No, it's not mine--not yet. However, tonight, on a mailing list, I found a pointer to the following Russian language web site:
http://archcostume.narod.ru/
I started to explore the site using Google Translate and found this subpage with photographs of a proposed Pskov reconstruction. I assume that Ms. Julia Stepanova, the author of the page, is responsible for the reconstruction, though I can't tell for sure.
Here's a direct link to one of the photographs.
I wish I knew the size of the dress form on which the reconstruction is displayed, since I'm having trouble imagining how the front lies so flat if the front loops are as far apart on the reconstruction as they are on the find.
Could it be related to the sketch (still on Sofya la Rus' page) where it looks like there was an attempt to fold the front panel?
ReplyDeleteIf it was based on that drawing, then the fold would be visible if a photo was taken from the other side of the mannequin, but we can't see it. If the fabric is stiff enough, of the tortoise brooches close enough, then maybe the hypothetical central brooch holding the folds together isn't needed?
Could it be related to the sketch (still on Sofya la Rus' page) where it looks like there was an attempt to fold the front panel?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean by "fold the front panel". If you are referring to the small inset at the lower right hand corner of this sketch, I don't think that's meant to be a fold. I'm inclined to agree with Peter Beatson that it's meant to be a separate front cloth or apron-like garment worn over the front of the dress, presumably to keep the dress from falling off the shoulders.
But no matter how one chooses to interpret the sketch, I don't think the front panel of apron dress part of the Pskov find could be worn folded over (doubled in thickness and halved in width) for at least two reasons:
1) Look at the way the front panel scoops down at the sides. The Pskov reconstructors agree that this means the rest of the dress--the parts below the narrow part of the trim, the parts that didn't survive, extend in BOTH DIRECTIONS from the front panel. Put another way, there is no open edge down either side of the front panel--there is only the rest of the dress. If you folded the front panel to wear the dress, you'd have to fold the entire side of the apron dress across the front of the wearer, which would be strange and probably ugly.
2) The cut pieces of silk that were sewn to the front panel to decorate it were sewn only on one surface of the linen (that's clearer from the article description, which I'll pull out if you like). If you could, and did, fold over part of the front panel this way in wear, you would be hiding half of that wonderful silk. I can't imagine anyone, Viking or not, willingly doing that.
I'll comment on your other thought separately.
If it was based on that drawing, then the fold would be visible if a photo was taken from the other side of the mannequin, but we can't see it.
ReplyDeleteNote, though, that all the Pskov reconstruction drawings show the apron dress wrapping all the way around the body, covering the shift from the sides. This photographic reconstruction, on the other hand, clearly shows a strip of the shift all the way down the wearer's right side (the left side in the photograph). The end result, though a lot like the Geijer apron dress model the Pskov reconstructors' NESAT article talks about, doesn't really explain the strips protruding from either side of the fragment, below the level of the panel. If Julia Stepanova's photographic reconstruction were correct, there should be a strip coming out of only one side of the fragment.
If the fabric is stiff enough, of the tortoise brooches close enough, then maybe the hypothetical central brooch holding the folds together isn't needed?
This, on the other hand, strikes me as a real possibility. It may be that, if you wrap the sides around the body using two sets of straps, the front takes care of itself because the sewn-on samite decoration was stiff enough. It does mean that I may need to make a slightly more expensive cheap reproduction of the dress to even test my theory. Sigh.
If you are referring to the small inset at the lower right hand corner of this sketch, I don't think that's meant to be a fold. I'm inclined to agree with Peter Beatson that it's meant to be a separate front cloth or apron-like garment worn over the front of the dress, presumably to keep the dress from falling off the shoulders.
ReplyDeleteWe're both staring at the same little line drawing, but I'm still seeing it as a fold instead of a panel.
Beatson says it "...must have required some draping and/or folding to wear."
but in footnote 14, says "In another sketch, the authors have added a narrow apron to connect the brooches."
But if it was a narrow apron, then why does the upper hem - where the 'drape' is in the larger sketch - seem much more flat? If there was an apron and the wider front was still draped, then wouldn't the hem behind the panel hang downwards? The flattening out of the hem looks to me like it has been folded.
(I'm not sure if that makes any sense. Sorry.)
If you could, and did, fold over part of the front panel this way in wear, you would be hiding half of that wonderful silk. I can't imagine anyone, Viking or not, willingly doing that.
