Talk:Clothing in ancient Rome

Untitled

Translated from French. Unsure of how to reference. Proof-read. Enjoy.Spite & Malice 09:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

leather armor

"The Romans knew how to make supple leather and tough leather (through boiling) for use as armor" - The idea of roman leather armor is generally seen in recent (post 1970) scholarship as an invalid interpretation of artistic sources and detracts from the quality of this article in the eyes of knowledgeable readers, have modified with a [citation required] with a view to removing the statement "(through boiling) for use as armor" and rephrasing the resultant fragmentary sentence at a later date if citations cannot be provided. Thoughts? Nathandbeal (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Left this be for a month, clearly no issue with the proposed change, going ahead Nathandbeal (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Section on hides, leather and skins

This section needs improvement. Several points are made that require documentation, or are plainly erroneous. Footnote 3, for instance is linked to a commercial website selling poorly researched leather costuming, rather than the author relying upon scholarly documentation for such a claim about leather wristbands. Additionally, the claim that leather goods were given by family members rather than throught the supply system is unfounded. The notion of leather being used for heavy coats against harsh weather is purely speculative.

Otherwise, the article is interesting and helpful as a basic primer in Roman clothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholardiogenes (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A mess!

I was looking through the reference section of this article, to check for unreliable refs, and I came upon this: http://www.crystalinks.com/romeclothing.html The article looks like a major copyvio. However, other sources in the violating sections make blanking them a bad idea. Can someone more experienced with copyright help here? Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 19:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the Wikipedia article has copied text from http://www.crystalinks.com/romeclothing.html - rather than the other way round? MPS1992 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

There's an "all rights reserved" box at the bottom of the main Crystalinks page. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 19:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I can believe that is so. Likewise, at the bottom of Clothing in ancient Rome it says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License", with a link and some further information.

Is there any evidence that the Wikipedia article has copied text from http://www.crystalinks.com/romeclothing.html - rather than the other way round? MPS1992 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I admit that's possible. I was suspicious when I saw the page had been created by an user blocked for harassment, but the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/web/20070321003623/http://www.crystalinks.com/romeclothing.html) appears to agree with you. Does anything need to be done about content copied from Wikipedia without attribution? Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 19:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not really sure. I believe anyone can certainly write to the infringing website and ask that they attribute Wikipedia content properly. The Crystalinks website does appear to be one intended for profit, as one can see from the commercial adverts appearing there. However, any further action might need to be taken by the original authors of the copied content. The Wikimedia Foundation might be interested in reminding the site owners of their responsibilities, but only in cases of large scale infringements, which this appears not to be. Also, many websites apply "fair use" rules far more liberally than Wikipedia's carefully defined restrictions, so the website owner might think -- rightly or wrongly -- that their use of the content is permissible. MPS1992 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I should add that the question of "for profit" or "not for profit" does not necessarily make a difference of content use being acceptable or unacceptable. But a court might look more unfavourably on an infringing site whose aim was to make money than on one whose aim was just to provide educational material about ancient Rome. And many Wikipedia editors including myself look very dimly indeed on websites or organizations which systematically abuse Wikipedia content for commercial gain. MPS1992 (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

All of that's true. Several admins and arbs specialise in copyright matters and issues. Meanwhile, the article can be tagged as a reverse copyvio: see Template:Backwards copy, and reported to the WP:Copyvio page. I have to say, I'm not sure why anyone would want to claim rights pertaining to their pirated copy of such a "not-terribly-good" article; it's nowhere near the B-class that's claimed in the talk-page. I guess standards and expenctations have been raised over the years... and a general improvement seems imminent. It can be infuriating to see one's freely donated hard work claimed and commodified by others. On the other hand, I once watched a TV programme featuring a self-styled historian - not notable, so she doesn't have a Wikipedia bio - pontificating about Roman religion, and was outraged to hear her quoting, absolutely verbatim and without attribution, a whole paragraph I'd written some weeks before. At the same time, I felt immensely flattered. So much for integrity. Haploidavey (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

→== Re-organisation ==

There are many holes to be filled. Some thoughts, questions and propositions for sections to be created:

• Rome was extremely hierarchic, obsessed with personal and class prestige; clothing was a mark of rank, status, wealth, age, gender, honour, age, occupation and role - you name it. Custom and law determined who could, and who couldn't (or shouldn't) wear what, and what it should (or shouldn't) be made from. All this should be made clear (imo) as social control and personal status are central to any discussion of Roman clothing. The best and most recent scholarly and technical sources I've read agree on this; it should be clearly addressed in the introduction and main body. I must also admit this as a personal preoccupation and interest; others might not share it. Some will come here seeking information on what the "average" man or women wore; a sort of snapshot of the streets, working class areas, upper class areas. Vout (1998) is useful for that. Maybe the foregoing should be part of an overview section, and each following section should, more-or-less, stand alone.

