TUNIC SIZES

[Tarbicus]

Satorius, thanks for the tip on the weave.

On the subject of how the tunic was beneath the pteryges, look at the very bottom of this statue (Basilica Emilia?):
http://web.tiscali.it/iulianevivas/basilica_Emilia.jpg

You can clearly see the tunic is bunched and folded beneath the pteryges on one of the best examples of an officer's panoply I've seen.

[Tarbicus]

Tarbicus,

The pictures you posted are very good but they are not scale shirts. Having sleeves on a scale shirt is not a good idea since the scales will catch each other when moving the arm. (arm to body scales catching)

To avoid this, the bottom of the sleeve cannot have scales but some cloth only.

Besides all the reconstructions I have seen of scale armor are all sleevless. They all finish where a hamata finishes.

I have seen two scale shirts like those of Sertoius. One belongs to a gentleman I believe is in Sweden. He made a squamata similar to sertorius where he has a partial scaled sleeve with cloth on the bottom.

The other is Dan Peterson with his plumata. There are no sleeves on that. What he has is the situation that the curator described to me. Sertorius is considered to be wearing a plumata not a squamata (curator did not mention this). If one then considers that Sertorius has scales on mail, then the mail part would be similar to a short sleeve hamata.

But for the scales to go over the pectoral region into the shoulder giving a smooth finish, you cannot have a bonified sleeve like in a hamata. Thus you get the situation where the scales go over the shoulder bordering the tricept as described above. The body under the arm is scaled making the bishop type mantle appear as a sleeve.

Anyone know if this is a genuine squamata?


http://www.dreamlands.de/larp-ruestung.htm

And another very folded tunic, but beneath scalloped pteryges this time.

[Crispvs]

"For those who seek to avoid this effect, it helps to cut your fabric on the bias. Prior to cutting, turn the fabric 45 degrees so that the threads don't run vertically and horizontally, instead they run diagonally. Structurally the fabric cannot support itself as well and falls better, especially into folds. There can be slightly more waste in the cutting, but for some the results are worth it. "

This is certainly interesting as an example of how to tailor fabric but is it how the Romans did it? I think not.

As far as I have always understood the Romans tended to weave their clothes on the the loom and then simply join them at the seams. Unless the tunic was a cut up second hand one such as Graham described above there would be no cause to cut the fabric at all. Therefore the idea of cutting on the bias is a non starter - the Romans simply don't seem to have done things like that. Even if a tunic had sleeves, there is a good chance that they would have been part of the shape originally woven on the loom and then, as usual simply joined along the side seams with the rest of the tunic.

Crispvs

[Satorius]

Greetings,

My reference to bias cutting was as to how to achieve an effect. The drapiness and multiple folds seen in clothing in Greek sculpture then in Roman sculpture can be achieved this way. Bias cut cloth would have had the same properties then as today.

When you ask what the Romans would do, one has to ask, which Romans? When looking at the enormous drapiness of especially women's clothes and the fullness of the garments one would think that some larger looms were being used.

The link below is to an image of a lekthos from 550 BC depicting two women standing at an upright loom. The loom seems of a size capable of producing fabric far wider and longer than a large tunic. Large pieces of fabric can be worked differently than those woven to size.

http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/v ... m=31.11.10

Weaving to size is efficient, doubtlessly a handsome garment can be created this way. But it should not rule out other techniques. Making fabric lay down into the many small, even folds depicted continues to be the question.

Thanks,

Satorius
(Linda Satorius)

[Satorius]

Erratum - lekthos should be spelled lekythos. Thank you.

Satorius
(Linda Satorius)

[Crispvs]

Look at how the edge of my paenula falls into reasonably even folds as I raise my arms in this picture.



There is no tailoring involved here, although it is true that the paenula does have a curved edge. However, the same effect occurs naturally (and much more neatly) with a sagum, which is straight sided.
You will also see that my tunic falls into crescentic folds due to having been hitched up at the sides over a waist tie.

Crispvs

[Graham Sumner]

Hello Linda

My reference to bias cutting was as to how to achieve an effect. The drapiness and multiple folds seen in clothing in Greek sculpture then in Roman sculpture can be achieved this way. Bias cut cloth would have had the same properties then as today.

