dyeing linen

[John M McDermott]

Graham Sumner wrote:

I am not sure I understand this statement as there is plenty of evidence for clothing colour in the Roman world it is just that in this respect the evidence suggests they tended to dye wool rather than linen. While most of the dye from textiles found in Northern Europe may have been lost the same can not be said for those found in Egypt were the dye survives very well. A gleaming White was obviously something that was regarded as important and a status symbol. The candidates for elections wore whitened clothes hence the name, Christ was described as having shining white clothes and soldiers on parade wore whitened clothes.

The Egyptian funeral portraits show ladies wearing very brightly coloured clothes in reds purples blues and greens. The soldiers in these paintings wear red, blue and olive green cloaks with their whitened tunics so obviously in their very best outfits for their portrait.

If you are having problems with a course wool scarf you can always invest in a very fine weave and some Roman garments in wool are almost silk like. Another accident of discovery is that we do not know how widespread the use of cotton was. There is more evidence coming to light for its use all the time. As an officer there is probably no reason why you could not have a cotton scarf.

Where does this logic lead us though? If white was the color then it would not matter whether the focale was wool or linen; the conclusion we are driven to is that they must have been white. You could have your focale any color you wanted, so long as it was white.

But is this necessarily so? A tunic is not a focale. Neither is a cloak a tunic. Cloaks did not follow the white rule, so why would the focale?

There is a carving of an auxiliary on Trajan's column with a head dangling by the hair from his teeth. He wears a graceful focale. One can only wonder if there are traces of paint on it.