Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
dyeing linen
#91
Quote:On what information in ancient sources do you base this presumption ?
I provided one. When I have more time I´ll post more info on that, if you need. For a brief overview of the discussion until 1987 you may want to consult the relevant part in:
Wolfgang KEMP: Sermo corporeus. Die Erzählung der mittelalterlichen Glasfenster, München 1987.
Apart from that Crispus nicely and expertly provided the relevant considerations.
Quote:I have had problems with the explanation that Roman statues all should have been copied from Greek statues which we do not have anymore.
Who gave that explanation? That´s outright wrong, and quite a nonsense...
Quote:Even though a lot of statues are obvious copies you cannot state that every statue was, let alone that every form of art depicted is hence not suitable for reconstruction.
I did not make this connection: "An ancient copy is not suited for reconstruction", as you imply. You must read more carefully. It doesn´t make sense to attack a position noone took.
Quote:Colours have been retraced, as well as frescoes depicting colour use, also, colours were found on textile remains.
That is correct and not in opposition to what I wrote. You must read more carefully,and try to understand what I wrote. It doesn´t make sense to attack a position noone took.
Quote:To state with definity that certain reconstructions are wrong, or even impossible, because of some theory which has not been proved at all, like some "scholars" seem to constantly have an urge to point out, even in certain magazines well known to all of us, in my opinion is outright impolite and rude to those who venture to reconstruct what they think something MIGHT have looked like.
Well, it is not about politeness (not to say that politeness is not important), but about methodological correctness. There is a difference between a theory and a hypothesis, btw. If all people would foresake methodological correctness for wrongly understood politeness, we would have no academic discourse at all. ("I found out that the earth resembles a ball and not a disc, but I keep it to myself, people might be offended") What lacks here, is, generally, the ability to make a broad interdisciplinary approach. Hence many thoughts and considerations seem logical within a confined disciplinary space, but in regard of the results of other disciplines either lack information or are not sensible questions at all.
Quote:When did science become arrogant and blatantly disregarding the possibility of the impossible?
When did reconstructions needed to be criticized beyond the realms of founded criticism, or what we like to call, without building criticism (opbouwende kritiek).
One should not say, this is wrong, this cannot be, or even this is nonsense, but one should say, It might have been different, did you consider so and so, would you like to retry it using this and that et cetera........
That is semantics you are complaining about, nothing less, nothing more. You mean constructive criticism, right?

Quote:I am getting a little fed up with people constantly criticizing others on here for what they in their own time, and with hard effort make, produce and try to reconstruct.
Well, you shouldn´t. Instead you should see all the advantages of scholarly discourse. But all you do, in the end, is whine about the tone:
Quote:Of course not all reconstructions are correct, but i would urge all fellow members to remove the beam from their own eyes before blatantly and arrogantly trying to remove a splinter in someone elses eyes.
Did you on purpose write a pathetic pseudo-moral sentence without an argument? That is at least as impolite as you say I would be be. IMO you have lost with your post, # "scholars", #last quoted sentence #other posts of yours in large numbers, any authority to judge about politeness of others. Do you want me to quote from this very forum?
This is double-moral and self-righteous behaviour, which makes your complaint outright ridiculous, at least in my eyes. Just for your records: I will definitely not venture with you any further into this, my time is too precious for me to do so, and I have a hell of a headache. So, you may have the last word on this.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#92
Quote:
Quote:Did you on purpose write a pathetic pseudo-moral sentence without an argument? That is at least as impolite as you say I would be be. IMO you have lost with your post, # "scholars", #last quoted sentence #other posts of yours in large numbers, any authority to judge about politeness of others. Do you want me to quote from this very forum?
This is double-moral and self-righteous behaviour, which makes your complaint outright ridiculous, at least in my eyes. Just for your records: I will definitely not venture with you any further into this, my time is too precious for me to do so, and I have a hell of a headache. So, you may have the last word on this.

Funny, where i do not speak about any one in detail, let alone naming them, you feel spoken to. where you give proper discourse in the first part of your post, you start complaining in the last sentences as if i attacked you personally. That says more about you than it does about me.

Academic scholars in general are happy with peer reviews, and indeed constructive criticism. The so called "scholars" i am talking about do not even publish articles in accepted and respected scientific magazines like Jrms and other well known historical magazines full of peer reviews, no, they publish in common magazines which have not yet been established within the scientific world and boldly state it on their personal internet pages as if it means they are well known scholars who should be believed at any time.They cannot handle any form of criticism when given.

When some of them seem to get their own self esteem out of this, and react to criticism in a way which tries to shut out every form of discussion i find that very childish to say the least.

Peer review, as well as constructive criticism brings science forward. open and two way discourse does so too. There is a line however one should not cross, and that line is a thin one, i agree with that. That is why I am happy not being a scholar, nor even do i try to come across as one, even though i am getting academic training at present.

