12-12-2009, 08:40 PM
Avete!
I probably shouldn't jump into this, but I'm seeing some odd interpretation of some of the evidence. These so-called "bell caps" (stupid name but I don't give a darn about that!) are apparently found in large numbers on some horse chamfrons--okay, I've never studied such things so I'll just have to accept that. They are also said to be found on 3 belts, including 2 from the UK and one from Holland. Going back through this thread, I saw the photo of the broken plate with the buckle that Brian posted (and I remember seeing a lovely reconstruction he did of the whole belt a few years back!), but I must have missed the reference to the second UK belt part find. Presumably it was a single plate, or maybe a couple plates found together?
The third find is the Velsen belt, of course. But I've just been looking through the report on that find, and I'm sorry to say that those really just look like washers to me! Reference: J.-M. A. W. Morel & A. V. A. J. Bosman: "An Early Roman Burial in Velsen", in Roman Military Equipment: The Sources of Evidence, Proceedings of the Fifth Roman Military Equipment Conference 1989.
I re-read the section describing the belt parts, and the term "bell cap" is not mentioned, nor anything like it. The washers are called "washers". On one plate they are rough rectangles, while the other 7 plates each have one or more round washers. All the round washers are slightly dished or domed, but none are shown or described as being countersunk, in fact the side view clearly shows the peened rivet ends projecting beyond the surfaces of the washers. Moreover, some of the washers are mounted hollow side in (like the so-called "bell caps"), some are hollow side OUT, which would seem to be in exact opposition to the purpose described for the "bell caps". Two of the washers have "bites" out of the edge, showing that no great care was taken in punching these out from their sheet, since the punch overlapped the hole left by the previous washers. One washer even has a stub of sheet still hanging off the edge, which to me looks like it was MADE to snag on a tunic! Bottom line: these are simple discs punched from sheet brass, their slight dishing due most likely to the hole being punched in the center.
Now, did I miss a reference to "bell caps" in this article? If so, can anyone tell me what page it's on? The Vindonissa catalog might be showing *one* example, on a piece of horse harness fitting (#1317 on Tafel 48), but none identifiable on any belt plates, etc., though there are a dozen or so washers and a number of sloppily clenched rivet shanks.
So my conclusion, based on the evidence presented, is that these gizmos were NOT in any way commonly used on military belts. But like I always say, show me the evidence to the contrary, and I will cheerfully eat my words!
Unfortunately, I have to rely on the words of experts in this field, because I have no artifacts of my own to study, and neither the funding nor the time to travel overseas to handle artifacts in museums or private collections. So I'm stuck with drawings and photos, and word of mouth. My own experience is not nearly so great, since in 20 years I've only made or helped with a good dozen reproduction Roman belts, and 6 or 8 segmented loricae. I consider myself pretty good at riveting, and with no training and pretty inadequate tools very rarely cause damage to belt plates and other items while peening rivets, using regular flat washers. The belt I usually wear has rectangular washers, and I've never noticed it snagging or tearing my tunic. Nor have I seen such damage on other tunics belonging to people in my legion, though I confess I don't inspect them THAT closely!
Like Matt Lanteigne, I'm very puzzled by the claim that it takes significantly less effort to peen a rivet shank with a so-called bell cap than over a regular washer. As he says, the shank must be peened enough to make it larger than the hole. The shape of the washer should not matter. Moreover, it is repeatedly claimed that with care, the rivet shank is countersunk into the "bell cap", and it is even mentioned that with some *filing* the finished shank will be made smooth enough not to snag on clothing or skin. But with a regular washer, no care is needed at all! Bang bang bang, and it's done. However, I have not tried these gizmos, so my observations cannot be taken as conclusive.
At some point I'll have to see if I can find pictures of the insides of those horse chamfrons. It seems odd (though very Roman!) to use such a complicated way of protecting the horse's skin from rivet shanks, when a simple lining would have done the trick. But I can hardly dispute the use of "bell caps" in that context without knowing more. I can only say that as a feature of belt construction, they must have been very much the exception--which makes sense to me since they seem to be unnecessary.
Valete,
Matthew
PS: Jurjen, please put the photos back on your tutorial! I COMPLETELY understand your disgust with the arguments, and have often felt like you, but it was good information and well-presented.
