Two points: First - really? Somebody made that circle, with all the little lines that look exactly like stitches, on a loom? That seems overly delicate. but, Second - even assuming you're right about it being tapestry, this is the kind of detail that you may be inclined to get hung up on, to the detriment of your overall goal. The goal of this thread was to get advice on how to describe some clothing, right? Someone got a detail wrong and you gave what felt, at least to this reader, like a snippy reply. Is that reply more or less likely to help you achieve your ultimate goal of getting advice on how to describe the clothing? Assuming @Catrin Lewis shares my perception that the reply was snippy, is she likely to give you any more suggestions on how to describe clothing. If other forum members read your reply and share my perception of snippiness, are they likely to want to help you, understanding that they may well be snipped at as a reward? So this ties in to the idea of description of clothing in your novel, because again, there, you'll need to keep your ultimate purpose in mind and not let yourself be distracted by the details. Is it more important that you tell a compelling story or that you know, and your readers know you know a lot about the details of the time period? I'm not saying you shouldn't know the details, just that you shouldn't lose track of your ultimate goal.
Yes, it was made on a loom using, I believe, eight miles of wool or linen. It's not me being snippy, it's correcting a mistake. Especially after this sure-of-oneself comment: '[not "detailing," BTW]'. Also, have you ever made a post not intended to paint me in a bad light?
The coins doesn't sound like something you'll need an info-dump for - do you need to get more across than you would with something like: Three coins hung from his belt, one for each of his sons he'd outlived, one from the plague and two from the sword. I know people say 'show, don't tell', but there's nothing wrong with a bit of telling to create detail. I count 2 just on page 1 of this thread. Try to take advice the way it's meant.
Well, no. Tapestry by definition is an artistic composition made of fiber, incorporating many colors of thread or yarn into a figural piece depicting battles, hunting scenes, mythological scenes, famous romances, etc. It was generally woven on a loom, but occasionally was embroidered by hand (see the Bayeux Tapestry, made in the 1070s). The resultant cloth would be thick and stiff like a carpet and intended for display or household use, not for wear. The word "tapestry" itself comes from the Norman-French, and didn't enter the English language until after the Conquest. True, there is a lighter weight, loom-produced tapestry-looking fabric called brocade, but it uses silk for its designs. The production of that thread was unknown in Europe during your period (ca 500s, right?). It wasn't till the Renaissance that brocade was made available in any quantity, and then only the wealthiest of the royalty and aristocracy could afford it. In modern times we have the technology to manufacture brocade on custom-purposed looms, but in the Arthurian period, no. And even if they had had the silk and the know-how, clothing made of brocade fabric is not the same as tapestry. What you have there on that tunic (which is lovely, BTW) is skillful hand embroidery. And if you want to know, I've done that sort of work myself, thank you. You could argue that the designs were woven in, but that would take some extraordinary skill to get them placed exactly right on the strip of cloth to fit the intended wearer, so why would they bother? Weave it up plain, cut the pieces out, have the ladies embroider them, and sew the garment together. Done. The unornamented linen (or wool) fabric--- yes, that would be woven on a loom, usually by a relative or servant of the man who would wear it. It wouldn't be commercially-produced. I hope you weren't saying that "eight miles" of fabric went into that one tunic. Did you mean eight miles of linen thread? Okay, probably. Maybe more. But you could say that about any piece of woven or knitted fabric; it would be an absurd statistic to bring up in the context of your novel, and I'm baffled as to how it is relevant here. Oh, and by recommending against the word "detailing" I meant that that would be the way a modern museum curator or fashion reporter might describe the ornamentation. It's too general and distant for the voice of a Dark Ages wearer of this garment. I apologize if I was unclear. Even if you're using an omniscient narrator, it's better, IMO, to match his tone to that of your period. I'm assuming you're going for some degree of historical accuracy. Be careful about creating the illusion that you don't really care. And beware of evoking The History Monster.
I would steer clear of technical terminology like orbiculi or clavii. To most readers, the terms will be meaningless, and the terms themselves don't really add much. I think it would be enough to note that the embroidery is intricate.
I don't see anyone saying this. I do see warnings against tossing in in-depth information that doesn't really help your story.
It's tapestry, not embroidery. https://www.google.fr/search?q=coptic+tunic+tapestry&oq=coptic+tunic+tapestry&aqs=chrome..69i57.4886j0j4&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
By all means continue to argue, it's your thread, but you might want to consider the fact that by derailing the thread to talk about something else, you're discouraging input on the original topic because everyone coming to the thread just sees post after post of people bickering over a different topic. Agree to disagree, just ignore posts that you don't like, whatever, but keep in mind that @Catrin Lewis and @BayView posted to try to help out, not pick a fight, and Catrin especially has made very informational posts. Dismissing them shortly makes it seem like you're not open to that kind of thing, so why should anyone else try to help?
They were useful but I still know it's tapestry. You're right though, sorry. I've decided to keep such specific topics to my blog and writing-specific ones to the forum.
