Sagum Mania!

[Franklin]

If you've got examples, then your already one step ahead of me!

Seriously, I don't think embroidery is rocket-science, just really tedious. Nor do I think, however, that it's something that can be taught (well) via email/internet. I would suggest seeking out somebody who's obviously very accomplished in the field and getting them to show you the basics. The rest I think you can figure out on your own.

For my money, you can't beat Raymond the Quiet for reasonably priced, accurately cast pieces. His Roman bits can be found at:

http://www.quietpress.com/Roman_Brooche ... i.html#W76

These are all in the $10-$30 range.

[tlclark]

Franklin,

Regarding embroidery...I was afraid you were going to say that. :roll:

On the source for fibulae...thanks! All that and belt parts too!

Thanks again!

[Franklin]

Don't worry, I'm in the same boat as you. I really wasn't kidding when I said that examples put you one step ahead of me!

What kind of examples are you talking about? Hi-res images of originals? Samples of reproductions stuff?

[tlclark]

Well there are many examples, not really great quality, here on this website:

http://www.calacademy.org/research/anth ... lintro.htm

Just search for "Coptic" and "Textiles"

There are also a few examples here:

http://www.gryph.com/byzantine/

but most of my examples are from books. Most are weft-faced tapestry woven, but a few are embroidered.

dionysiac themes are common, as are geometric patterns.

Also, go search metmuseum.org, they have a nice collection of coptic textiles as well.

Travis

[Franklin]

Yeah, I think I've come across all of these examples at one point or another. Thank god for the curators who take pity on reenactors and have the decency to publish close-up hi-res images.

[aitor iriarte]

Hey guys,
You've been busy while I was mentally absent for a week (A Photoshop course plus re-activation of my helmet replica)

Travis,
I've got nothing against your trapezoidal cloak, sorry! I was thinking of another trapezoidal version when I wrote that...
Notwithstanding, it would involve exactly the same difficulties to weave a semi-circle or a trapeze on a vertical loom. Ancient textiles (especially expensive ones) were woven to shape and not cut to fit it.
Good point about the tunic's hem on the ivory dyptich! Anyeway I think that the way the proto-tablion is folded in two speaks enough in fovour of the folded oval.
About Raymond's stuff, his late belt fittings can be used (I'm doing it!) with little changes while they are cheap. Notwithstanding I wouldn't commend his cruciform brooch to anybody. He hasn't understood the way it worked and it would be far too complicated to correct the mistakes...
Thanks for the pic of the Sinai icon. That was one the several I couldn't portrait due to the poor light!

Aitor

[tlclark]

Aitor,

Thanks for the reviews on buckles and fibulae! Matt L. has offered to make an authentic buckle based on a byz. pattern, but Raymond's would definitely be cheaper.

What about Holger's crossbrow fibula? Any opinions?

Good point about the tunic's hem on the ivory dyptich! Anyeway I think that the way the proto-tablion is folded in two speaks enough in fovour of the folded oval.

Yeah you're right.
The pattern of the tablion is definitely folded. There's no good reason to make HALF a pattern, plus 4th C. would be early for doublecloth.

That is clearly not the case on later tabliae, which were meant to be seen in their enitrety. So there must be a shift in styles and patterns.

It may be that the folded oval gave way to a semi-circular one and then eventually a trapezoid.

Thanks again.

Travis

[aitor iriarte]

Hi Travis,
About Holger's brooch (I suppose that you're meaning [urlv0mmy02]http://www.hr-replikate.de/katalog/bilder/nr112_norm.jpg[/url]) It is an imperfect copy (an early work by Holger :roll: ) of the Deurne fibula, dated around 320 AD. Again too early for you...

Aitor

[Franklin]

About Raymond's stuff...I wouldn't commend his cruciform brooch to anybody. He hasn't understood the way it worked and it would be far too complicated to correct the mistakes... Aitor

Wondered if you could elaborate on this. Just curious about how much "understanding" it takes to cast an oversized diaper pin :wink: .

I emailed Ray and asked about the specifics of the two crossbow brooches he sells. He had the following to say.

<<They are from Richard Hattatt's books.

The smaller one is a P brooch Found at Cirencester, Glos. #1252 in his books. Early 3rd C.

The Crossbow is #104. Provnance unknown, 4th C.>>

He also has two great new Romano-British brooches to offer (a lozenge shape, and a chicken). The chicken, he says, is selling like wildfire.