I probably shouldn't jump into this, but I'm seeing some odd interpretation of some of the evidence. These so-called "bell caps" (stupid name but I don't give a darn about that!) are apparently found in large numbers on some horse chamfrons--okay, I've never studied such things so I'll just have to accept that. They are also said to be found on 3 belts, including 2 from the UK and one from Holland. Going back through this thread, I saw the photo of the broken plate with the buckle that Brian posted (and I remember seeing a lovely reconstruction he did of the whole belt a few years back!), but I must have missed the reference to the second UK belt part find. Presumably it was a single plate, or maybe a couple plates found together?
The third find is the Velsen belt, of course. But I've just been looking through the report on that find, and I'm sorry to say that those really just look like washers to me! Reference: J.-M. A. W. Morel & A. V. A. J. Bosman: "An Early Roman Burial in Velsen", in Roman Military Equipment: The Sources of Evidence, Proceedings of the Fifth Roman Military Equipment Conference 1989.
I re-read the section describing the belt parts, and the term "bell cap" is not mentioned, nor anything like it. The washers are called "washers". On one plate they are rough rectangles, while the other 7 plates each have one or more round washers. All the round washers are slightly dished or domed, but none are shown or described as being countersunk, in fact the side view clearly shows the peened rivet ends projecting beyond the surfaces of the washers. Moreover, some of the washers are mounted hollow side in (like the so-called "bell caps"), some are hollow side OUT, which would seem to be in exact opposition to the purpose described for the "bell caps". Two of the washers have "bites" out of the edge, showing that no great care was taken in punching these out from their sheet, since the punch overlapped the hole left by the previous washers. One washer even has a stub of sheet still hanging off the edge, which to me looks like it was MADE to snag on a tunic! Bottom line: these are simple discs punched from sheet brass, their slight dishing due most likely to the hole being punched in the center.
Now, did I miss a reference to "bell caps" in this article? If so, can anyone tell me what page it's on? The Vindonissa catalog might be showing *one* example, on a piece of horse harness fitting (#1317 on Tafel 48), but none identifiable on any belt plates, etc., though there are a dozen or so washers and a number of sloppily clenched rivet shanks.
So my conclusion, based on the evidence presented, is that these gizmos were NOT in any way commonly used on military belts. But like I always say, show me the evidence to the contrary, and I will cheerfully eat my words!
Unfortunately, I have to rely on the words of experts in this field, because I have no artifacts of my own to study, and neither the funding nor the time to travel overseas to handle artifacts in museums or private collections. So I'm stuck with drawings and photos, and word of mouth. My own experience is not nearly so great, since in 20 years I've only made or helped with a good dozen reproduction Roman belts, and 6 or 8 segmented loricae. I consider myself pretty good at riveting, and with no training and pretty inadequate tools very rarely cause damage to belt plates and other items while peening rivets, using regular flat washers. The belt I usually wear has rectangular washers, and I've never noticed it snagging or tearing my tunic. Nor have I seen such damage on other tunics belonging to people in my legion, though I confess I don't inspect them THAT closely!
Like Matt Lanteigne, I'm very puzzled by the claim that it takes significantly less effort to peen a rivet shank with a so-called bell cap than over a regular washer. As he says, the shank must be peened enough to make it larger than the hole. The shape of the washer should not matter. Moreover, it is repeatedly claimed that with care, the rivet shank is countersunk into the "bell cap", and it is even mentioned that with some *filing* the finished shank will be made smooth enough not to snag on clothing or skin. But with a regular washer, no care is needed at all! Bang bang bang, and it's done. However, I have not tried these gizmos, so my observations cannot be taken as conclusive.
At some point I'll have to see if I can find pictures of the insides of those horse chamfrons. It seems odd (though very Roman!) to use such a complicated way of protecting the horse's skin from rivet shanks, when a simple lining would have done the trick. But I can hardly dispute the use of "bell caps" in that context without knowing more. I can only say that as a feature of belt construction, they must have been very much the exception--which makes sense to me since they seem to be unnecessary.
Valete,
Matthew
PS: Jurjen, please put the photos back on your tutorial! I COMPLETELY understand your disgust with the arguments, and have often felt like you, but it was good information and well-presented.
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
