tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2670213486548123819.post8976396617715564030..comments2024-03-24T21:42:17.025-04:00Comments on Loose Threads: <small>Yet Another Costuming Blog</small>: Another Reconstruction of the Pleated-Front Apron DressCathy Raymondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04580681386443534011noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2670213486548123819.post-85179512105222838292012-06-30T13:35:42.649-04:002012-06-30T13:35:42.649-04:00@Portia No, I had not seen the second century CE ...@Portia No, I had not seen the second century CE "Roman" sculpture from the eastern half of the Empire (wish the site had more detailed information about where it was found, but antiquities sellers seldom do, unfortunately), and it is interesting. Unfortunately, without more information about where it was found (and thus what woman, or sort of woman, the sculptor was trying to depict), it's hard to make reasonable deductions about what it tells us about her costume. <br /><br />It has long been assumed that the Roman stola (the wool overdress that was emblematic of decent Roman matrons) was the ancestor of the Viking "apron dress", but that's a proposition that's hard to prove. Stolas, like apron dresses, hung from straps and could be pleated like the garment shown on this statue. On the other hand, the stola was characteristically made from wool and was always pleated, while there is evidence that some Viking "apron dresses" were made from linen and not all "apron dresses" were pleated. More information about this statue might be a helpful link in establishing this chronology. <br /><br />The David Aaron site refers to the "cloak" over the statue's head as a "himation". That's unlikely, as the "himation" was seen as a Greek, not a Roman garment. If the woman was Roman, that fabric likely was part of a palla, the wrapped cloak commonly worn by Roman women. It could even be a separate veil.Cathy Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04580681386443534011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2670213486548123819.post-53046594371414403722012-06-29T20:22:20.087-04:002012-06-29T20:22:20.087-04:00Have you guys seen this? I know the era is wrong, ...Have you guys seen this? I know the era is wrong, but... http://davidaaronarts.com/artworks/classical/roman-limestone-female-funerary-bust/Portianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2670213486548123819.post-38109065750957028202010-04-22T19:10:12.747-04:002010-04-22T19:10:12.747-04:00Google Translate agrees with your read of what the...Google Translate agrees with your read of what the Rasmussen/Lønborg article says about the length of the tablet-woven band. I just wish I had a photograph that showed that. The photograph from <i>Viking Clothing</i> is useless for that purpose.Cathy Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04580681386443534011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2670213486548123819.post-88894318222551625182010-04-22T04:57:04.353-04:002010-04-22T04:57:04.353-04:00The Køstrup article seems to say that the tablet w...The Køstrup article seems to say that the tablet woven band was only between the brooches and only 20 cm long:<br /><br />p.177<br /><br />Melem fiblerne, langs selekjolens vandrette søm, har et mørkeblåt, ca. 14 mm bredt mønstret brikbånd af uld været anbragt, oprindeligt ca. 20 cm langt.<br /><br />Between the brooches, positioned along the horizontal seam (edge) of the suspended skirt, was a dark blue, ca. 14 cm wide patterned tablet-woven band of wool, initially ca. 20 cm long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com