• There's a gender divide in clothing; we can organise by gender, ascending or descending according to class (?); though that's not always straightforward; for example, the regalia of the Galli priesthood (a "third sex") and the toga of the meretrix.

• Specific materials: for example, wool. It was woven or felted, the latter being effective as insulation and waterproof if "raw"; used for hats, cloaks, shoes, slippers, socks etc (not afaik for togas, as the article claims). So do we need a short section on wool? Woolen cloth, felt production and uses? Or on hats and headgear? And another on cloaks and so on? How should we organise this, and avoid duplication? I'm tempted to go with garment first, material second. Except that a particular garment - say, tunic or stola - might be made from any of several materials. Thoughts?

Duh. I guess it should have been obvious, given the article name "Clothing in ancient Rome". Clothing comes first, then materials, in a subsection if need be. Logically, we could start with formal clothing (for men) and ditto for women, perhaps even for children (why not?). Then "informal" (whatever that means). It's rather irksome that most attention in scholarly sources has been given to the clothing worn least often, and by the very few; but so it goes when history is written by posh geezers in togas.

Will add to this as and when. Haploidavey (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I know little about the subject, but I have done work on other ancient & medieval costume articles. I think the big problems are that you are dealing with a period of many centuries, over which there were very considerable changes, and also that I expect even the best scholarship is full of uncertainties. Typically scholars end up with a list of names (but hardly ever any descriptions) from literature and documents, a very few actual survivals from archaeology, and a bunch of images which may not be at all representative and subject to artistic convenience and convention. They can be alarmingly bold in marrying these up to make a coherent picture - less so these days perhaps. Names in contemporary sources are very treacherous - most are in fact very very vague terms equating to "dress", "gown", "coat", "blouse", "jacket", "hat" etc, as scholars understand, but often ignore for convenience, defining them over-precisely. I'd be very cautious about taking sumptuary laws too seriously, and you have to allow for (among the upper classes) different clothes worn at different times - I've seen the toga compared to the dinner jacket or morning coat in this respect. Then you have to make some allowance for "ancient Rome" covering the whole empire. I'd do men and women separately, and I think a section on materials would normally come early on. Keep an eye on Ancient Greek costume and Byzantine dress - there were very gradual transitions between these and "Roman dress" in much of the Empire. Unfortunately we lack an equivalent to Ancient Greek vase painting, with some 100,000 very varied and often informal images in a technique that can and did indicate patterns on cloth etc. Best of luck! Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you probably know more than I, and you give very useful advice. I've picked up a fair bit through researching togas, but the extent of my ignorance in this broader area is probably greater than I dare imagine. Still... we learn as we go, eh? And you seem to broadly agree with what passes for a plan in my querulous confusion above. The toga article was difficult; I didn't realise quite how difficult until I encountered the elusive equestrian trabea. Anyway, I just know this one will be worse. A real stinker. Probably best to hoik out the worst bits, replace them with something adequate, then stroll through one step at a time. Thanks for the luck-wish; it'll be needed. Haploidavey (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The rough plan sounds good to me. Organization will be difficult because we can sort by era, gender, social class... I'd have a section titled something along the lines of "Status and rank related to Roman clothing" (Haploidavey's first point), and then perhaps divide the rest of the article up by era ("Early Republic", "Late Empire", etc.), then sub- and sub-sub-divide as needed. I'd like to have a mention of provincial clothing (not really in the article at all), and maybe expand religious/priestly clothing past the bullet points there now. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 20:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Very good, Chickadee46. The provinces are under-represented or overlooked in most of our articles on Roman culture. I thought we might as well start by pillaging and adapting relevant material and citations from other articles. Some sections will thus seem over-detailed, compared to those which are currently patchy or sparse. That can't be helped. Haploidavey (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I've shifted a lot of sections around in an attempt to organize the article better. The structure still needs some improvement ("Togas" doesn't completely belong in "men's clothing") but I think it's a step forward from what we had before. Any thoughts? Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 16:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've one at least, namely that it's now a damn sight better than it was. On the toga thing, we might need a division of formal wear for both men and women. Perhaps the difficulty (if such it is) of fitting togas in categories arises from sheer inconsistency among the Romans themselves. In the real world, they seem to have been far less insistent on rules and social categories than their moralists and historians (and ours in turn, come to that) cared to admit. Curious, really. (post edit) Or to put it another way, I think the structure's now sufficiently robust to allow some truly informative and meaningful content-shovelling. Haploidavey (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This article does seem to have a bit of issue in its organization and presentation. It just seems to jump around between types of clothing and topics. It seems like that's been a big area of discussion. One route which the article could take maybe would be to first present the fabrics/materials/production, and then move into the types of clothing based on those materials. Otherwise this materials section just seems oddly placed in the center of the article. Though this could possibly be confusing and throw off people who aren't interested in the information regarding the production and just purely looking to learn about the types. Scoughla(talk) 1:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, management and organisation are a bit of a challenge. I think most readers would be interested in the clothing itself (who wore what, and when they wore it). So I'd definitely lead in with that. The materials section is oddly placed... not sure what to do about that. A change in sequence might be in order. I'll experiment. Haploidavey (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Woven to shape vs tailored