Back on topic i would say.

M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.

Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!

H.J.Vrielink.
Reply
#93
Ouch. :roll:
Quote:"I have had problems with the explanation that Roman statues all should have been copied from Greek statues which we do not have anymore."

Who gave that explanation? That´s outright wrong, and quite a nonsense...

"Even though a lot of statues are obvious copies you cannot state that every statue was, let alone that every form of art depicted is hence not suitable for reconstruction."

I did not make this connection: "An ancient copy is not suited for reconstruction", as you imply. You must read more carefully. It doesn´t make sense to attack a position noone took.

"Colours have been retraced, as well as frescoes depicting colour use, also, colours were found on textile remains."

That is correct and not in opposition to what I wrote. You must read more carefully,and try to understand what I wrote. It doesn´t make sense to attack a position noone took.
There you go.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#94
I'll use William Hogarth's engraving, "Moses Brought Before Phaoroe's Daughter" from 1752 to illustrate my point.


[Image: hogarth_william_moses_pharaohs_daug.jpg]

The subject is a well known biblical story whereby the child Moses is brought to Pharoe's daughter. Please note how Hogarth dressed the subjects in contemporary clothing, even though he may have had some knowledge of what ancient Egyptians looked like. He didn't bother. He wanted his audience to instantly recognize the characters, so he dressed them as people in the 18th c. would have seen them. The tall man on the right is a Jew and is pictured as a Jew of the 18th c. and not as a Hebrew of Moses' time. Pharoe's daughter is shown wearing 18th c. dress, not clothing from hyroglyphics.

So, one can discern evidence of dress from art. In fact, the paintings of ships of the Dutch artist William Van del Velde are so intensely accurate that they were used for intelligence purposes at the time.

John
"In war as in loving, you must always keep shoving." George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply
#95
Quote:So, one can discern evidence of dress from art. In fact, the paintings of ships of the Dutch artist William Van del Velde are so intensely accurate that they were used for intelligence purposes at the time.
Yes, some "modern" art is basically photorealistic. Ancient art is quite different, though. But for the picture you provided: Are the folds and fabric-widths "accurate"? (I don´t know, that´s why I ask)
But still you couldn´t necessarily tell whether it is from wool or linen or silk, what kinds of weaves were used, what kind of dye etc. Similarly you couldn´t tell from a Roman relief whether the helmet depicted on it was made from brass, bronze or lead or even tin, if you had no access to finds.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#96
Quote:Yes, some "modern" art is basically photorealistic. Ancient art is quite different, though. But for the picture you provided: Are the folds and fabric-widths "accurate"? (I don´t know, that´s why I ask)
But still you couldn´t necessarily tell whether it is from wool or linen or silk, what kinds of weaves were used, what kind of dye etc. Similarly you couldn´t tell from a Roman relief whether the helmet depicted on it was made from brass, bronze or lead or even tin, if you had no access to finds.


No, you can't get that kind of detail from art. But you could get evidence of what the artist saw in contemporary culture in a more general sense. This discussion began as an exploration of what kinds of colors were permitted in certain articles of clothing.

There is a trend for some to engage in a form of "presentism" and attempt to impose our own sense of order on ancient culture. This is very human. There is a trend to see "order" in the Roman legions in terms of the color of their military clothing. Whereas it may make perfect sense to us to see Roman soldiers restricted to one color or another, it may have not been the way the Romans saw things.
"In war as in loving, you must always keep shoving." George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply
#97
Quote:But you could get evidence of what the artist saw in contemporary culture in a more general sense.
Basically yes, but it still requires quite a critical approach.
Quote:There is a trend for some to engage in a form of "presentism" and attempt to impose our own sense of order on ancient culture. This is very human. There is a trend to see "order" in the Roman legions in terms of the color of their military clothing. Whereas it may make perfect sense to us to see Roman soldiers restricted to one color or another, it may have not been the way the Romans saw things.
I agree.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#98
Quote:Whereas it may make perfect sense to us to see Roman soldiers restricted to one color or another, it may have not been the way the Romans saw things.

I agree. That is why my own conclusions on military clothing colours were based on what was depicted in Roman art itself supported wherever possible by archaeological finds. At the moment they both suggest to me that a limited range of colours was in use even though the Romans were quite capable of producing any number of colours. However I am well aware that there will be arguments that the Roman artists are not always depicting what they are seeing but what they should have been showing because of a convention and that the archaeological finds too can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Which is why I present the reader with whatever I can find and basically let them make their own minds up.

While new finds of mosaics and wall paintings increases to a degree each year, perhaps the greatest advance will be in the area of the textile finds themselves. Vast numbers are being found all the time and new methods of dating and analysing them are being used.

