dyeing linen

[John M McDermott]

I doubt that you have read any of Graham Sumner's books, which is a real shame.

Actually, he mentions me in the credits of his last book in the back.

As to the figure with baskets & pig, no one can claim that he is a slave, or a worker, or a soldier. Mind you, I would not opt for the latter myself because he's completely unarmed, which is odd.

And why would soldiers always be pictured armed? If this is your criteria, you are ruling out lots of potential evidence for what soldiers looked like. Why would the boar not be a military symbol?

Clavi wereused on tunics of slaves, btw - they can be seen in some of the Villa Armerina mosaics, where servants with unbelted tunics have clavi like the masters they serve.

Why is the assumption made, as you have in this case, that persons pictured doing menial labor are slaves? Why would Roman artists constantly picture slaves and not freemen? Why would they show slaves richly dressed and not as they would have been-in rags? Perhaps this mosaic (Villa Armerina) seeks to depict slaves, but is this the rule to be followed in all mosaics? Are all persons depicted doing menial labor assumed to be slaves, no matter what other features are shown?

And yes, I think that there is a general argument made in this thread that Roman soldiers must have been clothed in white and not in colors. For example, in this thread:

-White shows status because it requires cleaning.

-The bulk of the surviving orders for cloth for soldiers call for white cloth.

-A general resistance to any notion Roman soldiers would have worn green.

CAVEAT: MY ARGUMENTS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST IDEAS, NOT PEOPLE

John