The images from your first post seem to be from https://www.armamentaria.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=17&products_id=591 - they're the ones who made the tunic in your image, as far as I can tell. Their description? "Heavy natural/undyed cotton tunic with embroidered black clavi and orbiculi decoration."
OK, I see that the original ones (not the modern copy you showed in the initial photo, which had embroidered decorations) were done in one piece, with a tapestry weave. Fine. But be aware that the minute you simply say "tapestry," people will visualize something a lot heavier, a lot larger, and a lot more complex. So simply to say "It's tapestry" is misleading. And you could have included those links before, thank you. It appears from one of the links you cite that a new tunic like this would have been owned only by the wealthiest and those with the most prestige. You don't say who's wearing it, your POV character or someone else. The wearer's possession of it would be a clue to his status, and so the description of his clothing would tie into that. If you can tie in the Latin terminology in some way, more power to you. But it'd be more prudent to say, "The tapestry-weave banding of his tunic told Marcellus that he was a man to be reckoned with. He must be someone in authority to have such an expensive garment woven just for him." Etc., etc. And maybe get into the symbols on the roundels (not the "orbiculi"), how they communicate what the wearer stood for/found important. Not all at once, mind you, but as your POV character interacts with the wearer. If it's the POV character wearing it, someone else (a woman?) could admire it, run her fingers over the ornamentation, and ask him what the symbols mean. That sort of thing. The important thing is, always work descriptions from the viewpoint of your characters.
That's ok. Just remember that a good pedant (teacher) understands where the difficulty lies and helps the students along. And that whatever we do as writers, we'd better not come off as pedantic. I think you're doing a good thing to want to give people a clear picture of how people dressed in late Roman Britain. How you do it is the artistic part.
As pointed out, the photo shows one with embroidery. That's the one you asked about, not the original.
I'll remember to call it "tapestry weave". It seems terms get thrown around a lot, misuse or "tweed" is one that annoys me. I now see he confusion though, thanks awfully for pointing it out! Not sure where it says it was only for the most prestigious people? It's true tapetry weave cost a bit. As I mentioned in my first posts, poor people would get a lesser quality plain tunic and embroider them with the orbiculi and clavi from better tunics like these ones. But by the dark ages it was a pretty standard thing to own an undecorated tunic like this. Even some poor people may have some very light decoration, very basic geometric shapes. I'll find some good representations of them in artwork from the period for you. ^Simply curious, not arguing!
Deduced it from the page Later Roman Coptic Military Tunics, where in the second paragraph it said, "Patterned textiles would have been regarded as valuable or prestigious as patterns were generally thought of as labour intensive." And in the fourth paragraph, " . . . Coptic tunics tended to be made in one piece on a large loom and then sewn together under the arms and down the sides of the torso providing a seamless effect. Such a garment would have been expensive to produce . . . " In that day, I am concluding, wealth equalled prestige (when does it not?), and you had to be wealthy to afford one of these. There was another site somewhere that spoke of the designs on these dalmatics being custom-woven according to the wearer's preference--- again, very labor-intensive and pricey. Probably this would apply particularly to garments with more elaborately-patterned ornamentation. A tunic with simpler, monochromatic banding, I suppose, wouldn't have carried the same implications. Then of course you'd have the repurposed appliques you mention. Who had what might be a clue to who was whom on the social scale.
Personally, when I read historical fiction I like all the intricate details which bring the period alive for me. A good example might be Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. If I am remembering correctly, he uses a lot of Latin and quite specific ecclesiastical terminology which really makes the whole setting concrete and alive. Of course, some readers won't enjoy this and find it over academic/arcane. I suppose it depends a lot on the tone and style of the rest of the writing too. Perhaps you could find a few key words that represent the attire, but that aren't completely foreign to most readers like clavii, etc. If a lot of characters wear clothes of similar material and style, readers will pick up on the differences and implied rank that certain styles might give.
I think this all depends on what your audience's expectations are. If they're going in expecting to be bombarded with detailed descriptions and historically accurate terminology, then you're fine using them - for the average reader who perhaps isn't an expert in period clothing, the more unfamiliar terminology you throw at them, the more you're likely to turn them off. With research, you should put maybe 10% of the things you know into the book. Not in terms of background details - they can be as historically accurate as you like - but I haven't the faintest idea what a "coptic tunic" is, and if I read that in a book it would give me literally no more information than "tunic", without me having to go and look it up (which I'm not going to do). The other thing to consider is what your POV character knows. If your main character is a tailor who knows all sorts of things about fabrics and weaves and cuts and styles and embroidery, then I'd expect their voice to notice and elaborate on that kind of thing more than, say, a fisherman or a blacksmith, who'd likely just go "yeah, some nice clothes with a blue design on". Not everyone living at the time knows the exact technical words for everything they encounter.
Ah, it was conjecture... It's more a matter of prestige equalled wealth. The more you fought in battle, the more land and cattle you'd own. Expensive is relative. Batteries are expensive, but even a tramp can buy a packet. Until about three years ago it was thought only kings or generals would own swords and that they cost the equivalent of millions of modern pounds. Now we know most people would have one, despite the complicated three-week process of forging the blade.