[aitor iriarte]

Franklin,
There were two parallel types of crucifrom brooches, The Germanic one and the Roman one. Raymond, in his RB-6 ([url:3jpcpru1]http://www.quietpress.com/Images/tb6b.JPG[/url]) has mixed features of both. The body is more or less Roman (the needle catch is utterly wrong, it should be a side-oriented slit) but he has used a pin with integral spring in the Germanic fashion, when it should be just a simple pin (No spring is needed because the pin itself must be bent slightly to be inserted in the above mentioned slit)
The shape of the foot and the 'onion' heads looks unsatisfactory to me too but I'd need to see the original item to give a fair and accurate opinion on them...

Aitor

[tlclark]

Franklin,
There were two parallel types of crucifrom brooches, The Germanic one and the Roman one.

Aitor,

Thanks for the review, I can see what you mean about the pin fitting.

I think the closest I will get to a late 5th-early 6th C. byz. crossbow is the Holger one.

Just a side note:

Lawrence Nees has recently been challenging the catergorization of certain items as "Roman" and others as "Germanic"

Helen Evans, the medieval curator at the Met in NY (who was the first to turn the fibula the "right" way after sitting in cases for decades upside down) is inclined to agree and there is a major relabeling effort underway regarding all so-called "Germanic" brooches/fibula etc.

The standing thinking has been that Germanic people are barbarians, metalworkers, etc. and that the portable art of brooches and its designs, etc, were brought to Europe by them.

Small problem. You go just outside the periphery of the influence of the Roman empire, in both region and chronology, and all those wonderful objects disappear, whereas if you go earlier in Roman contexts, you find prototypes galore.

If there are no "Germanic" brooches before the Germans ran into the Romans, then they can hardly be called germanic can they?

Also, all of those lovely cloissone garnet eagle brooches that we have been calling "Ostrogothic" come almost exclusively from female burials of people long inside the influence of Rome.

Lawrence Nees has something forthcoming regarding garnet inlays and cloissone icons in the Byzantine world, many of which pre-date all of the barbarian examples.

Cloissone NOT barbarian?! Heresy! but he makes a compelling case.

So the "Germanic" fibulae are actually "Roman" fibulae with a slight Germanic 'flair'.

FYI.

Travis

[Franklin]

Franklin,
There were two parallel types of crucifrom brooches, The Germanic one and the Roman one.

Aitor,

Thanks for the review, I can see what you mean about the pin fitting.

I think the closest I will get to a late 5th-early 6th C. byz. crossbow is the Holger one.

Just a side note:

Lawrence Nees has recently been challenging the catergorization of certain items as "Roman" and others as "Germanic"

Helen Evans, the medieval curator at the Met in NY (who was the first to turn the fibula the "right" way after sitting in cases for decades upside down) is inclined to agree and there is a major relabeling effort underway regarding all so-called "Germanic" brooches/fibula etc.

The standing thinking has been that Germanic people are barbarians, metalworkers, etc. and that the portable art of brooches and its designs, etc, were brought to Europe by them.

Small problem. You go just outside the periphery of the influence of the Roman empire, in both region and chronology, and all those wonderful objects disappear, whereas if you go earlier in Roman contexts, you find prototypes galore.

If there are no "Germanic" brooches before the Germans ran into the Romans, then they can hardly be called germanic can they?

Also, all of those lovely cloissone garnet eagle brooches that we have been calling "Ostrogothic" come almost exclusively from female burials of people long inside the influence of Rome.

Lawrence Nees has something forthcoming regarding garnet inlays and cloissone icons in the Byzantine world, many of which pre-date all of the barbarian examples.

Cloissone NOT barbarian?! Heresy! but he makes a compelling case.

So the "Germanic" fibulae are actually "Roman" fibulae with a slight Germanic 'flair'.

FYI.

Travis

I was gonna suggest something to the same effect. Trying to make distinctions between "roman" and "germanic", particularly in late antiquity, is tricky at best.

[Franklin]

Also, kinda confused about the image you posted for Ray's "RB-6" brooch. It clearly does not have a side-slit for the pin (as you mentioned), but the one that I purchased from Ray does. I wonder if he's modified his product since then.

[tlclark]

Also, kinda confused about the image you posted for Ray's "RB-6" brooch. It clearly does not have a side-slit for the pin (as you mentioned), but the one that I purchased from Ray does. I wonder if he's modified his product since then.

Please post a picture! If true it may make my choice easier.

No one reproduction is perfect. And NO ONE makes a byzantine one. At this point, I'm only looking for "good enough".

Travis

[Franklin]

Actually, it's off being gold plated right now (my girlfriend's dad is a jeweller!).

I'm fairly sure that plating is completely unperiod, but the bronze is a nightmare to keep polished, and I really wanted some bling for my shoulder! Chalk it up to vanity.

Will be happy to post some pics when I get it back.