Different cingulum configuration.

[John M McDermott]

In Russell Robinson's book, "The Armour of Imperial Rome", pp 166 plate 466 shows a different configuration for the cingulum. Instead of the aprons extending down from the belt, they "grow" out of the belt strap itself. I have seen this in several other places. The plate is from the second half of the 1st Century BC.

Anyone tried doing this or know of anyone who has?

Anyone who has opinions about it, strong or otherwise?

John

[jvrjenivs]

I don't have my copy of RR here, but I think you mean this:


belt by Adrian Wink.

[Peroni]

I think John means the type seen on the Gnaeus Musius Stele. This is dated to mid First C AD.
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

I made a belt for one of our guys like this.

See "The Early Imperial 'Apron' By Mike Bishop. (JRMES 3 1992) Downloadable as .pdf from Mike's website.

[John M McDermott]

I don't have my copy of RR here, but I think you mean this:


belt by Adrian Wink.

Yes, this is beautiful work. Is this yours?

[John M McDermott]

I think John means the type seen on the Gnaeus Musius Stele. This is dated to mid First C AD.
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

The venerable Robinson says 1st century B.C. Perhaps an error in print? Any strong ideas about what period it is limited to?

John

[jvrjenivs]

Yes, this is beautiful work. Is this yours?

No, it is from Ade. He posted it in the topic about layered cingulum construction I started some time ago. I want to do just this style as well some time in the future, but first I've to make 5 other belts.

[PhilusEstilius]

The belt shown by Jurjen is of course a good looking belt, however it is not the same fashion as that worn by Gnaeus Museus. It only has one strap that is used in the buckle where as the Museus straps can be changed around each time the belt is worn, therefore I think that all we see in the Museus belt is a type that can stand up to a 5 or 6 times longer period of wear on the pin holes.

[John M McDermott]

Brian,

Any strong opinions at to when these were limited to?

John

[PhilusEstilius]

John.
I'm not sure we can put a true date on this kind of belt in any particular century or even if it can be considered as an apron at all, for when we look at the pic' that Arian has shown those two belts confirm my thoughts as to simply longer life of a belt giving a soldier a 4 or 5 times belt and braces ( suspenders )type facility.
It's also hard to understand if the Mike Bishop reference of early Inperial apron given by Adrian is indeed the belts he shows in that line drawing, for these cannot be called an apron as we would normaly consider it to be.

[Crispvs]

Brian,

To my eyes it is exactly the same kind of arrangement as is seem on the Gnaeus Musius stele. The end of the belt is divided into four straps and one of these passes through the buckle while the other three simply hang down. You might be right about the other three straps being capable of being used instead of the one we see being used but I can't see any evidence of holes preserved in the straps shown on the stele to support the idea. In addition to this, if the purpose of the other straps was to act as a backup for a possible breakage of the one being used, why opt for such an arrangement in the first place? A single wider strap would have been stronger and thus better, following the same logic. The individual 'apron' straps shown on Cn, Musius' stele appear to have been sculpted deliberately to show them as thinner than the rest of the belt, so then it is obviously an aesthetic matter rather than one of pure practicality.

The Cn. Musius stele is securely datable to the second quarter of the first century AD by the way, based on the known periods of occupation at Mainz by Legio XIIII and the nomenclature shown on the stele, which does not include the honourific titles 'Martia' and 'Victrix', which were granted following the XIIII's victory over Boudicca in AD61. This means that Cn. Musius' stele must date to before the XIIII took part in the invasion of Britain in AD43, rather than their later period of occupation in the late AD60s.

Crispvs

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Interesting belt configuration, are there any other contemporary depictions of it online ?

M.VIB.M.

[PhilusEstilius]

crispvs.

Where you say that in your eyes it is exactly the same arrangement as in the Gnaeus Musius stele, are we to take it you are refering to the belt shown by Jurjen. If so I can't see where you make this distinction for the belt shown by Jurjen is a belt made from pieces of leather stitched together, where the strap going to the buckle comes from the top layer of stitched leather where as the other straps are coming from the under layer.

The Musius belt however is made from one piece of thicker leather with all four straps coming from the one piece, then where you suggest that to make it stronger by only having a thicker strap would of course call for a larger buckle.
The point I was making is that all belts become worn in the area of the buckle pin hole ( even wider ones ) and the style shown in the Musius belt and the ones shown by Adrian can have four times the useage as a single strap type.

Where you also say you cannot see evidence of any holes in the straps is where Roman sculptors did not always show such details. Infact with even many very fine pieces of artwork such as the Corbridge Lanx or the Mildenhall great dish we find that many things are not always completed as we would imagine they should be it's just that a statement is made and it is not necessary for all things to be completed.

[Crispvs]

Brian,

"I can't see where you make this distinction for the belt shown by Jurjen is a belt made from pieces of leather stitched together, where the strap going to the buckle comes from the top layer of stitched leather where as the other straps are coming from the under layer."

Well, as I see it, in the case of the Musius belt the belt divides into four narrower straps, one of which passes through the buckle. The same arrangement is to be seen on a number of other representations of belts, most of which can be seen here:
http://www.jrmes.org.uk/vol03.htm

The belt made by Peronis, shown in Jurjen's photo has this same arrangement. As you say, the narrower straps are stitched on whereas this cannot be seen in the sculptures, but here you must acknowledge your own point that fine detail like this is often absent from sculptures, so we have no way of knowing whether the belt depicted on Cn. Musius' stele was made of one piece or several anyway.
Your point about wear on the holes in the belt is a good one and I do accept your point that the four straps might allow the wearer to change from a worn strap to a fresh one to prolong the life of the belt.

"Roman sculptors did not always show such details. Infact with even many very fine pieces of artwork such as the Corbridge Lanx or the Mildenhall great dish we find that many things are not always completed as we would imagine they should be"

I agree with you absolutely here, and in fact this is actually a point I have made many times myself. My mention of not seeing the holes was actually along these lines: you can't see them as this degree of detail is absent (and indeed is often absent from sculpture) but therefore you cannot draw such definite conclusions from the sculpture either. I agree with you about the strength of the overall impression. When I was lucky enough to see the Corbridge Lanx up close a few years ago I was struck first and foremost by the simplicity and yet effectiveness of the overall composition, rather than anything else.

Crispvs

[PhilusEstilius]

crispvs.
I have to agree as you say we can't say for sure how the Musius belt is put together, however I do at least think it shows it did have beltplates, but then very like the ones also shown by Adrian I can't consider this style as being an apron.
I hope that John and others will forgive me if I go off topic just a while to ask, where you mention you were lucky to see the Corbridge Lanx up close, just how close was that ?
I have to ask for this particular piece of Roman artwork is a thing that I have studied now for decades, and indeed if I ever manage to get hold of the correct silver sheet needed I intend to reproduce it and also publish the article I'm writing on it.
The reason I also mentioned the Mildenhall Great Dish is that if we study them both we find that they both have part of the same repousse' technique used in them.

[Crispvs]

Brian,

I was doing a cycle trip along Hadrian's Wall back in 1999, stopping in at as many of the Roman sites as I could along the way. When I stopped in at Corbridge, it just happened to be at the same time as the Corbridge Lanx was making a very rare appearance on display in the museum there. It was nestling within a luxurious piece of deep blue velvet cloth in a small temporary cabinet and the glass was only three to four inches away from the lanx itself. I had only read of the lanx previously and had never seen a picture of it until that time so I was quite struck by it. However, as I said, what really struck me more than anything else was the compositional arrangement, and it was this which I really took away with me, rather than the admittedly very fine workmanship of the piece.

Crispvs