Nevertheless we are essentially as always trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle when the front box cover is missing and so are nine tenths of the pieces plus the experts themselves can not always agree which way round those pieces should go!

Quote:Ancient art is quite different, though. But for the picture you provided: Are the folds and fabric-widths "accurate"? (I don´t know, that´s why I ask)
But still you couldn´t necessarily tell whether it is from wool or linen or silk, what kinds of weaves were used, what kind of dye etc.

It is interesting to note in this instance that the designs we have inherited today for the Toga and the Paludamentum are based solely on sculpture alone! That is why I erred on John's identification of the cloak in his mosaic as being a sagum. However in that case we do have the military papyrus BGU VII 1564 which gives us the size of a military cloak which tallies closely with the Thorsberg cloak. However the textile experts can not agree if that is a typical Germanic cloak or a typical Gallo-Roman cloak.

Some textile archaeologists/historians have however detected elements of clothing material and manufacture from sculpture.

The Vindolanda tablets mention a variety of clothing terms that have not been properly identified. How would you know if what you are seeing is really an overcloak. What did an undercloak look like?

Based on the tunics shown in John's mosaic I would have dated that to Trajanic or Hadrianic times as they have the knot behind the neck familiar to other monuments from that period. I was worried though that many of the best mosaics from Africa date to the third century. In which case we would have an example of what Christian has pointed out an out of date fashion style being copied many years later. Therefore I was pleased to discover that the mosaic is dated to the early Antonine period.

Late mosaics, like those from Piazza Armerina, seem to be showing to the best of the mediums ability contemporary fashion styles with the decorated clavi and orbiculi, long sleeved tuncs and trousers that is supported by archaeology. However in some cases you will still see short sleeved tunics and those worn off the shoulder appearing into the sixth century sometimes alongside the long sleeved variety!

You just have to accept that at some times the answer to a particular question does not and probably will never exist. As Christian and I have discussed elsewhere the real problem arises when you attempt any reconstruction in whatever form. There are many academics who simply would not attempt any at all!

Graham
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.

"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.

"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
Reply
#99
Quote:
Quote:You just have to accept that at some times the answer to a particular question does not and probably will never exist. As Christian and I have discussed elsewhere the real problem arises when you attempt any reconstruction in whatever form. There are many academics who simply would not attempt any at all!

So true Graham, so true...

M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.

Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!

H.J.Vrielink.
Reply
Avete!
Is there any evidence for linen tunic with woven clavi?
Martin
Reply
Real old thread, but my initial efforts to use madder on linen got a pinkish result which was great for the lady who wore it.
However, I since found out that modern linen is treated with a number of substances such as wax that make it feel better, and that these need to be stripped out before dyeing. There is a page on this somewhere....
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply
I haven't the time to read this very long thread completely through, so if someone else said this before, please forgive me.

Madder, in fact, can be used to get quite vivid colours. It depends on two main factors (although there are others): (1) what mordant is used and (b) what is the level of acidity of the dye bath (the 'pH'). A mordant based on tin, for example, will give a much brighter colour than one based on aluminium. The tin-mordanted cloth will, in fact, come out more or less scarlet. If your dye bath returned a pink colour there may be several reasons for this. Did you use a mordant at all? How concentrated was the dye-bath? What was the pH? Did you dye at room temperature, or was the dye-bath heated to some degree?

A friend of mine has been experimenting for a number of years to try and determine just what colours might have been possible during what I will loosely describe as 'ancient times' - i.e. using materials and techniques which could reasonably be expected to have been available to the Roman dye colleges. You might be surprised at the range and intensity of some of the colours that have been achieved. Below is an example of the sort of colours that can be achieved. These samples are all wool.

[attachment=8567]Maddershades.jpg[/attachment]


Mike Thomas


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
Reply
The prep for plant fibers like linen and cotton is called scouring.

"HOW TO SCOUR CELLULOSE FIBRE (COTTON AND LINEN)

Before attempting to dye cotton or other plant fibres it is crucial to thoroughly scour your material. Scouring removes all the dust and grease from the fibre.

First wash your material on a hot cycle in the washing machine. Use a non-bleach washing powder and do not use a fabric conditioner.

Half fill a 12 litre stainless steel bucket with water; slowly and carefully add 35g of soda ash to the water (never water to the soda ash). Soda ash causes the water to bubble up vigorously and can be hazardous.

Immerse the washed, wet material to the bucket and stir gently using a long handled spoon. Raise the temperature to boiling point, half cover the bucket and simmer for 2 hours – stirring gently from time to time to ensure that the material is being evenly scoured. After 2 hours remove the bucket from the heat source and allow to cool down enough to be able to remove the material from the bucket.

Rinse thoroughly. If the scouring water is very dirty – repeat the scouring process."

When your material is scoured you are now ready to mordant it.
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply


Forum Jump: