11-24-2005, 07:07 PM
Great conversation on pleats and folds in Roman clothing.
Just wanted to add my 2 cents worth.
Whenever I look at these loricatae, I am amazed at how much cloth there is under the neckline, armholes and kilt. QUITE A LOT! like tons. I always suspected that this was artistic license, since the folds act like contour lines on the human form, allowing the artist to show the underlying anatomy.
For the high classical period in Greece, (thinking of Phidias statuary on the Parthenon W. Facade here, with the three goddesses, c. 433 BCE) I think that must be the case, since if they stood up, the garments would be huge and voluminous. So is this not the case in Roman art?
Still, we know that the toga was gargantuan, so why not other clothes? Also, unlike classical sculpture, the extra cloth can't be there to contour the human body since most of it is concealed beneath the armor.
Looking closely at some of my pictures I think I have some insights.
Look at this one for instance.
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... det18a.jpg
This is the primaporta. Notice the split in the seam on top of the arm, and how the material gathers towards the seam.
I was working on my daughter's halloween costume last year when I needed to gather the fabric, hadn't a clue how to do it. My wife just made a quick simple running stitch, secured it on one end and pulled the thread taut on the other. Instant beatiful gathers and pleats.
Now here's my thought. If the seam runs down along the side of the body, if it was a running stitch that was gathered in the same way, wouldn't it make the same nice u-shaped folds and pleats we see in the art?
This would mean that you wouldn't need fibula or cumberbunds to produce the effect. You wouldn't have to go to any extra effort it would just fold that way naturally.
Just a thought.
Also, I want to talk about necklines:
Check out these two:
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... stdeta.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... andeta.jpg
The necklines on the musculata always have a lot of pleat as well, suggesting that these tunics were very large.
Now I have no idea but I was curious, would a pleated tunic with lots of fabric cause more chafing or less? Would it act as padding or would it bind and pinch uncomfortably? I could make arguments either way.
I'm curious to know what others think.
Travis
Just wanted to add my 2 cents worth.
Whenever I look at these loricatae, I am amazed at how much cloth there is under the neckline, armholes and kilt. QUITE A LOT! like tons. I always suspected that this was artistic license, since the folds act like contour lines on the human form, allowing the artist to show the underlying anatomy.
For the high classical period in Greece, (thinking of Phidias statuary on the Parthenon W. Facade here, with the three goddesses, c. 433 BCE) I think that must be the case, since if they stood up, the garments would be huge and voluminous. So is this not the case in Roman art?
Still, we know that the toga was gargantuan, so why not other clothes? Also, unlike classical sculpture, the extra cloth can't be there to contour the human body since most of it is concealed beneath the armor.
Looking closely at some of my pictures I think I have some insights.
Look at this one for instance.
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... det18a.jpg
This is the primaporta. Notice the split in the seam on top of the arm, and how the material gathers towards the seam.
I was working on my daughter's halloween costume last year when I needed to gather the fabric, hadn't a clue how to do it. My wife just made a quick simple running stitch, secured it on one end and pulled the thread taut on the other. Instant beatiful gathers and pleats.
Now here's my thought. If the seam runs down along the side of the body, if it was a running stitch that was gathered in the same way, wouldn't it make the same nice u-shaped folds and pleats we see in the art?
This would mean that you wouldn't need fibula or cumberbunds to produce the effect. You wouldn't have to go to any extra effort it would just fold that way naturally.
Just a thought.
Also, I want to talk about necklines:
Check out these two:
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... stdeta.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... andeta.jpg
The necklines on the musculata always have a lot of pleat as well, suggesting that these tunics were very large.
Now I have no idea but I was curious, would a pleated tunic with lots of fabric cause more chafing or less? Would it act as padding or would it bind and pinch uncomfortably? I could make arguments either way.
I'm curious to know what others think.
Travis
Theodoros of Smyrna (Byzantine name)
aka Travis Lee Clark (21st C. American name)
Moderator, RAT
Rules for RAT:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules">http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules for posting
Oh! and the Toledo helmet .... oh hell, forget it. :? <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" />:?
aka Travis Lee Clark (21st C. American name)
Moderator, RAT
Rules for RAT:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules">http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules for posting
Oh! and the Toledo helmet .... oh hell, forget it. :? <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" />:?
