It doesn't matter what you say...it's just a debate.

[frualeydis]

I just visited AIPON and looked at a very nice 14th century dress made of linen dyed with madder. It really wasn't the dress that made me upset but something somebody posted about the use of linen in outer garments. If you don't want to see this less sunshine-y and smiling side of me, just skip this:What she/he said was that "the linen debate is just a debate", meaning that you can do as you like, because there are as many arguments for it as against it. It might be so within the SCA and some other re-enactor's groups, but there exists professional research in the field too and while no scholar in the field can say that outer garments in linen didn't exist, there are no published finds of linen outerwear from the middle ages and the general consensus is that wool was the preferred material.
Apart from the lack of finds which can be explained by the fact that vegetable fibres aren't preserved very well there is so much evidence for wool (and silk) and none for linen as material in outer gowns(There is some discussion about literary references to linen outerwear from 12th century southern France, but no clear conclusions can be drawn). I have studied 2000 documents from Norway and Sweden from the period 1200-1500 and found very few references to linen clothes, all of them for underwear. There is what might be a preserved late 15th c linen kirtle in the national museum of Finland (german origin) and queen Margaret's golden gown (early 15th c) is partially lined with blue linen. Compare this with the wealth of references to wool clothing in all kinds of medieval sources and at least I draw the conclusion that it is unlikely that linen was used as the top layer.
Note that I'm not saying that you can't use it, I don't snark people and I even use it for some of my children's clothes because they have more problems with heat than adults. Hell, I use cable ties in my corsets, nylon net on my current project, wool with some polyester in it and other things they never used in period, but then I never claim that they did. But if somebody discusses how it was in the middle ages I say that linen isn't documented in outerwear.
And it irritates the hell out of me when people just brush aside all mine and other's research with "it's just a debate, nobody knows for sure". Yes, nobody knows for sure, but all evidence points in one direction, shouldn't that count for something?
And about the argument that shows up all the time: "It must have been used this way, they just haven't found any evidence of it yet", you can just as well say that they must have had velcro. Yeah, they might have had it but since I'm no psychic I must rely on the evidence we have, which is plenty.

This is the bitchiest thing I've ever written on the internet and it's not intended to hurt or offend anyone. I don't mind using substitutions like cotton velvet if it looks ok when you do costumes, but I think there is a difference between making a conscious choice to use or not to use something and another thing to claim against all evidence that it is period.

I do love you all and I dont't think less of you even if you make your costumes out of reused milk cartons (maybe I would think more of you if you came up with a way of doing that).

Comments

[dressdiary.livejournal.com]

Whoot! Good for you. My only excuse for using linen as outerwear is ease of finding it. I live in the Deep (hot and humid)south and have to special order wool and the prices are outrageous. I know linen isnt right but its a concession I personally am willing to make.

But yea, the You cant prove someome DIDNT do something has never run flush with me either.

I used to say that a good deal of women in the middle ages dyed their hair purple and blue. They all wore elaborate headgear (Wimples to frenchhoods) where you cant see their hair therefore how do you know their hair ISNT purple. Its rediculous but so is claiming that ANYTHING exists because you cant prove it doesnt.

[mirazandar.livejournal.com]

I read this rather crappy costume book that said that men in the 1500s used to dye their beard green, blue and purple. Don't know if it's true though.

But eva, - in your written sources, hoe many referenced to smocks/shirts and such do you find where the material is mentioned. I jsut did a brieff search in the diplomatarium norvegicum, and didn't find anything (found smocks allright, but no material mentioned) I read some books that mentioned smocks made out of wool/vadmel(sp?)... you are the expert here.

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Dressdiary wrote: I used to say that a good deal of women in the middle ages dyed their hair purple and blue. They all wore elaborate headgear (Wimples to frenchhoods) where you cant see their hair therefore how do you know their hair ISNT purple. Its rediculous but so is claiming that ANYTHING exists because you cant prove it doesnt.
*Laughing*
You are so right about the hair :)
And I know it's almost impossible to find wool, or even linen in some parts of the states and I feel so sorry for you. Here the only thing that is hard to find and extremely expensive when you find it is silk, but somehow it is easier to live without silk.
Also, the most popular wool for the upper classes in most of the middle ages was felted, but when is it's really hot I use very thin unfelted tabby wool, which probably is correct until the middle of the 13th c, but would have been much less common after that. You always make compromises and I have no problem with that, it's the justifying that gets to me sometimes.

Eva

[dressdiary.livejournal.com]

I dont know anything ANYTHING about overseas shipping but there was a gal at our 12th night selling 100% silk noil in 48 different colors. I bought 16 yards in 2 different colors and am already preping to make the second order. I thought I knew the website for her off the top of my head but now Im trying it its not working. All of her silk is $4 a yard and its wonderfully soft and in marvelous colors. I thought of you when I saw it. Ill get you the addy this afternoon. Might not help you at all but it might just. She sells sample cards for $4 with all 48 of her color swatches on it so you can see and feel. Then you get one yard free from your first order if you bought the swatches. She took very little stock home with her.

Here ya go

[dressdiary.livejournal.com]

http://bonniesbailiwick.com/

[sarahbellem.livejournal.com]

I'll bow to your opinion on this matter as you are a certified medieval textile scholar... ;)

But here's my rationale for the linen-as-outerwear-debate:

Taking into account that actual extant clothing comes from climates radically different than that of 21st century America (where, for better or for worse, the bulk of medieval "reenactment" seems to be situated), linen is perhaps a lot more suitable for people for a few reasons, such as cost, comfort and availability. I definitely agree with you that evidence is highly compelling that our ancestors very likely only used linen for undergarments, but there's been a sort-of revolution in thinking, particularly within the SCA, where people are now more than encouraged to use "period" fibers in their kit. For decades it was more common to see cotton used in garb... Now the pendulum is swinging in the direction of linen. So, while they're getting it wrong in one respect (linen as outerwear), they're also making baby steps towards something more authentic (linen vs. cotton).

There's also a tendency for SCA researchers to take an idea they like and try to prove that existed in the middle ages. The linen-as-outerwear debate is an example of that, because someone decided along the way that based on a number of factors (linen is period, linen is comfortable to wear in the hot summer months, the Egyptians wore linen outergarments, etc) that all of this logically applied to the medieval era. I forget what this is called, but it's obviously faulty logic (comparing pre-Christian Egyptians to medieval Norwegians, for example, is like apples and oranges). But, like with any armchair scientist, it sounds totally logical and people have ran with it. Of course, as time goes on and more and more scholar-level research trickles into the SCA, ideas like this get abandoned. So, what I guess I'm trying to say is, don't let it bother you too much. Think of these people are making small steps to something more accurite. ;)

[alienor.livejournal.com]

Now the pendulum is swinging in the direction of linen. So, while they're getting it wrong in one respect (linen as outerwear), they're also making baby steps towards something more authentic (linen vs. cotton).

It's only really baby steps towards being more authentic if they REALIZE that wool is more period than linen for outer garments.

For instance, I may decide to make a new outer dress out of linen because I want to be able to wear it in the summer, even though I know wool would be more correct. That'd be baby steps towards authenticity. Knowing what fabrics are appropriate, but choosing (for the sake of comfort, cost, whathaveyou) to do something else.

However, if I made a linen outerdress because linen is more period; I'm still mistaken! (in fact, I think some cottons look more like wool from a distance; and there are definately polyesters that approach the wool look more than any linen I've seen). I haven't learned anything.

There's also a tendency for SCA researchers to take an idea they like and try to prove that existed in the middle ages.

Ugh, that makes me crazy. You see it a lot with names, as well. Here's my name, now I need to find documentation for it. If people started with documentation, they wouldn't have such a hard time!

[sarahbellem.livejournal.com]

However, if I made a linen outerdress because linen is more period; I'm still mistaken! (in fact, I think some cottons look more like wool from a distance; and there are definately polyesters that approach the wool look more than any linen I've seen). I haven't learned anything

I'm not sure I understand this. To me, it sounds virtually the same as the "linen is cooler so I'm going to use it even though I know wool would be more authentic" example you presented. Linen *is* more period than cotton when you're talking about garments in the middle ages. If Lord Joe Shmoe of the SCA thinks that using linen in his garments is more period, he's right. His logic may be flawed, but the overall statement of "linen is more period than cotton" can be viewed as correct on certain levels. Even if he doesn't grasp the concept that "linen as outerwear is not justifiably period", he's at least not standing around in a tunic made from a cotton bed sheet, and that's pretty good progress, SCA-wise. Now, if you're just talking about appearances, that's another can of worms. In all of my relentless searching for a true hanky-weight linen, I haven't found any that even begins to compare with what's being represented in period portraiture during the 16th century. But I have found that cotton batiste is a great substitute as far as look is concerned. So, yeah, I'm substituting a non-period fabric for a more authentic fabric because the authentic fabric doesn't have the right look. I definitely think you're right about using non-period fibers if they're the best substitute for a period "look". This is why, to me, it's perfectly acceptible to use cotton batiste in a chemise, or polyester content in a brocade, or even (the much hated AIPON gripe) lurex threads in a brocade, because they provide a reasonable, affordable and available alternative to the real thing.