Do you have any pictures to illustrate your results?

Otherwise I tend to agree with Paul Crispus. Most of the surviving tunics from the early imperial period are simply two sheets of material sewn together with no cutting. I was also told the same thing by the textile historian Hero Granger-Taylor who said that the Romans rarely cut garments and normally just wove them to shape.


Graham.

[M. Demetrius]

Speaking only as a person who makes clothing, not necessarily a historian, bias cut cloth must be cut from much wider material than that cut with the weave. Experiment with the largest rectangle you can cut from a sheet of typing paper, when the new rectangle is cut at 45 degrees to the paper. You'll be wasting about as much cloth as you get, and to make a tunic, with a horizontal measure say of 45", you'd need a piece of cloth better than 72" wide, by around the same length. Cloth being hand woven at that time, it would be prohibitively expensive for average people to afford a simple garment. Most clothing was made with rectanglular pieces of cloth, because that's the way it came off the loom.

Obviously, things like the curved edges and odd shapes of a toga were exceptions, but they were very expensive. Still are.

I'm not saying they didn't do it, just that if they did, they'd be weaving cloth more than twice as large and costing about twice as much per piece of fabric if they intended to use it on the bias.

Bias cutting in modern clothing allows for the cloth to be curved on a seam, like for a neck facing, or casing around some hem or other. But to sew two bias cut pieces together and keep a long seam straight is a lot more trouble than some might think.

(If you cut, you're a cutter. If you weave, you're a weaver. If you sew, are you a sewer?)

[Satorius]

Dear Roman friends,

I am scrambling to prepare for an event here at the end of next week, so I regret not being able to post fully. Most garments I've made have gone off with their new owners. Unfortunately I am left hunting for pictures. For complete accuracy, I think I should make and photograph tunica using both construction methods for a side-by-side comparison.

It is true that bias cutting uses more cloth, but the scrap is not unusable. Bias cut seams take patience. Beautiful curves are possible. The sinus of the toga would be a good application.

I was examining my own paenula and realized because it is roughly circular, the fabric falls into nice folds off the shoulders where the weave is at the bias. Crispvs' paenula is extremely nice and falls well, I wish the photo included more of his tunica.

I thank Graham for his helpful information and well-made point. Tunica woven to size would have been the staple, especially if the weaver is at home, weaving for the family. I completely agree: bias construction is for the well off. Our discussion began started with examining the images of officers and Emperors, and the draping of their clothes.

If possible, I would like to please ask Graham, to ask Dr. Hero Granger-Taylor for any information regarding the size of so-called “boltsâ€

[M. Demetrius]

I was once sitting on a stump, hand stitching the shoulder seam of a shirt (not a tunic--it was an 1850s "Rendezvous") at a public event. A visitor walked up, watched me for a few seconds and asked, "Are you a seamstress?"

At that time, I wore a full beard. You gotta wonder sometimes if people think at all. Words mean things. I could have been rude, but I just answered, "I'm a tailor if that's what you mean."

[M. Demetrius]

Using sculpture for clothing patterns can problematic. Mr. Sumner points out in Roman Military Clothing 1 that the folds and wrinkles don't always match above and below the belt. It's an art convention that gets used in other places--daVinci's "Last Supper" has the feet of the men at the table arranged in impossible ways, but it makes the painting look balanced to the eye. (They found this out when someone tried to make a 3D model of the painting, and realized the feet didn't match the posture of the bodies.)

So just because a sculpture has wrinkles in a certain way doesn't mean that you can duplicate it with cloth in the real world. Of course, it doesn't mean you can't either.

[tlclark]

They're not documentary war photographs, but self-important statements created for posterity and to give the best impression for their memory once they have gone. To illustrate the difference in modern terms:

Ha. Great point.

I will add that a lot of sculptures seem to have gathers on the tops of the sleeves. (though this is more common in patrician and civilian clothes) This can happen naturally due to clothing shrinkage. We also see split sleeves and some t-sleeves etc.

I'll post a picture of my laticlvii impression in a minute.

Update:

Crap, can't get a pic, but the gathered sleeves would make the volume more manageable and tailored in appearance.