Baldric construction

[Tim Edwards]

I think what Brian is actually referring to is a belt plate from Chichester, not Silchester.

I have pictures, which I posted last time this topic came up. I'd be happy to do so again, but probably better to refer back to that thread:

<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=25271&hilit=chichester">viewtopic.php?f=20&t=25271&hilit=chichester<!-- l

I wholly subscribe to the Crispus' article on the carriage of weapons. I have changed my own baldric having read it. I now have a very snappy scarlet baldric with stitched edges and tinned studs, which buckles through the top two rings of my gladius scabbard.

I expect that we will soon see more evidence to support Cripus' hypothesis from the next ROMEC, judging from the current abstracts. There are several early principate military burials from eastern Europe which include substantial military panopolies, we should soon be able to see if any more buckles have been found alongside swords.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well presented hypothesis Crispus. However, to counter yourself and Brian, I have no problem passing the belt through the 'V' in my baldric, and the pommel is in my armpit? Maybe you are all too tall to be real Romans? :wink:

I have to say tha tyour arguement seems to be based on the stele showing the frontstrap ofthe baldric passing over the belt.
The rear straps are all unobservable, so any argument is really just conjecture.
The buckles could just as easily be from a cross strap, securing the sword directly to the belt, without a baldric?

[PhilusEstilius]

Tim.

Thank you for the correction of Chichester and not Silchester my mistake not serious I hope, but then in the past when a question was asked about all the beltplates that have been found with a ring on them there was a multitude of different types of answer all of course speculative.
Infact when we look at this subject we are all just speculating as indeed is Crispvs with his buckle on a baldric, there is no evidence at all of this so why put one there.
There is indeed evidence of beltplates with rings and these are extant pieces of evidence, so why have they to be pushed to one side and not considered anything to do with this subject.

[Tim Edwards]

Brian,
I agree on your point over speculation - I like to think of myself as open minded given the paucity of evidence.

I have yet to see any belt plates with rings on any extant First Century belt plate sets. If you can show me some, I will happily reconsider my opinion.

Until then I am more swayed by extant finds of small buckles in close association with swords, although with the caveat that Byron identified, that these can potentially be for attachement to belts, as opposed to baldrics.

Incidentally, I'm sure I have seen sculptural depictions of buckles on baldrics, I'll chase this up.

[Crispvs]

"so why have they to be pushed to one side and not considered anything to do with this subject."

Because they do not come from first century AD contexts and if what we are discussing is the way weapons were carried in the first century AD, then they are simply not relevant. If we were discussing mid second to early third century AD weapons carriage then they would certainly be relevant, but not here.

Crispvs

[PhilusEstilius]

Tim.

I do believe that when this subject was under discussion some time ago Peroni posted a picture of the Chichester beltplates but I don't have this picture at this time.

[PhilusEstilius]

Crispvs.
I would like to ask if you have the dates of all the beltplates that have rings on them to be able to state that none belong to the first century.
Then I must also ask just where does the evidence come from for the buckle you use at the rear suspension ring of your baldric,
For it begins to appear that your type of speculation is to override any other suggestions with regard to how a badric strap might have been used.

[Crispvs]

Brian,

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I felt my piece of speculation was any better than yours. Actually I don't. I think that your speculative method is quite possible but as the type of belt plate which features a cast ring does not as yet feature in any first century AD contexts, it has to be seen as a legitimate speculative reconstruction for a later age (mid second to early third century), in which contexts these plates certainly are found. This fact was also noted by Mike Bishop in the thread which a link has been posted to above.

If you read my post above, you will notice that I am completely open about the fact that it entirely speculation. However, it is a piece of speculation based on first century BC and first century AD evidence. I deal with this in my article on weapons carriage which can be found on the RMRS website, but I get the feeling you have not read it yet so I will repeat it here. There are three scabbards which seem to be associated with small buckles. The first is the Delos scabbard, which featured two small buckles which matched with its two suspension rings. The second is the Vindonissa sword (which you are, I believe, familiar with) which was accompanied by a small buckle. The third example is the Herculaneum soldier's scabbard, which had a small buckle adhering to it which did not appear to be associated with his belts. Now, it should be stated here that all three of these examples are likely to have been associated with waist belts rather than baldrics. However, on noting that some of the baldrics shown in sculpture are so short that they would be difficult to put on over armour, I felt that there might be scope in thinking that short baldric might have been able to be undone in order to be put on and then done up again. Having discounted the use of a fastening which would be visible on the baldric (none being shown on the sculptural evidence) and having discounted the use of a fastening on the shoulder or back as too inconvenient, I then turned to the examples of the three buckles mentioned above and theorised about how such a buckle could be employed on a short baldric without being outwardly visible. As I said, it is totally speculative but it IS speculation based on the evidence of the first century, rather than calling in the evidence of later periods to fill in gaps. I should say that I have not tried it out yet.
I hope that this illustrates for you my position vis-a-vis our respective pieces of speculation.

Crispvs

[Tarbicus]

Because they do not come from first century AD contexts and if what we are discussing is the way weapons were carried in the first century AD, then they are simply not relevant. If we were discussing mid second to early third century AD weapons carriage then they would certainly be relevant, but not here.

Crispvs, weren't they also found in a Republican context? Do you mean something like these?:
http://armillum.com/tienda/index.php?ma ... cts_id=522

One of your own posts:
<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?p=66333#p66333">viewtopic.php?p=66333#p66333<!-- l

I don't have access to Miks' book, but they're on page 245 apparently.

[Crispvs]

No, the objects in your link are the so called 'button and loop' fasteners, which are variously identified as clothing fasteners and weapons attachments. The plate Brian is talking about is a small cast rectangular plate which features a ring protruding from one of its long sides.

Incidentally, in that post you linked to, I was quoting Janka Istenic's article, so they are her words not mine. :wink:

Crispvs

[Tarbicus]

Murky buckets :wink:

[Tim Edwards]

The much vaunted Chichester belt set:

[attachment=1:12sy2v96]<!-- ia1 DSC02323.JPG<!-- ia1 [/attachment:12sy2v96]
[attachment=0:12sy2v96]<!-- ia0 DSC02324.JPG<!-- ia0 [/attachment:12sy2v96]


I have included the complete burial assemblage detail, to help us assign a date...

From Chichester Excavations 1 by Down and Rule.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

If the plate with the loop on it was found in that orientation? Perhaps it was to stop the belt falling down?

[Tim Edwards]

My own pet theory is that the panopoly belongs to a mid to late Second Century AD beneficiarius. The coin of Faustina provides a terminus post quem for the burial, whilst I think the bronze 'dagger' is in fact a stylised beneficiarius lance head used as a decorative mount on the shoulder baldric. This would also provide a good reason for this soldier being buried at a civil site.

Note also the button and loop fastener, executed in a matching style to the belt set (is it part thereof?)

[PhilusEstilius]

Byron
I would think looking at those plates the one with the ring on it is reversable of course, but then where Tim mentions a button loop fastner I can't see one that matches any beltplate.
Where these plates may be second century would anyone like to try to explain the ring on that plate and it's function.