Fashion for the Conquest
David J. Starr
clothing. What does the well dressed Norman wear to work anyhow? Lots
of folk are wearing tunics, with a knee length skirt (like a Scottish
kilt). Under the skirt they all wear something that looks like modern
tights (Hose?). It is close fitting, brightly colored and covers the
legs all the way up to the hip. It is not high socks, no flesh shows
between the hem of the skirt and the knee. I'm wondering what this was
called back then(hose?), was it knitted wool? and what kept it up?
There are several folks shown wading the the water, boarding ship or
placing the anchors. These folk always take off their shoes and hose to
keep 'em dry, and tuck the hem of their tunic skirt up into their belts
to keep it dry too.
Then, looking closely, a lot of folk are wearing pants. Knee length,
floppy trouser legs, but they show daylight between the legs. The folk
in pants often wear hose as well. Most of the time the guys doing the
chores (cooking, serving, cutting wood, building ships) are in pants and
the high ranking folk (like William & Harald) wear tunics with skirts.
Also interesting, everyone is wearing brightly colored clothing, no
homespun browns, everything has been dyed.
David Starr
Heather Rose Jones
>
> I've been going over the Bayeaux Tapestry illustrations with an eye to
> clothing. What does the well dressed Norman wear to work anyhow? Lots
> of folk are wearing tunics, with a knee length skirt (like a Scottish
> kilt).
There doesn't seem to be any reason to interpret the garments as having
a separate kilt-like skirt. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying
to describe, or if you were simply using it to talk about where the hem falls.
There seem to be two basic types of tunics worn by the civilian men: one
with a split skirt and one with a non-split skirt. (The ones with an
identifiable split seem to have it at the center front and back,
although there are a few figures that may show side slits. All three
styles have parallels that can be found in surviving garments from the
following century or two.)
> Under the skirt they all wear something that looks like modern
> tights (Hose?). It is close fitting, brightly colored and covers the
> legs all the way up to the hip. It is not high socks, no flesh shows
> between the hem of the skirt and the knee. I'm wondering what this was
> called back then(hose?), was it knitted wool? and what kept it up?
Despite the depictions in the tapestry, contemporary artwork tends to
show the hose more clearly as the equivalent of "hip socks", usually
with the braies (linen underpants) showing high up on the leg. The
braies _were_ a single, trouser-like garment (as can be seen in other
sources when figures are in a state of semi-undress) but have shifted to
become something closer to underwear, and the visible, colored
leg-coverings are worn _over_ this garment. The hose would be made of
woven fabric, although possibly cut on the bias (this was the standard
method in surviving examples from the next couple of centuries).
Non-woven sock-type garments also occur at this period, made by a
technique called "nalbinding" which is similar in effect to knitting but
very different in technique -- but this technique seems to have been
used only for short "ankle sock" style items, and never for whole-leg
hose. (There are later medieval examples of knee-high socks made with
nalbinding, but knitted hose don't seem to show up until the later
Renaissance.) The hose would be held up by ties, fastened to a "braies
belt" that also served to hold up the underpants. Garters were also
sometimes used in helping fasten the hose, and some of the figures in
which the hose have striped designs may represent this style.
> There are several folks shown wading the the water, boarding ship or
> placing the anchors. These folk always take off their shoes and hose to
> keep 'em dry, and tuck the hem of their tunic skirt up into their belts
> to keep it dry too.
> Then, looking closely, a lot of folk are wearing pants. Knee length,
> floppy trouser legs, but they show daylight between the legs. The folk
> in pants often wear hose as well.
It's not uncommon for people to want to interpret these figures as
wearing some sort of short, loose trousers, but this seems to be largely
due to a particular stylization in the artwork. If you look at a larger
range of contemporary representations of clothing, the evidence
disappears. The apparent "pants" are simply a tunic with a split skirt
> Most of the time the guys doing the
> chores (cooking, serving, cutting wood, building ships) are in pants and
> the high ranking folk (like William & Harald) wear tunics with skirts.
> Also interesting, everyone is wearing brightly colored clothing, no
> homespun browns, everything has been dyed.
The image of medieval people as wearing dull, brown or undyed clothing
is a Hollywoodism. In the case of paintings, one always needs to be
aware of the medium -- that you're seeing clothing in the colors for
which paint was available, not necessarily for which cloth was
available. But in this case, any color that wool could be dyed for the
embroidery, it could be dyed for the clothing being represented.
