02-18-2004, 11:18 PM
A few thoughts on this:<br>
Are you sure that the width of 3 cubits 4 dactyls was the total flat width for this garment and not the fiished circumference. If the latter, then opened out flat it would have been only aprox 29 ins (assuming average cubit = 18", dactyl aprox 1", giving aprox 58" total). That would still be wide enough for most men.<br>
We know that the tunic when worn unbelted reached below the knee, as it was a form of punishment to make those disgraced remove their belts & wear their tunics like a lower-status slave/non-citizen. However, 3.5 cubits (or 63"-ish) would be far too long.<br>
<br>
Consider also the looms which this cloth was worked on. In the pre-industrial period, when looms were entirely manual, the shuttle would have to be passed across the weave by hand. For wide pieces of cloth you will need 2 people - 1 passes the shuttle halfway, the other then takes it from the other side. This limits the width of your cloth. Wide cloth is possible, but messy & in all probability the looms used would not have been this wide. This also suggests that the selve edges would be on the side, with the length of the garment worked down the warp of the fabric, not the other way around.<br>
<br>
Another consideration. Have you tried to wear this elephantine article underneath your lorica yet? Yes you can bunch up the length at the belt to some degree, but this combined with the bunched up width will make your lorica unwearable. One thing we know from the Corbridge finds are that each was made for the individual. They are surprisingly small, with a good overlap on the girdle plates, which probably made them quite a tight fit. If a lorica is well made and shaped to the the man, it hardly needs any substantial padding underneath. If you are then going to stuff him up with yards of bunched up bulky cloth it is going to push upthe girdle plates into the nerves under the arms. Pretty soon your unbeatable army will be wimpering on the floor to be cut out of it with a tin opener.<br>
<br>
Is it also possible that the width of the body was reduced by cutting out a rectangle on each side, forming sleeves? Examples of tunics have been found which were T shaped, so this is possible. The resulting offcuts would not have been thrown away - everything was re-cycled. for example, there were known to be guilds of patchers who reused small offcuts to produce clothing for poorer people.<br>
<br>
Or perhaps you have got the measurements right, but the tunic was not intended to be worn. You just hang out a few of these on the washing line and the enemy think you have an army of giants and leg it!<br>
<br>
<br>
Claudia<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Are you sure that the width of 3 cubits 4 dactyls was the total flat width for this garment and not the fiished circumference. If the latter, then opened out flat it would have been only aprox 29 ins (assuming average cubit = 18", dactyl aprox 1", giving aprox 58" total). That would still be wide enough for most men.<br>
We know that the tunic when worn unbelted reached below the knee, as it was a form of punishment to make those disgraced remove their belts & wear their tunics like a lower-status slave/non-citizen. However, 3.5 cubits (or 63"-ish) would be far too long.<br>
<br>
Consider also the looms which this cloth was worked on. In the pre-industrial period, when looms were entirely manual, the shuttle would have to be passed across the weave by hand. For wide pieces of cloth you will need 2 people - 1 passes the shuttle halfway, the other then takes it from the other side. This limits the width of your cloth. Wide cloth is possible, but messy & in all probability the looms used would not have been this wide. This also suggests that the selve edges would be on the side, with the length of the garment worked down the warp of the fabric, not the other way around.<br>
<br>
Another consideration. Have you tried to wear this elephantine article underneath your lorica yet? Yes you can bunch up the length at the belt to some degree, but this combined with the bunched up width will make your lorica unwearable. One thing we know from the Corbridge finds are that each was made for the individual. They are surprisingly small, with a good overlap on the girdle plates, which probably made them quite a tight fit. If a lorica is well made and shaped to the the man, it hardly needs any substantial padding underneath. If you are then going to stuff him up with yards of bunched up bulky cloth it is going to push upthe girdle plates into the nerves under the arms. Pretty soon your unbeatable army will be wimpering on the floor to be cut out of it with a tin opener.<br>
<br>
Is it also possible that the width of the body was reduced by cutting out a rectangle on each side, forming sleeves? Examples of tunics have been found which were T shaped, so this is possible. The resulting offcuts would not have been thrown away - everything was re-cycled. for example, there were known to be guilds of patchers who reused small offcuts to produce clothing for poorer people.<br>
<br>
Or perhaps you have got the measurements right, but the tunic was not intended to be worn. You just hang out a few of these on the washing line and the enemy think you have an army of giants and leg it!<br>
<br>
<br>
Claudia<br>
<p></p><i></i>