If people started with documentation, they wouldn't have such a hard time!

No kidding! Of course, people have issues with a lot of the way stuff looked back then and would rather try to contort documentation to suit their aesthetics than just say "Hey, this is what they did back in the day, live with it". :P

[alienor.livejournal.com]

Linen *is* more period than cotton when you're talking about garments in the middle ages.

Okay, where's the evidence for linen *outer* garments? Where's the evidence for cotton *outer* garments? They're just about on the same footing, so the substitution of linen over cotton *for correctness* doesn't win you any points (in my book). Linen overgarments are just as wrong as cotton ones.

The substitution of linen over wool for comfort, however, is another story. My summer working garb (in the purple (http://people.clemson.edu/~denisen/pictures/2003-fo30/Siege-Engineers.jpg)) is entirely linen and it is COMFY. Is it right? Nope. I'm not sick from heat exhaustion either (has happened to me when I've tried to wear garb too warm for the weather).

I guess the difference to me is that in the second case I'm not fooling myself by thinking I'm being 'more period'. Linen outerwear is unattested in our period. ::grin::

Thought of another way to explain it

[alienor.livejournal.com]

Even if he doesn't grasp the concept that "linen as outerwear is not justifiably period", he's at least not standing around in a tunic made from a cotton bed sheet, and that's pretty good progress, SCA-wise.

So when he does finally grasp the concept that "linen as outerwear is not justifiably period" (assuming that he cares, which I guess he would since he already made linen garb); he realizes that he's WASTED that money (except the most basic tunics, then he can wear it as an undertunic). If you're going to teach something, teach "linen is underwear material" and "wool/velvet/silk is outwear material" rather than "linen/wool/velvet/silk is acceptable."

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Lithiate wrote:"There's also a tendency for SCA researchers to take an idea they like and try to prove that existed in the middle ages. The linen-as-outerwear debate is an example of that, because someone decided along the way that based on a number of factors (linen is period, linen is comfortable to wear in the hot summer months, the Egyptians wore linen outergarments, etc) that all of this logically applied to the medieval era. I forget what this is called, but it's obviously faulty logic (comparing pre-Christian Egyptians to medieval Norwegians, for example, is like apples and oranges). I think this is what bothers me, not what people actually wear, but the way the argue. I think it's because I stand on two legs, one as somebody who dresses up and "plays" middle ages/renaissance and another as a researcher. That means I can accept people's non-period clothing but have problems with the faulty logic they use to defend it.

But mostly I don't let it get to me, the point of this hobby is to have fun and while we may have different ideas of what is fun (and you my friends, and I, have a very twisted idea of what is fun) we can hopefully interact and respect each other as persons, if not always each other's logic.

Eva

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

I think what really bugs me is when people think that an opinion based on popular books and "looking at pictures" (not analyzing and actually learning anything about period art)is just as much worth as three (or twenty)years of research of primary source material. Becuase that's what people say when they say it's just a matter of opinion. A lot of things about medieval clothing _is_ just a matter of opinion (like how to construct a bliaut) because the facts are so few, but I still prefer opinion based on knowledge and research.

But I agree that linen is more comfortable in some climates and that sometimes non-period fabrics and even synthetics look more "right" than the available more period alternative. Then I choose to use waht looks right, is affordable etc, while other people choose not to make that style at all rathar than to compromise their pure re-enactor's souls. To each their own. As long as you don't rationalize your choices by saying it's documentably period when it's not.

Having said that I'm contemplating buying a couple of meters blue 80% cotton 20% linen in herringbone weave for a kirtle to one of my daughters. I don't think I will get them to wear two wool layers in August you see.

Eva

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Oh, another thing: NOT to use the brocade that lithiate used in her red forepart, lurex or no lurex, would be a sin in the eyes of all costuming gods. It's simply gorgeous.

Eva

[guyelfkin.livejournal.com]

Absolutely!

I'm with you, Eva, on the It's OK to use linen for outer garmetns as long as you don't claim it's period correct. After all, in a lot of instances, without analysis the actual fibres, most people can't tell the fibre-content of a fabric by just looking at it, so as long as they don't claim it's something it isn't and don't claim that substituting linen for wool or silk is proven to be period correct, where's the harm.

It's similar to the reasons I don't do lucet in front of the public at 15th century events. I would jst get so fed-up of explaining that there's no actual proof it was done in the period and that people assume it was becasue of some tools that were found for an earlier period that are assumed to be for lucet. On the other hand, I will/do use lucet cord to fasten my period costumes ont he grounds that it's at least as accurate as any other modern substitute for period cords that I could use, is readily available and reasonably priced and not readily distinguishable from cord made by another method unless you really examine it closely.

Teddy