From: Gretchen Miller Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 19:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 100, 5/12/94 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 100, May 12, 1994 Send items for the list to h-costume@andrew.cmu.edu (or reply to this message). Send subscription/deletion requests and inquiries to h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu To get an index of available back issues of the digest, send a message with the words: index h-costume in the body of the message, to majordomo@lunch.asd.sgi.com. Then use the command: get h-costume hcos.yymmdd to retrieve the volumes you want. Thanks and Enjoy! --------------------------------------------------------------- Topics: Question and answers: "Coulotes" in the Bayeaux Tapestry Question: Celtic lachets Lady's Gallery Premiere issue, and description of the magazine Dolls and toys Lessons learned while re-enacting Antique Air Show and Fly-In, Watsonville CA How to subscribe/unsubscribe/change your address ---------------------------- From: "Cassandra McCraw" Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 09:25:11 CST Subject: "Culottes" in the Bayeaux Tapestry??? Greetings, I have a question about some figures I saw in the Bayeaux Tapesstry. These were several men who appeared to be wearing short baggy pants - similar to women's culottes (also known as "split skirt" - this was what my mother wore instead of shorts in the 60s). There are other men who have obviously pulled their tunics up and/or around their waist in order to work more freely, but their outfits hava a different look from these men in what looks like baggy shorts. Does anyone know if men were wearing short pants at this time? If so, was it just workers or did upper class men wear this style too? Are there any texts of costume studies from the Bayeaux Tapestry? (Hmmmm - should I write one?) Thanks for any help! I would especially appreciate it if anyone could post a good reference to the costume of this time. (I need to make my husband a Norman costume for an SCA event) Cassandra McCraw (Fionna nic Alisdair in the SCA) P.S. My Italian Renaissance dress I made for a "History of Costume" class project was a smash. Three days before it was due, I found a picture in a Smithsonian of a painting of an Italian Ren woman in a dress of the same shade of pink as my daughters' dress. (Now that I feel brave enough to venture beyond T-Tunics, I need to make several for a 1066 theme event!) My daughter started reciting "Romeo and Juliet" to the class and they all thought she was adorable. -,-'-(@ -,-'-(@ -,-'-(@ -,-'-(@ -,-'-(@ -,-'-(@ -,-'-(@ -,-'-(@ Cassandra McCraw Internet: CMCCRAW@SATURN.UARK.EDU Serials Department, University of Arkansas Libraries Fayetteville AR 72701 ---------------------------- From: J.A.Bray@bnr.co.uk Date: Tue, 10 May 94 10:00:16 BST Subject: Re: "Culottes" in the Bayeaux Tapestry??? Some of the Bayeux Tapestry pictures have to be taken with a pinch of salt as it was embroidered by women who may never have seen a battle in their lives and who were probably working quite a while after the original event. Also some of the artistic conventions used are radically different from ours, for example when rows of boats are portrayed they don't get smaller and recede into the distance, they just stay the same size and stack up on top of one another! Another examples of peculiar artwork on the tapestry is the mail. (When I say mail I mean the stuff made out of linked rings not plate.) Sometimes the suits of mail are shown as lots of embroidered rings, sometimes as diamond shapes. Some people think the diamonds are actually gambesons (padde armour) but these are shown being carried between two men on poles which makes sense for heavy mail, but makes less sense for a comparitively light gambeson. I think there is even one case where a suit is shown half with rings and half with diamonds! The colouring can also get a bit wierd in places. Sometimes men are shown wearing one colour top and another colour below the waist which looks like a seperate skirt and shirt. this is something that only appears on the tapestry and as far as I know has never been seen on a manuscript painting. Just when you think you've discovered a new item of dress you notice how horses have one blue leg and one red leg and you start to wonder if they just changed colours because they ran out of one colour half way through doing the figure (a problem that wouldn't happen when colouring a manuscript of course) The usual opinion on the culottes is that they are a vented tunic. The pattern would probably be something like this: _______________________________ _______________________________ | | \____/ | | | | | | |________________________| |_______________________| \_ | | _/ \_ | | _/ \_| |_/ | | | | | | | | | | | | /| /\ |\ || || | | / | || | \ | | || | | / | || | \ | | || | | / | || | \ | | || | | / | || | \ | | || | | / | || | \ | | || | | /_ | || | _\ <-that was \_ | || | _/ intended to \_ | || | _/ be a right \_ | || | _/ angle! \|_________||________|/ ^ | That's a central split (That's meant to look like a tunic with triangular gussets under the arms and triangular gussets let into the sides, the lines came out all wobbly when I attempted to get the angles even vaguely right with the available character set.) The theory I've heard is that you can't easily ride a horse in the usual tunic of the