08-25-2005, 07:44 AM
Our evidence for the 3rd century is not the best, but the fundamentals do not change significantly. Surviving cloth is overwhelmingly wool, which is most likely because it survives much better than linen. Use of both is assumed, though military tunics probably were woolen. There is evidence of tabbyweave and twillweave, herringbone being a fairly common design.
As to colours, well, that's can'o'worms time. I'm not going to pronounce on the issue, but there are depictions of light-coloured (possibly bleached white) tunics as well as other colours. The one military context image I can think of offhand shows white. Personally, I subscribe to the school of thought that there was no one 'Roman military tunic' colour or design. Interestingly, for the third and fourth centuries may reconstructions show different colours on soldiers. I don't know what evidence that is based on, but suspect it more reflects perception (chaotic, anarchic times, a barbarianised army) than any documentabnle change from 1st century practices.
The most obvious chsange you can see is in cut and decoration. 1st and 2nd cetury tunics would have been fairly wide and long, being held above the knee by the belt(s). Sleeves, if any, were short. By the nd of the third century, long-sleeved, narrow-cut, short tunics became common (for a given value of 'narrow' - still easy to slip over your head - and 'short' - down to the knees). I'm no expert on the details, but the third century is also the time when decorative bands and patches appear. Most books insist they are tapestry-woven, commonly wool into linen. I'm not fully sold on the absence of tablet-weaving for the bands.
As to colours, well, that's can'o'worms time. I'm not going to pronounce on the issue, but there are depictions of light-coloured (possibly bleached white) tunics as well as other colours. The one military context image I can think of offhand shows white. Personally, I subscribe to the school of thought that there was no one 'Roman military tunic' colour or design. Interestingly, for the third and fourth centuries may reconstructions show different colours on soldiers. I don't know what evidence that is based on, but suspect it more reflects perception (chaotic, anarchic times, a barbarianised army) than any documentabnle change from 1st century practices.
The most obvious chsange you can see is in cut and decoration. 1st and 2nd cetury tunics would have been fairly wide and long, being held above the knee by the belt(s). Sleeves, if any, were short. By the nd of the third century, long-sleeved, narrow-cut, short tunics became common (for a given value of 'narrow' - still easy to slip over your head - and 'short' - down to the knees). I'm no expert on the details, but the third century is also the time when decorative bands and patches appear. Most books insist they are tapestry-woven, commonly wool into linen. I'm not fully sold on the absence of tablet-weaving for the bands.
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!
Volker Bach
Volker Bach
