge armour, suggesting that these were a Corbridge innovation. Nothing seemed obvious as a contender for what they had replaced but there must have been something. Bishop made two suggestions.
For his first suggestion he suggested that there was a hole at each end of each girdle plate through which a leather thong was passed. The tying together of these thongs would achieve the method of closure.
His second suggestion drew on the fact that there are so many Kalkriese type buckles in comparison with other fittings. He suggested that the strap and buckle arrangement seen on the breastplate may also have been used to close the girdle plates. This would also avoid the danger, inherent in the other suggestion, of the edges of the holes cutting through the leather thongs and thus causing the armour to gape open.
This is of course speculation on Bishop's part, but is is at least informed speculation in the absence of the necessary parts from the archaeological record to really tell us what was done. His suggestion is a 'best guess' which makes use of surviving evidence.
Regarding how much has so far been identified, apart from numerous buckles and hinges, there is of course the type-find Kalkriese breastplate, there is a mid collar plate and there is a broken end section from a main (three plate) shoulder plate. As far as I know that is still about it.
Crispvs
One thing which seems to be completely absent from assemblages of Kalkriese type fittings is tie loops such as are seen on Corbridge armour, suggesting that these were a Corbridge innovation. Nothing seemed obvious as a contender for what they had replaced but there must have been something. Bishop made two suggestions.
For his first suggestion he suggested that there was a hole at each end of each girdle plate through which a leather thong was passed. The tying together of these thongs would achieve the method of closure.
His second suggestion drew on the fact that there are so many Kalkriese type buckles in comparison with other fittings. He suggested that the strap and buckle arrangement seen on the breastplate may also have been used to close the girdle plates. This would also avoid the danger, inherent in the other suggestion, of the edges of the holes cutting through the leather thongs and thus causing the armour to gape open.
This is of course speculation on Bishop's part, but is is at least informed speculation in the absence of the necessary parts from the archaeological record to really tell us what was done. His suggestion is a 'best guess' which makes use of surviving evidence.
Regarding how much has so far been identified, apart from numerous buckles and hinges, there is of course the type-find Kalkriese breastplate, there is a mid collar plate and there is a broken end section from a main (three plate) shoulder plate. As far as I know that is still about it.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
