Number of dagger belt plates 1st half 1st c.

[PhilusEstilius]

Crispvs.

Where you say that both yourself and Christian have read the Morel and Bosman article then you should also be aware that there are indeed three plates that have been bent over at their short ends and not just one.
It does indeed say that contents of the well were sifted but this was material that had been removed from the well however there may also have been material that was not removed from the well.
In fact in relation to this article there is what I would consider a mistake on the size of one of the frog plates, for when we look at the size of both frogs they are both longer than the buckle and its plate yet it states that one frog is smaller than the buckle and its plate which should give us around 44cm with them end to end and not just 42cm.
In fact as you mention yourself the "standing soldier" type stelae from the Rhineland generally show belts covered with plates, so we can't realy just take a small percentage of plates found to say that belts did not have a full compliment of plates.

[Magnus]

I don't think looking at any metopes or stele that any artist worth his salt is going to show a legionary in any negative light. That would include small details like a full set of plates on a belt, whereas in reality there may have been less. Not that I am discounting sculpture, but I would lean towards the archaeological finds in this case.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Brian,
of course you may suggest that the excavators are complete idiots who do not know their profession (which is basically what you imply), but normally as far as the excavating (not the interpreting) goes most know what they do. So they will certainly have dug down to grown ground, which is archaeology 101. This could easily be seen from the excavation drawings, stratigraphy etc.

In fact as you mention yourself the "standing soldier" type stelae from the Rhineland generally show belts covered with plates, so we can't realy just take a small percentage of plates found to say that belts did not have a full compliment of plates.

If we want to state that something was so-and-so and base reconstructions on it, then we need to come up with material evidence. We above see all complete belts from that period we could get a hold of. They all have fewer plates than most reproductions do.

Indeed the belts collected above are a small number, but so are the Rhineland stelae. That doesn´t help us, we have to go with little what we have. But for reconstructions I suggest to go with the actual artifacts before using iconography. Similarly, if there are artifacts, there is no need to go after iconography. If we did that truly, we´d dress Romans in limestone tunics.

[PhilusEstilius]

Christian.

I would like you to please show where I have suggested that excavators are complete idiots who don't know their profession, for I don't think that I have said anything that would imply that at all.
The statement about the "standing soldier" is one that I was pointing out to Crispvs that he indeed had made.
If as you say one has to put forward evidence about a belt I use the measurements given in the Morel and Bosman article, this is to say that with only a 2cm gap on most of the 8 plates found along with the gap in the frogs for the dagger we could have a 97cm belt with only around 16cm not covered. In fact if we were to also consider the three plates that have been bent over the remaining uncovered amount of belt might even be less than 16cm.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Brian, here:

for it is just as well to ask if all the plates were recovered from the well at Velsen there is no way anyone can be so sure about that.

and

however where we hear of various things that may have filtered down in the well itself there could just as easily be yet another plate or indeed two that may not have been retrieved.

and

It does indeed say that contents of the well were sifted but this was material that had been removed from the well however there may also have been material that was not removed from the well.

This is where you imply the archaeologists were not able to do their job.
If you start arguing like this you may question ANY excavation report, and any discussion about artifacts and findings based on archaeological excavation becomes futile as a consequence. Example: "The colosseum may have had an Eiffel-tower on top, the archaeologists just did not find its parts yet." Or: "Of course Ötzi had five dogs, two cows, an eagle and 27 cats with him, but they must still be in the glacier, there was not enough ice removed from it."

with only a 2cm gap on most of the 8 plates

Do the Rhineland stelae show gaps? If we want to use them as evidence for the belts, we should stick to them as well. It is not helpful to just always choose the evidence that just fits an argument.
In fact, based on both types of evidence, the argument should be:

1. Stelae show soldier belts with the front covered, no gaps
2. Complete belt finds have fewer plates than commonly thought
3. combining the evidence shows that probably only the front of the belts was covered with plates.

=> checked: Even the Herculaneum sword belt does by far not have enough plates to cover the whole thing.