It seems that most older modern sources (and recent sources citing them) assume that fabrics were woven to selvedged shape of the planned garment. No seams. One or two - I don't recall which - claim that sewing and seams were avoided because Roman needles would have been too coarse. Even as speculation, that's nonsense; so are claims that Roman scissors weren't up to the job of cutting fabric to shape. Perhaps something's to be said for the notion that weaving to a predetermined and final shape helped conserve material. But regardless, contra all this, there's recent material (!archaeological) evidence of well-tailored gussets. So I think we need a section on tailoring, using the most up-to-date modern sources. Haploidavey (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Footwear

Several difficulties here. We've some would-be "definitive" articles on types of Roman footwear; Caliga, Calceus and Soccus; and we've a general article on Sandal. As ever, the definitions and categories seldom accommodate the objects themselves. There's tremendous variation in Roman contemporary terminology for footwear - in many cases we've not a clue what was meant. And there's tremendous, inventive variety in the footwear itself. Just to take a couple of examples; where might the "Hellenistic military-style high-laced, soft-topped but rather military-looking high-boot shown on some statuary and paintings" be dealt with? When does a calceus become an enclosed "shoe-boot"? I suggest we sort this out by having a nicely capacious and broad new article, "Footwear in ancient Rome", which would absorb all separate articles on Roman footwear. Any objections? Haploidavey (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I OBJECT!!!! For dramatic and comedic purposes only. And now I immediately rescind my objection, with a full written apology. So by all means, WP:be bold and create the article! Bring these scattered articles together under one great house and beneath one roof! Reforge the blade (of Elendil) that was broken! Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A Hobbit thanks ye from the soles of his naked hairy feet! Haploidavey (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

expand/delete section

The "patrons and clients" section seems only tangential. Expand if possible, or just take out? Trysalandra (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed -- it's an oddity, and the preamble is distracting. Topically, it relates to social class, so I'll remove the heading, and see how it reads after that. Thanks! Haploidavey (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, with a little editing down: it reads more easily. Thanks again. Haploidavey (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Public nudity, for instance in and around ships

The article mentions slaves working in mines being possibly nude but male nudity was apparently more commonplace than that. My High School Latin textbook, for example, had an illustration of Roman life that depicted men of status in togas and naked men working on a ship. The idea was that status could be seen by looking at how the people were dressed. It was also clear that public male nudity was not considered offensive, although it was considered a sign of being low class. The article could do with more information about the role of public nudity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.19 (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Pompeii and the Cities of Vesuvius

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 12 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Corinnestevens (article contribs).

use of the word "midstep"

In the first paragraph, the word "midstep" is used to describe the length of garments. I have searched several online dictionaries for this sense of the word, and come up empty. My guess is that the intent was something equivalent to "midcalf". Perhaps someone with more expertise in ancient Roman clothing could clear this up? Thanks. ZevFarkas (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I assumed it would be familiar to most readers, but it's evidently not. Perhaps hyphenated? Anatomical? Or British English? Croom describes the stola as long enough to modestly cover the feet (I've made the changes required). Haploidavey (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It was quite a while go, and my memory's not what it was, but I might have intended the anatomical "mid-foot" (and yes, that's not particularly useful either). Haploidavey (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)