02-13-2004, 08:09 AM
Hi, Graham Sumner has asked me to post this:<br>
<br>
Dear Sam<br>
<br>
Naturally I am very interested with your work on a reconstructed tunic based on the dimensions given in the papyrus BGU 1564. However I am not surprised at your conclusions. Recently RAT member Derek Forest showed me his reconstruction of the same tunic based on BGU 1564.<br>
<br>
His reconstructed tunic along with two others based on examples from Nahal Hever and Mons Claudianus were tried and tested on the same model who was roughly the same height as yourself. ( Plans of these two tunics are in Roman Military Clothing (1) ).<br>
<br>
As far as I am aware the minimum height requirement was 5 feet 8 inches for Legionaries and 5 feet 10 inches for Cavalry and Legionaries for the First Cohort but this could be the usual poor translation of ancient sources. Perhaps Sander can help with that one?<br>
<br>
Clearly the BGU 1564 tunic was far too large and would need drastic alterations to fit not only the model but also beneath armour. In the experiment the Nahal Hever type tunic fitted the best.<br>
<br>
The example from Mons Claudianus on the other hand was way too short. Nevertheless it would have been suitable for an Auxiliary style tunic together with short trousers as worn by both cavalry and infantry on Trajan's Column. It was interesting that Mons Claudianus did have a garrison of cavalry but this in no way confirms that the tunic was either worn by a soldier or even by an adult male.<br>
<br>
Before altering your own tunic it should be remembered that the majority of surviving tunics of this period are wider than they are long unlike the dimensions in BGU 1564.<br>
<br>
Many surviving Roman tunics show evidence of alteration to shorten the length by means of tucks around the waist. Perhaps and I stress perhaps, these tucks were deemed unsightly and in the case of the military they were covered by waistbands.<br>
<br>
In our experiment it was possible to shorten the length of the BGU 1564 type tunic just by pulling it up and over the belt but that still left a great deal of material under the arms.<br>
<br>
As I am in the early stages of preparing an article on Tunics which will include some new material and evidence that came to light after my previous books were published I would be interested in seeing any photographs of your reconstructed tunic, perhaps before you alter it.<br>
<br>
I will look forward to hearing your views on your future reconstructions and would welcome the opinions of any other RAT members on this subject.<br>
<br>
Graham Sumner.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
Dear Sam<br>
<br>
Naturally I am very interested with your work on a reconstructed tunic based on the dimensions given in the papyrus BGU 1564. However I am not surprised at your conclusions. Recently RAT member Derek Forest showed me his reconstruction of the same tunic based on BGU 1564.<br>
<br>
His reconstructed tunic along with two others based on examples from Nahal Hever and Mons Claudianus were tried and tested on the same model who was roughly the same height as yourself. ( Plans of these two tunics are in Roman Military Clothing (1) ).<br>
<br>
As far as I am aware the minimum height requirement was 5 feet 8 inches for Legionaries and 5 feet 10 inches for Cavalry and Legionaries for the First Cohort but this could be the usual poor translation of ancient sources. Perhaps Sander can help with that one?<br>
<br>
Clearly the BGU 1564 tunic was far too large and would need drastic alterations to fit not only the model but also beneath armour. In the experiment the Nahal Hever type tunic fitted the best.<br>
<br>
The example from Mons Claudianus on the other hand was way too short. Nevertheless it would have been suitable for an Auxiliary style tunic together with short trousers as worn by both cavalry and infantry on Trajan's Column. It was interesting that Mons Claudianus did have a garrison of cavalry but this in no way confirms that the tunic was either worn by a soldier or even by an adult male.<br>
<br>
Before altering your own tunic it should be remembered that the majority of surviving tunics of this period are wider than they are long unlike the dimensions in BGU 1564.<br>
<br>
Many surviving Roman tunics show evidence of alteration to shorten the length by means of tucks around the waist. Perhaps and I stress perhaps, these tucks were deemed unsightly and in the case of the military they were covered by waistbands.<br>
<br>
In our experiment it was possible to shorten the length of the BGU 1564 type tunic just by pulling it up and over the belt but that still left a great deal of material under the arms.<br>
<br>
As I am in the early stages of preparing an article on Tunics which will include some new material and evidence that came to light after my previous books were published I would be interested in seeing any photographs of your reconstructed tunic, perhaps before you alter it.<br>
<br>
I will look forward to hearing your views on your future reconstructions and would welcome the opinions of any other RAT members on this subject.<br>
<br>
Graham Sumner.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Rolf Steiner
Rolf Steiner