Note: the above, being a summary of a large amount of information,
contains a number of simplifications and generalization that obscure
some of the details and variety of what was going on.
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
Keith Marzullo
Heather Rose Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>The image of medieval people as wearing dull, brown or undyed clothing
>is a Hollywoodism. In the case of paintings, one always needs to be
>aware of the medium -- that you're seeing clothing in the colors for
>which paint was available, not necessarily for which cloth was
>available. But in this case, any color that wool could be dyed for the
>embroidery, it could be dyed for the clothing being represented.
heather,
you sound like you understand this topic well.
i've known many people who dye yarn using natural (i.e., non-analine)
dyes. most, while not dull, aren't terribly brilliant either. they
mostly tend towards the yellow, depending on the mordant.
it's not easy coming up with brilliant colors - it requires
rather specific sources, such as cocheneal. (as you can see, my
friends have used new world dyestuffs).
so, while one could in fact dye the wool yarn for clothing using the
same dyes as that used for tapestry, it may not have made much economic
sense to do so?
cheers,
keith
--
___________________________________________________
Keith Marzullo University of California, San Diego
Department of Computer Science & Engineering
---------------------------------------------------
Renia
> In article <3A1225BA...@socrates.berkeley.edu>,
> Heather Rose Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >The image of medieval people as wearing dull, brown or undyed clothing
> >is a Hollywoodism. In the case of paintings, one always needs to be
> >aware of the medium -- that you're seeing clothing in the colors for
> >which paint was available, not necessarily for which cloth was
> >available. But in this case, any color that wool could be dyed for the
> >embroidery, it could be dyed for the clothing being represented.
>
> heather,
>
> you sound like you understand this topic well.
>
> i've known many people who dye yarn using natural (i.e., non-analine)
> dyes. most, while not dull, aren't terribly brilliant either. they
> mostly tend towards the yellow, depending on the mordant.
> it's not easy coming up with brilliant colors - it requires
> rather specific sources, such as cocheneal. (as you can see, my
> friends have used new world dyestuffs).
>
> so, while one could in fact dye the wool yarn for clothing using the
> same dyes as that used for tapestry, it may not have made much economic
> sense to do so?
>
Also, Heather, I'm sure I read, or heard somewhere, that purple dye was not
available until Victorian times. Is that right? If so, why was this?
Renia
Niels L Ellegaard
> Then, looking closely, a lot of folk are wearing pants. Knee length,
> floppy trouser legs, but they show daylight between the legs. The folk
> chores (cooking, serving, cutting wood, building ships) are in pants and
> the high ranking folk (like William & Harald) wear tunics with skirts.
> Also interesting, everyone is wearing brightly colored clothing, no
> homespun browns, everything has been dyed.
I am notra trained historian but once saw a popular historic show on
danish television. They said that it was possible to distinguish
between different fashions in the tapestry. The guys from Denmark wore
traditional Norman dresses whereas the guys from Normandy had adapted
the Frankian fashion. The guys from normandy also had Frankian
hairstyles.
By the way, one can find the tapestry on the net
http://www.battle1066.com/bayeux1.htm
--
Niels L Ellegaard http://dirac.ruc.dk/~gnalle/
SPECIAL OFFER! I proofread unsolicited commercial email sent to this
address at a rate of US $500.00 per incident! Include billing address
in your message and save US $500.00 per hour off ordinary address
resolution and tracking charge!
David J. Starr
>
> "David J. Starr" wrote:
> >
> > I've been going over the Bayeaux Tapestry illustrations with an eye to
> > clothing. What does the well dressed Norman wear to work anyhow? Lots
> > of folk are wearing tunics, with a knee length skirt (like a Scottish
> > kilt).
>
> There doesn't seem to be any reason to interpret the garments as having
> a separate kilt-like skirt. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying
> to describe, or if you were simply using it to talk about where the hem falls.
Put it down to a poor description on my part. I did interprete the
tunic as a single garment starting at the shoulders and ending with a
hem down around knee level.
>
> It's not uncommon for people to want to interpret these figures as
> wearing some sort of short, loose trousers, but this seems to be largely
> due to a particular stylization in the artwork. If you look at a larger
> range of contemporary representations of clothing, the evidence
> disappears. The apparent "pants" are simply a tunic with a split skirt
Interesting. What you say is certainly believable. Pants are harder to
tailor than skirts, so I was somewhat surprized to see them in 1066.
The ones in the tapestry look just like Burmuda shorts. Was there any
social connotations to split vs unsplit skirts? Like the modern
distinction between blue jeans and a business suit?