time, so you either need a full circular skirt, or you need to hitch the skirt of the tunic up (not good in cold weather) or you split the tunic front and back. The idea is that the Norman horse riders were wearing split tunics so that they could ride and whoever drew the tapestry out wasn't much of an artist by modern standards so the split tunics came out as culottes. The reason split tunics are generally accepted as plausible is that several tunics have been found from around 1066 (give or take a century or two!) Culottes or similar items of clothing have not been found as far as I know, but this could just be a reflection of the incompleteness of the archaeological record. The split tunic theory is supported by the pictures of men apparently wearing mail cullotes. If you ride a horse in mail with a split front and back it tends to fall around your legs and protects them nicely. But I know people who have tried making alll sorts of mail culottes and all of them were agony to ride in! It's not a matter of tailoring the mail wrongly because even a tube of mail around the thigh doesn't work never mind trying to attach it to the rest of the mail shirt. This would tend to suggest that the culottes pictures are really just vented skirts on tunics But bear in mind that remains of costume from this period are very scant. Archaeologists are just guessing, and their guesses change every year as more evidence is unearthed, or as previous evidence is re-examined. So maybe they did wear culottes after all. When I'm making Norman clothing I go for something like the tunic above with knee length hose when I can get people to wear them. (there is a great reluctance in the modern man when you try to get him to part with his trousers!) Sometimes I add extra gussets where the central split goes aswell as the side gussets. For capes a simple large square of heavy wool pinned at one shoulder is fine and probably more correct than fancier patterns. I usually make the tunics knee length or slightly below the knee. The tunic appears to be worn with a little of it hanging over the belt, to get this effect just put a belt on and hold your hands above your head: the tunic pulls up so that when you lower your hands again you get a knee length tunic with bags and wrinkles that looks gratifyingly like men in manuscripts of the period. Depending on how much cloth I've got and what shape the cloth is I vary the cut. Sometimes I cut the arms all in one piece without gussets like this: _______________________________ _______________________________ | | \____/ | | | | | | |____ | | ___| \____ | | ____/ \____ | | ____/ \____ | | ____/ \____| |____/ | | (The spare bits from cutting the arms can be used as gussets down at the bottom of the tunic.) Finds from Hedeby in Denmark are suggesting that the cut of the shoulders may have been more complex than this with curving armholes similar to those on a modern shirt, but simple square and triangle cuts like the ones I've drawn above have survived in folk costumes to the present day, so presuimably when the curving cuts started to come in some areas opted to stay with the simpler cuts which are easier to make. As far as I know there isn't enough evidence to know how fast the more tailored cut would have spread so, I'd say a plain angular cut would be O.K. for a Norman, (and it'll certainly make it a lot easier to do your first tunic.) I can't think of any really good published work on Norman costume. I've worked out the stuff I've made based on assorted archaeological reports, plus manuscripts and, of ourse the Bayeux tapestry. If you want any more advice or info on more complicated stuff like shoes drop me an email and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. If you get stuck I've got instructions on making tunics in the style I've drawn above which I could post to you, they are part of a beginners guide on making dark age clothing which I wrote for a U.K. re-enactment society, so they should be fairly easy to follow, but since I'm in the U.K. it could take quite a while to get the instructions. Jennifer ---------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 22:26:17 -0700 From: "Sarah E. Goodman -- unless it's Clint Bigglestone" Subject: Re: "Culottes" in the Bayeaux Tapestry??? For what it's worth, you CAN'T ride a horse comfortably in a tunic of the apparent width the Norman's wore, unless you do split it fore and aft. Side slits do not work particularly well for this either. (We "costumed" the pony ride for King Richard's Faire a few years in the 70s, and part of what was jokingly called our pay was the right to "steal" the horses for occasional rides [we being "Gypsy" dancers that year] and [Richard's Faire at that time having a rather loose definition of it's time period and me prefering tunics in off hours, I've got a rather large list of period garments in which it either is or is not possible to ride with any degree of comfort.) As to the concept of trousers, no matter what shape, of mail--Ouch, Ouch, Ouch! (I can't even imagine wearing a chain bikini. There are places you really don't want indented with a waffle weave pattern!) Sarah Goodman ---------------------------- From: J.A.Bray@bnr.co.uk Date: Wed, 11 May 94 08:45:37 BST Subject: Re: "Culottes" in the Bayeaux Tapestry??? >For what it's worth, you CAN'T ride a horse comfortably in a tunic of the >apparent width the Norman's wore, unless you do split it