It doesn't make sense in either case, honestly, if the smaller sketch is showing a folded panel, or a layer that is covering the silk. (If there was an additional panel behind the drape-y part, it might make sense.) I entirely agree with you on that point.
http://archcostume.narod.ru/gallery_pskov.html
ReplyDeleteI think that the dress was just narrowed to "human size". This reconstruction was much criticized (because of the modern shawl and other things). Unfortunately I don't remember where.
Julia Stepanova is not responsible for the reconstruction. It was exhibited in the Pskov Archaeology Center, and Ms. Stepanova just took the pictures.
ReplyDeleteBTW, if you need help with Russian language, please feel free to write me to natsukusa(at)rambler.ru.
I think that the dress was just narrowed to "human size". This reconstruction was much criticized (because of the modern shawl and other things).
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised that it was criticized! Granted, it's never possible to tell from an archaeological find whether the find was of a garment or object that was common in period. But assuming that the wearer was larger than "human" simply from the odd placement of the loops? It seems to me that doing that is simply throwing information away and imposing one's preconceptions upon the find, instead of figuring out how the original might really have been worn.
Thanks for the information about where this reconstruction comes from. I'm a little surprised, because in some respects this reconstruction is inconsistent with the article in NESAT, but it's not uncommon for museums or other organizations to speak with more than one voice on an issue.
If I do need Russian translation help, I'll let you know. Thanks for that too!
If it was based on that drawing, then the fold would be visible if a photo was taken from the other side of the mannequin, but we can't see it. If the fabric is stiff enough, of the tortoise brooches close enough, then maybe the hypothetical central brooch holding the folds together isn't needed?
ReplyDeleteOkay, I now think I know what you mean
by the "fold" you've been referring to in the drawing. You're suggesting that they took a tuck in the center of the front panel (which is hidden underneath the hypothetical apron) to to make the dress narrow enough to stay put.
That may well be what the drawing is meant to suggest, but I don't buy it as an explanation of how the dress really was worn, for a number of reasons.
Aside from the point we agree upon (which is that one wouldn't want to hide the silk panel), the only damage to the front panel that I see that might have been caused by creasing and pinning is *off-center* and too large to have been caused by a small brooch. (Meanwhile, the large brooches appear only to have passed through the loops, judging by the photographs of the brooch interior).
However, I don't think that the tortoise brooches alone would hold a fold like that in place unless one of the brooch pins went *through* the fold (and there's no sign of that on the brooches and no apparent sign of it on the apron dress). We know where the front loops were placed--85 cm apart. To keep the dress up at all, the brooches had to go through those loops. To move the brooches closer, you'd have to depend either on pinning them through the panel (no indication of same except possibly the damaged area on the top right-ish) or on them staying on the woman's shoulders, which seems unlikely, particularly if the dress wasn't a closed tube. Finally, if the silk-decorated panel was stiffer than the rest of the dress, it would be *less* likely to hold a fold without pinning--thicker fabric is more likely to come unfolded.
Finally, all this begs the question of why the dress was cut the way it was cut in the first place. That front panel is deliberately *shaped* to its existing size, and the front loops were deliberately sewn as far apart as they are. No one goes through that kind of effort without a reason. Even if a person other than the woman for whom the dress was originally made might have needed to wear the apron with a tuck in it, the original wearer probably would not have--or the dress would have been cut smaller or been differently shaped in the first place.
Finally, I hope to respond to pearl's comments about the hemline of the apron dress in the small reconstruction sketch.
ReplyDeleteBut if it was a narrow apron, then why does the upper hem - where the 'drape' is in the larger sketch - seem much more flat?
That's what convinces me it's a separate apron atop the apron dress (with a possibly folded front panel). The top is flat because it's the straight edge of a separate piece of cloth--it's not the top edge of the panel at all, folded or not. That's why the small third hypothetical brooch is there--to keep the cloth pinned in place so it wouldn't slip off center.
If there was an apron and the wider front was still draped, then wouldn't the hem behind the panel hang downwards? The flattening out of the hem looks to me like it has been folded.
Yes, the hem behind the panel would still hang downwards--I think you're right about that. That was the detail that convinced me that part of what may be going on in the small sketch is that the front panel underneath the small apron has had a fold taken in it.
By the way, I don't have a lot of faith in the black-and-white sketches. The large sketch shows a weird diagonal fold that wouldn't be there if the dress were shaped in a manner consistent with the shape of the apron dress fragment. I suspect the artist didn't really understand what the reconstructors were trying to get him/her to depict when the drawings were made.