Paul McLaughlin
news:3A1266CB...@cwcom.net...
<snip...>
>
> Also, Heather, I'm sure I read, or heard somewhere, that purple dye was
not
> available until Victorian times. Is that right? If so, why was this?
>
> Renia
Purple dye was available, but it was available only from a specific sort of
crushed shell (I don't know what type), and as such was very expensive. This
is why Roman emperors wore the "Imperial Purple"
Hope this helps.
Paul
Lblanch001
>Purple dye was available, but it was available only from a specific sort of
>crushed shell (I don't know what type),
Murex purpura, I think.
and as such was very expensive. This
>is why Roman emperors wore the "Imperial Purple"
But was it purple as we know it, or some other rich, rare color?
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lblan...@aol.com (or lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu)
http://www.r3.org/
(see http://orb.rhodes.edu/ to reach major medieval gateway sites)
ANNE V. GILBERT
"
>
> But was it purple as we know it, or some other rich, rare color?
>
They had something called "murrey", which was either derived from
blackberries and was a dark reddish or purplish color, or derived from the
berries that came from mulberry trees, which produced similar colors.
Whether one could call this purple, I will leave to people with greater
expertise than my own.
Anne Gilbert
Sue Mitchell
<lblan...@aol.com> writes
>>
>>Purple dye was available, but it was available only from a specific sort of
>>crushed shell (I don't know what type),
>
>Murex purpura, I think.
>
--
Life short 2 is
Sue Mitchell - s...@imps.demon.co.uk
Heather Rose Jones
>
> In article <3A1225BA...@socrates.berkeley.edu>,
> Heather Rose Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >The image of medieval people as wearing dull, brown or undyed clothing
> >is a Hollywoodism. In the case of paintings, one always needs to be
> >aware of the medium -- that you're seeing clothing in the colors for
> >which paint was available, not necessarily for which cloth was
> >available. But in this case, any color that wool could be dyed for the
> >embroidery, it could be dyed for the clothing being represented.
>
> heather,
>
> you sound like you understand this topic well.
>
> i've known many people who dye yarn using natural (i.e., non-analine)
> dyes. most, while not dull, aren't terribly brilliant either. they
> mostly tend towards the yellow, depending on the mordant.
> it's not easy coming up with brilliant colors - it requires
> rather specific sources, such as cocheneal. (as you can see, my
> friends have used new world dyestuffs).
>
> so, while one could in fact dye the wool yarn for clothing using the
> same dyes as that used for tapestry, it may not have made much economic
> sense to do so?
Any sort of cloth-dying involves a fair amount of labor if not expense,
so to some extent it _never_ makes "economic sense" to dye cloth, but
people even in relatively impoverished cultures seem to consider it
worth the effort. Bright colors are easily obtainable from fairly
common ingredients, but sometimes take a relatively sophisticated
technology, particularly with regard to mordanting. (If you want to see
some incredibly striking colors from ancient dyes, look at Elizabeth
Barber's book "The Mummies of Urumchi", especially the reds and blues.)
Many of the cloth colors popular in medieval Europe required highly
specific dyestuffs, and if these were not produced locally, chances are
you'll find a major international trade involving the item. But you can
get a lot of brilliant colors out of plant materials that will grow
throughout most of the region: madder, woad, several yellow-producing
materials, lichens, and so forth.
And if you look at things like wills or court cases even for people of
the peasantry, you'll find plenty of references identifying clothes by a
variety of colors. So I don't see any reason to believe that the
clothing colors represented in the Bayeaux embroidery are significantly
different in type or prevalence than what was actually being worn.
--
Heather Rose Jones
> Also, Heather, I'm sure I read, or heard somewhere, that purple dye was not
> available until Victorian times. Is that right? If so, why was this?
"Purple" is a complicated topic, because we're dealing not only with a
vast historic mystique about "royal purple" and "murex purple" but with
a color-term that has changed significantly in scope over time.
One of the best references I know on the topic of the history of purple
dyes -- and especially what the term covered in pre-modern times -- is
"Red Dyes: Cochineal, Madder, and Murex Purple" by Gosta Sandberg (Lark
Books, 1994).
The "purple" of classical and early medieval times was much redder than
the modern term tends to indicate -- something more in a maroon or
burgundy range. If you look at archaeological textiles that were dyed
with murex purple -- even ones preserved in non-fading conditions -- a
modern person would be far more likely to describe them as "reddish
brown" or "purplish brown" than as plain "purple".
