The reconstruction of the Kemathen warrior was made in the late 90`s and in that time they only thought it possible to be a baldric .But there is a little problem about this type of fixing the scabbard to the belt (the scabbard is clamped between the main belt which also passes through the ridge on the scabbard and a shorter one on the back. these parts are fixed by the silver rivets). the reconstruction so far is based on the finds of Krefeld-Gellep 43 and the position of the silver rivets in the grave. The decision to make it a baldric and not a waist belt was then made only because of two thoughts: they thought it impossible to see it as a belt and they had no other idea where to put the silver tube but as a strap end (this tube originally lay under the scabbard pointing the same direction as the blade, not in a 90° angle to it). so they based it on the 3rd century baldrics. the problem is that on these earlier baldrics the hanging sword is on a quite thin strip of leather forming a loop around the scabbard so it can dangle around free but, being the heaviest part in the whole system, is always hanging on the deepest point. The "clamping"type of fixing the scabbard between 2 quite broad pieces of leather makes it unable to dangle, so the back part of the belt always bends and bulges when used as a baldric and the system always has an intention so slip forward when in use. IMHO this type of fixing the scabbard works much better when in use as a waist belt (in this case without a buckle, perhaps knotted) but I have no idea where to see the silver tube in such a construction.
Als Mensch zu dumm, als Schwein zu kleine Ohren...
Could the problem (scabbard not being abled to dangle) solved by not letting the two vertical rows of rivets pass the scabbard and by placing them further appart? If the rivets wouldn't pass the scabbard, the scabbard would be able to tilt. Placing the two rivet rows further apart would provide the space necessary for tilting.
Quote:IMHO this type of fixing the scabbard works much better when in use as a waist belt (in this case without a buckle, perhaps knotted) but I have no idea where to see the silver tube in such a construction.
The promised sketch:
[attachment=8900]WaistBelt.jpg[/attachment]
Keep in mind, that I left out the scabbard. It would be attached like the one used for the reconstruction.
Another important note: My suggestion is based on the assumption, that one rivet is lost (according to Böhme, belt parts getting lost was very common). But you could also use eight instead of nine rivets, of course.
The ends of of the main strap are tapered, so you can tie them together (similar to the tapered baltei of the previous time levels). If you fold the main strap around the scabbard an deposit the scabbard upside down, the silver tube woult be under the scabbard and parallel to it. When the belt is worn, the sword is on the left side of the body (like in the grave), while the knot is on the right side.
MMFA: could you draw a sketch of our idea? The tube is quite small, about 40mm in length with a slot down one side. it`s made of thin silver sheet ( <1mm)
Als Mensch zu dumm, als Schwein zu kleine Ohren...
Quote:Sure, I just need to make sure of you're saying:
1. It was a waistbelt, and the sword was suspended from the two pieces of leather on the "thick" part.
2. The scabbard, when deposited, was upside down, so the silver tube would actually be on the front of the scabbard?
3. The baldric went through the scabbard itself, and not through a slider on the scabbard?
Regarding "1.":
Yes.
Regarding "2.":
I don't know how it was deposited. I just described a scenario (wrapping the belt arounnd the scabbard, depositing the scabbard upside down), that shows that my suggested reconstruction would be abled to achive the posion of the tube (tube under scabbard, parallel to it). If the distance between the tube and the (middle of the) scabbard was longer, wrapping the belt around the scabbard could result in the silver tube being behind the scabbard, wich means that you could also achieve the position of the tube by depositing the sword/scabbard the "right" way (i.e. frontside facing up). Be aware, that the sketch doesn't use exact measurements.
Regarding "3.":
The (two-piece) main strap would went through the scabbard slide(s). The short strap on the underside of the main strap would run behind the scabbard.
This sketch shows a second reconstruction proposal:
[attachment=8906]WaistBelt2.jpg[/attachment]
Right now I am favouring this construction method, because of the following reasons:
- The tubular belt terminal is in the same position as the ones of other late roman belts. Regarding the belt analogy, one might argue, that practically all late roman belts, that had a tubular belt terminal, also had another one (or at least some kind of other metal fittings) on the other end. But as the belt shown above is closed on the side of the body instead on its front, only one end of the belt is on the "visible side" ("Schauseite"), the "visible side" ("Schauseite") beeing the front half of the torso, of course.
- The main strap stays within one plane, just like the main straps (be it one piece ones, be it multi-piece ones) of other late Roman belts.
- As the distance between the tube and the scabbard is longer than the distance shown by my previous sketch,
Quote:wrapping the belt around the scabbard could result in the silver tube being behind the scabbard, wich means that you could [...] achieve the position of the tube [under the scabbart, pointing in the same direction] by depositing the sword/scabbard the "right" way (i.e. frontside facing up).
Quote:I'm still confused about the silver tube? According to your theory, what is it? An end to one of the belt ends (like on a shoelace?)
According to my theory it was a late Roman tubular belt terminal, albeit one of a sword belt instead of a regular belt. There where three kinds of such belt terminals: integral part of the belt plates (or buckles), clamped onto the belt plates (or buckles), clamped onto the leather of the belt. The third type inspired my reconstruction proposal (as the Kemathen tube looks like some kinds of said type of tubular belt terminals and also belongs to the same time frame).
My two sketches clearly show that I don't consider the silver tube as an aglet.