Is it so hard to say goodbye to old hypotheses, or at least to consider new ones? That´s what history is about, I thought...

[PhilusEstilius]

Chriatian.

I just can't understand this but you appear to continue to have it that I implied that excavators did not know their job, when indeed all I was trying to say is that a beltplate may have been missed by excavators and not making any derogatory remarks what ever.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Brian,
that´s why I said you are implying it. Of course you didn´t use any derogatory terms. And: Of course one or ten plates MAY have been missed. But all the report and the finds hint at, is that it is not so. I see no reason to start a purely speculative debate about what may have been there, I rather suggest we look at the findings and try to find out what was going on back then. This process may incorporate dismissal of previously established views. This is so, because information and access to information are much faster year by year, and it is a normal process in historical and academical working.

[PhilusEstilius]

Christian.

Where you say we should look at the findings and what was going on back then, if we consider the Velsen plates IMO I don't think that the plates would have been touching one another. For this would make for a belt that is not flexible therefore I do think there may have been gaps between the plates as well as the larger gap for the pugio.
When we use the measurements taken from the Morel and Bosman article of these 8 plates and give a gap of only 1cm between the plates we get an area covered in plates that is just over 73cm. Therefore on a waist line of 100cm it would cover over half the waist line as viewed from the front, but then when we consider the other plates you have mentioned we would have to work out yet another configeration for so many less.

[Crispvs]

Brian,

Yes - we do have sculptural evidence, possibly supported by such finds as the belt plates found with the sword from Vindonissa for plates with gaps between, but all these examples suggest a mixture of a small number of different plates arranged along a belt.
However, when it comes to sets of belt plates which are the same as each other, again we have sculptural evidence and the evidence of finds such as that from Velsen. These finds suggest a different practice, where sets of plates were arranged together at the front of the belt. We have no evidence to support sets of similar plates extending around to the wearer's rear. Only assumptions.

So it seems that there were at least two common practices in the arrangement of military belts during the first century AD.

Thus I do not see why you feel there should be gaps in the Velsen soldier's belt. The fact that some of the Velsen plates had been deliberately shortened strongly suggests that their second owner needed them to fit within a defined space and that no space was allowed for the gaps you suggest. After all, why go to the trouble of shortening a plate if doing so made no difference to the effectiveness of the arrangement as would be the case if your proposed gaps were included.

As to your argument over flexibility, as you will know yourself as someone who makes such items, when a belt is laid flat on the ground, plates could be placed hard up against each other. This will make little difference to the flexibility of the belt as small spaces will naturally open up between the ends of the plates as the leather is bent around the wearers body. Thus any required flexibility is naturally there already so any arguments for gaps based on flexibility are little more than red herrings. Thus there is no requirement for your proposed gaps.

Crispvs

[PhilusEstilius]

Crispvs.

I would like you to explain why the bending of three of the Velsen plates leads you to assume that this was done so that the plates could be fitted so as to touch each other.

Then when you have done that would you also like to explain why you also assume that there was a second owner of the Velsen belt.

[Tarbicus]

We have the Herculaneum soldier, who had a fine set of belt plates IIRC. All I was suggesting was that if you're going for fewer plates on both belts, but want more on one belt than the other, it makes sense to put more on the belt that will be worn the most which seems to me would be the pugio belt.

You're not discussing global warming, so no need for everyone to tear each other new ones :wink:

[Rick Krause]

I'm new-ish to RAT but I thought that I would chime in on this old thread only to add that I don't think that we are accounting for the fact that our modern waist size is surely much larger than our ancient counterparts. When I use graphical software to layout a buckle, frogs and plates to scale for my waist size at 38 inches, I am able to place 8-10 plates only (the smaller number of plates are if no plates are placed beneath the apron). I take this to mean that someone with a much smaller waist (for example my waist at age 18 was 28-30 inch circumference?!), there would be 3-4 fewer plates per belt. Who knows whether the plates were left off under the apron or in the back but my guess would be that they left them off under the apron when the apron passes over the belt. This number of plates seems to agree with the numbers of plates found in the archaeological record.