It is _possible_ to get natural dyed colors much more in the blue ranges
of purple (more of a "violet" color), particularly using some of the
lichen dyes such as orchil. But the bluer purples aren't what a
medieval dyer would have been aiming for if he were trying to dye
something "purple".
It's true that the synthetic aniline dyes that first became available in
Victorian times made brilliant ("jewel-tone"), pure, non-fading colors
available very cheaply and revolutionized the dying industry. And the
_ease_ of obtaining some colors and shades that were fairly tricky or
expensive to get previously affect what colors were fashionable.
Fashion often restricts the variety of the possible that is actually
accomplished. Some extremely rare medieval dyestuffs were highly prized
and fashionable, usually due to the difficulty and expense involved in
transporting the raw materials or (as in the case of murex purple) in
the labor-intensiveness of the process. But there were also possible
dye colors that were rare in the medieval period because they were
tricky or labor-intensive to produce that never had any compensating
"exotic" popularity, so people didn't take the bother to produce them.
People might use combinations of more common dyestuffs to try to
duplicate the color of murex purple, but it might never occur to them to
shift the proportions and timing to get a "modern" blue-purple because
that shade didn't have any fashionable associations.
Heather Rose Jones
>
> Heather Rose Jones wrote:
> > It's not uncommon for people to want to interpret these figures as
> > wearing some sort of short, loose trousers, but this seems to be largely
> > due to a particular stylization in the artwork. If you look at a larger
> > range of contemporary representations of clothing, the evidence
> > disappears. The apparent "pants" are simply a tunic with a split skirt
>
> Interesting. What you say is certainly believable. Pants are harder to
> tailor than skirts, so I was somewhat surprized to see them in 1066.
> The ones in the tapestry look just like Burmuda shorts. Was there any
> social connotations to split vs unsplit skirts? Like the modern
> distinction between blue jeans and a business suit?
I have encountered descriptions from people wanting to make class or
activity correlations, but the jury seems to be still out. The
front/back split is, in theory at least, more practical for riding, and
the correlation in the embroidery between "active people" and "split
tunics" may be a practical one rather than necessarily a class-based
one. (I think the embroidery also has a correlation for some of the
highest-class individuals between "sitting around = full-length tunic;
being active = knee-length tunic". Among surviving garments from the
11-13th centuries, some very fancy tunics have slits, but I only recall
side-slits, not front/back ones (e.g., the "eagle dalmatic" of the Holy
Roman Emperors). The only surviving garment I can think of offhand that
unambiguously shows a front/back slit is a simple woolen garment. (Many
lower or middle-class tunics in the archaeological material have central
slits for gussets, so it can be hard to determine if the finished
garment was meant to be split. In the garment I'm thinking of, it has a
one-piece central gusset in the front that was then split up to waist
level, suggesting that the split was functional.)
Keith Marzullo
In article <3A12F124...@socrates.berkeley.edu>,
Heather Rose Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Any sort of cloth-dying involves a fair amount of labor if not expense,
>so to some extent it _never_ makes "economic sense" to dye cloth, but
>people even in relatively impoverished cultures seem to consider it
>worth the effort. Bright colors are easily obtainable from fairly
>common ingredients, but sometimes take a relatively sophisticated
>technology, particularly with regard to mordanting. (If you want to see
>some incredibly striking colors from ancient dyes, look at Elizabeth
>Barber's book "The Mummies of Urumchi", especially the reds and blues.)
i think that you and i are disagreeing by what the phrase "economic sense"
means. if some colors were expensive to produce, then someone might
dye with them only clothes meant for official occasions rather than
meant for, say, battlewear.
>Many of the cloth colors popular in medieval Europe required highly
>specific dyestuffs, and if these were not produced locally, chances are
>you'll find a major international trade involving the item. But you can
>get a lot of brilliant colors out of plant materials that will grow
>throughout most of the region: madder, woad, several yellow-producing
>materials, lichens, and so forth.
