Late Roman chip carved buckle question

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, the plate I have is quite close to 1mm, the edges are very thin.
They seem to have been very capable. :-)

[markusaurelius]

So these two close up examples of two chip carved plates support the mould vs. actual chip carved theory? Was the mould that precise that the chisel marks from the mould transferred to the cast object with such precision? Seems a little hard to believe.....especially with all of the fine detail that would need to be cleaned out of the cast item.


[attachment=5901]AN00568581_001_l.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=5902]AN00568603_001_l.jpg[/attachment]

[caiusbeerquitius]

Was the mould that precise that the chisel marks from the mould transferred to the cast object with such precision? Seems a little hard to believe

Hi, from my experience in casting this is not hard to believe at all. Even a well made sand form would keep such detail, no problem at al with clay.

[Crispianus]

Some castings show surviving marking out lines see the nasal "The Anglian Helmet from Coppergate" d.tweedle.
As to what material was used for the master its difficult to say, the raw beeswax I have (bought directly from the beekeeper from several different sources and regions over the years) really seems too soft for such a thin piece coupled with the low melting point as the wax will turn very soft in the hand, though boiling the wax may make some difference.
So I would suggest lead/alloy for the original which I think would be inline with the chatter mark effect in the carving, the marks could also be the effect of rough cleaning up after casting perhaps from a scraper with too sharp an angle on it, some of the detail looks punched this could be done in a white metal master but its more likely done after casting in bronze.
As to the thinness of the casting pre-heating the mould would help the flow of metal, and the marks surviving in the original I think a good fine clay would work well enough to preserve any fine detail.

A scale might be usefull on the pics :-)

[Thomas V.]

Thread necromancy...

So I would suggest lead [..].

In the context of the manufacturing of late Roman belts, in Gallische Höhensiedlungen und germanische Söldner im 4./5. Jahrhundert Böhme mentions a lead model of a triangular belt loop decorated with rim animals. Triangular belt loops decorated with rim animals are distinctive of chip carved belts of the Chécy type. Late Roman chip carved belts not only consisted of belt loops, obviously, but nonetheless said lead model corroborates your assumption. So maybe late Roman chip carved belts were manufactured by pressing leaden masters into a two-piece mould or by "lost-lead casting"?

[Thomas V.]

Hello,

I just came across the following find:
[attachment=10010]LeadModelUrach.jpg[/attachment].

According to Rainer Christlein, it is a "leaden model of a workpiece (probably belt part) with chip-carving decoration". Martina Paul omits the "probably" and claims that the find from the "Runder Berg" was a lead model of a belt part.

Given the shape (long rectangular), size (remaining length: 4,1 cm) and the decoration (geometrical chip-carving, swastikas), it is highly probable that the find pictured above is a leaden model of a belt part belonging to a chip-carved belt set of the Vieuxville-type.

It seems that the masters of chip-carved belts indeed were made of lead.