fore and aft. Side >slits do not work particularly well for this either. there is a sort of tunic worn by nomadic tribes of the Russian steppes which looks very similar to the Norman tunic, but they put so many gores in the hem that it ends up with a circular skirt. I've only seen them in exhibitions but I imagine they work fine on horses. there are a couple of men on the Bayeux whose skirts look very full and are hanging in many pleats, it's possible they had an early version of these full skirted tunics on? I've noticed some very full skirted versions of the tunic worn in German folk costume aswell. I've only seen it on folk dancers, so I'm not sure if the skirts were to facilitate dancing or whether they came from areas where riding was once common. >I've got a rather large list of >period garments in which it either is or is not possible to ride with any >degree of comfort. Isn't experimental archaeology fun (or should the word be painful?) >As to the concept of trousers, no matter what shape, of mail--Ouch, Ouch, >Ouch! Ah, someone with sense, we all told him it wouldn't work, but he pointed at the tapestry and said "if it's good enough for Normans...." He changed his mind when he got that pretty mail pattern printed in bruises on his inner thigh. As you so rightly say OUCH! Jennifer ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 10:56:36 -0600 (CST) From: "Donna Holsten" Subject: Celtic dress lachets This question is from my husband: In _The Work of Angels: Masterpieces of Celtic Metalwork, 6th-9th centuries AD_ (edited by Susan Youngs), there are several examples of "dress lachets". (Items 21-24) Basically, they're circles of metal with S shaped tails. (Bad ASCII drawing follows) ________ / \ / \ | | | | _____ | | / \ | | | | | \ / | | | \_______/\ / \ / \_____/ \_____/ They were apparently used in pairs and were used to hold clothing together. Some of them have "coils of copper-alloy wire" (they look like springs) "on the shank which could be twisted through coarsely woven fabric." The coils are on the first two vertical sections of the tail part. The question is, how were these used? Were they used to hold cloaks on? Other articles of clothing? And did they *all* have the coils of wire to go through coarsely woven fabric? Were they used with finely woven fabric? If they don't all have the coils, how do they hold clothing together? Was the fabric folded in a certain way? Or were the lachets just kind of stuck on wherever they needed to go? If the coils are on the first two vertical sections of the tail, what is the last part of the tail used for? And why such an odd shape? There are certainly simpler shapes that would allow two coils to twist through fabric. Is the fabric somehow tucked into the twists in the S-shaped tail? And does anyone know of any pictures that show these being used? Thanks! Donna H. (and Tim) ---------------------------- From: close@lunch.asd.sgi.com (Diane Barlow Close) Subject: Lady's Gallery Premiere Issue? Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 14:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Hmm, here's a question that's likely to get me a big fat no, but there's no harm in trying, right? Does anyone have the premiere issue of Lady's Gallery (Volume 1, Issue 1) that they don't want and they'd like to sell to me? The back issue is sold out. :-( (I have all the rest.) -- Diane Close close@lunch.asd.sgi.com soon to be close@lunch.engr.sgi.com I'm always at lunch; only the location changes! :-) ---------------------------- From: Mirabelle Severn & Thames Subject: Re: Lady's Gallery Premiere Issue? Date: Wed, 11 May 94 15:26:45 PDT Say, a friend just gave me a brochure advertising this magazine. How is it? The brochure makes me drool. Naomi ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 22:19:28 -0700 From: "Sarah E. Goodman -- unless it's Clint Bigglestone" Subject: Re: "Culottes" in the Bayeaux Tapestry??? Re--full skirts and horse back. Yes, you can ride comfortably in anything from about 3/4th circle on up; the front drapes between the pomel (or your horse) and your legs and the back gracefully covers both your rear and the beasts. Only trouble I've run into with this is horse who think it's funny to shy away from swirling fabric. (But then, you never know WHAT will suddenly amuse your horse! I once did the rent-a-caravan thing in Ireland {wonderful way to see that country, btw} and the silly beast decided on the fourth day out {by which time a was filthy and --it being a typical Irish May--wearing many layers of clothing and looking more than a little like a sterotypical gypsy} that she was frightened of tour buses! Entertaining German tourists by trying to control a draft horse attempting to rear in the traces gave me a much greater appreciation for folk who had to rely on animal power for transportation. Practical archeology, riiiiiiight!). SEG ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 May 94 22:50:00 PST From: Maryanne.Bartlett@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Maryanne Bartlett) Subject: re: kids/dolls/toys To: H-costume@andrew.cmu.edu I am in search of pictures (i.e.primary source or photos, thereof) of children holding or playing with toys, from the years 600-1600 a.d.. I know that I have seen later period portraits of children holding puppies or ferrets, but I think that I have seen some with toys. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Yes, I am more interested in the toys than their clothes! (At least this week!) --Anja-- --- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 [NR] -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!56!Maryanne.Bartlett Internet: Maryanne.Bartlett@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org ---------------------------- From: kschultz@epas.utoronto.ca (Kirsten M. Schultz) Subject: Re: A Book and a Bio Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 09:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Hi all, I'm sorry that I haven't yet been able to reply to all the nice mail sent my way. Last week I was in Virginia at the 130th Wilderness supporting the bully boys of the Irish Brigade. It was there that I learned 2 valuable lessons: 1) "Wool is your friend" (even when wet!) 2)The steps to the "Cow Patty Polka" as the Federal camp at least was situated on a cow pasture. Now that I am back, I have to turn right around amd head off to my brother's graduation in IL. When I get back, I promise to answer my mail! Sincerely, Kirsten Schultz U. of Toronto ---------------------------- From: close@lunch.asd.sgi.com (Diane Barlow Close) Subject: Re: Lady's Gallery Premiere Issue? Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 10:40:36 -0700 (PDT) > Say, a friend just gave me a brochure advertising this magazine. > How is it? The brochure makes me drool. It's pretty neat! If you are looking for something with patterns, then this magazine is NOT it. But if you are looking for clear colour pictures of actual 1700's, 1800's and 1900's garments, then you'll find an abundance in every issue. To me it's like having a copy of "a history of fashion" show up on your doorstep every two months with different pictures of different eras. If you like to look at photos of real, actual historic clothing (on models and on mannequins), then this fills the bill unlike any other current magazine that I've been able to find. They also cover antiques (usually nick-nacks or a particular interesting piece of furniture), accessories (like hats and purses), jewelry, and culture. The content seems to be 2-3 fashion photo layouts, 1 cultural background piece complete with photos, two accessories pieces and two antique pieces per issue. It's a well-laid out, slightly "busy", very high quality glossy magazine. There are 6 issues per year (published bi-monthly) and the subscription info is: $23.95 per year for US subscriptions. $32.00 per year for Canadian subscriptions. $43.00 per year for foreign subscriptions. Call 1-800-622-5676 in the U.S. Otherwise write to: Lady's Gallery P.O. Box 1761 Independence, MO 64055 Issue #2, Volume 1, covered the nicest photos of the Theatre de la Mode that I've ever seen in any magazine. (Theatre de la Mode is a recently recovered, formerly lost, collection of dolls and their clothing used to display French Haute Couture during the difficult years of World War II, when it was in poor taste to put on an entire live fashion show.) This issue also contains their sole (so far) look at men's fashions (of the Victorian era). Issue #4, Volume 1 did an excellent photo layout of the Art Deco period. Issue #3, Volume 1 looked at Charles Worth's creations in good detail. -- Diane Close close@lunch.asd.sgi.com soon to be close@lunch.engr.sgi.com I'm always at lunch; only the location changes! :-) ---------------------------- From: close@lunch.asd.sgi.com (Diane Barlow Close) Subject: Antique Air Show Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 10:49:34 -0700 (PDT) It's not a costumed event, but the Antique Air Show and Fly-In does provide opportunities to have your photo taken in WWI gear next to a real, live, capable-of-flying bi-plane! The show goes from May 27 to May 29th in Watsonville, CA, and it's one of the few times you can get to see tons of bi-planes up in the air, doing their stuff. There are lots of restored WWI planes, and many WWII planes, too. But the emphasis is on the older stuff, and that's what makes it FUN to me! NO jets at this air show! Just good old fashioned acrobatics (and some new-fashioned ones too :-). The show provides partial support for the California Antique Aircraft Museum, which is currently stored in a "barn" while the museum is being built, in San Martin, CA. There's lots to eat, lots of souveniers, including many toys for kids, and lots of fun air shows (lots of acrobatic and bi-plane shows; very few jet-types). I had tons of fun last year, and I'm going to go again this year. If you like old planes, and don't have to have having jets around, then you'll probably like this air show too. Info can be had by calling (408) 496-9559. -- Diane Close close@lunch.asd.sgi.com soon to be close@lunch.engr.sgi.com I'm always at lunch; only the location changes! :-) ---------------------------- From: close@lunch.asd.sgi.com (Diane Barlow Close) Subject: Re: Unsubscribes DO NOT GO HERE!! Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 13:54:19 -0700 (PDT) > Please unsubscribe. People, PLEASE -- unsubscribes, subscribes and other such messages need to be sent to: h-costume-REQUEST@andrew.cmu.edu for anything to be done about your request. DO NOT SEND SUCH MESSAGES TO THIS MAILING LIST. Thank you. -- Diane Close close@lunch.asd.sgi.com soon to be close@lunch.engr.sgi.com I'm always at lunch; only the location changes! :-) ---------------------------- End of Volume 100 -----------------------