>
>And if you look at things like wills or court cases even for people of
>the peasantry, you'll find plenty of references identifying clothes by a
>variety of colors. So I don't see any reason to believe that the
>clothing colors represented in the Bayeaux embroidery are significantly
>different in type or prevalence than what was actually being worn.
i agree that one can produce many colors - not just brown and gray
as you were complaining that hollywood myths perpetuate - using
natural dyestuff. but, the only brilliant colors i've seen over here
are done either with costly dyestuff or with mordants (like chrome)
that may not have been available then (eucalyptus looks pretty snazzy
with chrome; i know, it wasn't available in medieval europe). but,
as you noted, there was an industry in place that we don't have now in
natural dyes. one can do some amazing dying using well-aged urine that
few are willing to put up with now.
anyway, my question boils down to this: the bayeaux tapestry
was an artifact that a lot of time and care went into. would the
dyes they used really be representative of the dyes one would use
for clothes worn in battle? if so, then i'm further impressed with
the dying industry around the turn of the millenium.
Heather Rose Jones
> anyway, my question boils down to this: the bayeaux tapestry
> was an artifact that a lot of time and care went into. would the
> dyes they used really be representative of the dyes one would use
> for clothes worn in battle? if so, then i'm further impressed with
> the dying industry around the turn of the millenium.
We may simply be working from very different perspectives here. In the
context of turn of the millennium embroideries, the Bayeaux piece is a
crude, cheap piece of apprentice-work. Oh, it's _big_ alright, but in
terms of materials and methods, it doesn't really measure up on the time
and care points. The state of the art of turn of the century English
embroidery is shown in surviving pieces like the Maaseik fragments and
the relics of Saint Cuthbert -- very fine silk and gold embroidery on
silk cloth.
The Bayeaux embroidery stands in pretty much the same relationship to
_good_ embroidery of the time as your battle clothing stands to fancy
court clothes. I agree with you about considering the amount of time
and expense people were willing to put into everyday clothing, but I
think you've got the bar set too low. A dyed woolen tunic is only a
very short distance from an undyed one in the scale of time and care
known to have been put into clothing of the era.
Keith Marzullo
In article <3A1354B6...@socrates.berkeley.edu>,
Heather Rose Jones <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
(several interesting points - go read 'em in context)
thank you for the good posting. i just looked up dying with woad and
maddar, and while i think i'll pass on trying woad ("Queen Elizabeth
forbade the processing of woad within a five mile radius of any royal
estates because she so abhorred the stench") maddar may be worth a try
by us modern folks.
- keith
Lblanch001
>They had something called "murrey", which was either derived from
>blackberries and was a dark reddish or purplish color, or derived from the
>berries that came from mulberry trees, which produced similar colors.
Yabbut...
If it comes from mulberry trees, it can't very well be royal purple from the
murex mollusk, can it?
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> Also, Heather, I'm sure I read, or heard somewhere, that purple dye was
> not available until Victorian times.
Purple has been available from the ancient period. From memory it was
extracted from the murex a mollusc. However it was extremely expensive.
You had to be an Emperor to afford it hence Imperial Purple. Cheap purple
came in with chemical dyes.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Renia
See Heather's reply, where she says:
> The "purple" of classical and early medieval times was much redder than
> the modern term tends to indicate -- something more in a maroon or
> burgundy range. If you look at archaeological textiles that were dyed
> with murex purple -- even ones preserved in non-fading conditions -- a
> modern person would be far more likely to describe them as "reddish
> brown" or "purplish brown" than as plain "purple".
>
Renia
ANNE V. GILBERT
> If it comes from mulberry trees, it can't very well be royal purple from
the
> murex mollusk, can it?
Didn't say it did, did I? I guess what I *wanted* to say was that, in
medieval times, the definition of "purple" might have been kind of elastic
and the color(s)produced by such an elastic definition might have come from
mulberry trees and blackberries(for all I know).
Anne Gilbert
Brian M. Scott
<avgi...@prodigy.net> wrote:
[...]
> I guess what I *wanted* to say was that, in
>medieval times, the definition of "purple" might have been kind of elastic
>and the color(s)produced by such an elastic definition might have come from
>mulberry trees and blackberries(for all I know).
Interestingly enough, the Old French <porpre> (from Latin <purpura>,
like English <purple>) meant (1) a costly fabric of a deep color ('de
couleur foncée') and (2) a kind of fur, so named because of its color
(and often of mediocre quality). In sense (1) one spoke of <porpre
vermeille>, <porpre noire>, <porpre inde>, etc., but the most common
was <porpre bise>, a fabric of inferior quality. Gradually <porpre>
came to be synonymous with <bis> as a color term. Thus, as a heraldic
tincture <porpre> was originally a grey or brownish grey. It seems
likely that the substitution of the modern sense in the 15th and 16th
centuries was based on recognition of the word's etymology.
Brian M. Scott