Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: belts

Expand Messages
  • Marc Carlson
    ... Meaning no disrespect, but there s a fallacy there. Just because something is possible doesn t mean it happened that way. The only way to prove that they
    Message 1 of 24 , Sep 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "lucia_sforza" <dawnv@g...> wrote:
      > In the Museum of London's _Dress Accessories_, wool garters are
      > found. If garters, why not belts?

      Meaning no disrespect, but there's a fallacy there. Just because
      something is possible doesn't mean it happened that way. The only way
      to prove that they did do it is to find some (and isn't there a woven
      belt IN Dress Accessories?).

      Now if you want to do woven belts because you know there are woven
      garters, that's hunky dory, but it's speculation.

      Marc/Diarmaid
    • lucia_sforza
      MODERATOR NOTE: PLEASE DON T TOP-POST, RATHER, SNIP AND INCLUDE ONLY THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF A POST YOU WISH TO QUOTE. If we are limited to only extant finds,
      Message 2 of 24 , Sep 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        MODERATOR NOTE:
        PLEASE DON'T TOP-POST, RATHER, SNIP AND INCLUDE ONLY THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF A POST YOU WISH TO QUOTE.


        If we are limited to only extant finds, the SCA would be pretty naked
        and boring- not to mention no one would have an entire set of clothing!

        This would also remove ALL paintings and illuminations as reference
        sources, because we cannot validate actual garment from artistic
        license. This would also invalidate written techniques, as we cannot
        confirm the writer actually did/witnessed the technique.

        I wholeheartly agree of using archeological means whenever possible,
        but limited interpretation is essential since we cannot excavate an
        entire culture.

        Lucia
      • Marc Carlson
        ... Since I didn t suggest we limit it only to archaeology this is a not really something I can speak to. ... Again, nothing I can speak to but you do seem to
        Message 3 of 24 , Sep 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "lucia_sforza" <dawnv@g...> wrote:
          > If we are limited to only extant finds, the SCA would be pretty
          > naked and boring- not to mention no one would have an entire set of
          > clothing!

          Since I didn't suggest we limit it only to archaeology this is a not
          really something I can speak to.

          > This would also remove ALL paintings and illuminations as reference
          > sources, because we cannot validate actual garment from artistic
          > license. This would also invalidate written techniques, as we
          > cannot confirm the writer actually did/witnessed the technique.

          Again, nothing I can speak to but you do seem to be making the best
          the enemy of the good, which, while not a traditional logical fallacy,
          ought to be (in my opinion).

          > I wholeheartly agree of using archeological means whenever
          > possible, but limited interpretation is essential since we cannot
          > excavate an entire culture.

          I doubt you've ever heard me suggest that archaeology is the only
          available source material, I certainly have no problems with using
          other sources of information.

          However, the statement "well they had this similar thing, why couldn't
          they have had that" is not basing doing something on some other
          source, it's basing doing something on speculation.

          For example, chairs. I have heard the argument given "that well we
          know they knew how to make chairs with a back, so I'm going to use a
          chair with a back", when the fact is that chairs with backs were not
          common until relatively recently. This is because chairs had an
          ideotechnic function that trumped simply being able to make them. The
          person with the chair was the socially superior/suthoritative person
          in the room/household/college/meeting/whathave you. That's why
          committees today have "Chairmen".

          The fact that they *could* do it doesn't alter the fact that they
          *didn't* do it.

          Marc/Diarmaid
        • sismith42
          ... of ... Heck, if we *did* decide to limit ourselves to archaology to answer the question of did they weave belts or not? , well:
          Message 4 of 24 , Sep 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Carlson" <marccarlson20@h
            ...> wrote:
            > --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "lucia_sforza" <dawnv@g...>
            wrote:
            > > If we are limited to only extant finds, the SCA would be pretty
            > > naked and boring- not to mention no one would have an entire set
            of
            > > clothing!
            >
            > Since I didn't suggest we limit it only to archaeology this is a not
            > really something I can speak to.

            Heck, if we *did* decide to limit ourselves to archaology to answer
            the question of "did they weave belts or not?", well:

            http://www.guntram.co.za/tabletweaving/docs/belt2003/belt2003.
            htm#AppendixB

            http://www.forest.gen.nz/Medieval/articles/belts/belts.html

            (both found on page one a Google search for medieval woven belt...)

            Stephanie
          • Marc Carlson
            ... Shhh! I m trying to make a point :) BTW, am I hallucinating about there being one in Dress Accesories? I know I ve seen a picture of one that s a plan
            Message 5 of 24 , Sep 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "sismith42" <sismith42@y...> wrote:
              > ...Heck, if we *did* decide to limit ourselves to archaology to
              > answer the question of "did they weave belts or not?", well:...

              Shhh! I'm trying to make a point :)

              BTW, am I hallucinating about there being one in Dress Accesories? I
              know I've seen a picture of one that's a plan simple tablet woven band
              that looks a lot like the nylon webbing belts I wore in the Army.

              Marc/Diarmaid
            • Amy Heilveil
              ... If you re hallucinating, so am I because I know exactly what you re talking about.... now, after work, I ll have to pull the book off of the shelf before I
              Message 6 of 24 , Sep 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                >
                > BTW, am I hallucinating about there being one in Dress Accesories? I
                > know I've seen a picture of one that's a plan simple tablet woven band
                > that looks a lot like the nylon webbing belts I wore in the Army.


                If you're hallucinating, so am I because I know exactly what you're talking
                about.... now, after work, I'll have to pull the book off of the shelf
                before I head to an event for the weekend.
                Smiles,
                Despina de la darned people plant images in your head when you need to pack


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Cynthia J Ley
                ... Pg 35: Girdles and various other types of belt were from leather or were woven (usually by manipulating a pack of tablets) from threads of silk, linen or
                Message 7 of 24 , Sep 2, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  > BTW, am I hallucinating about there being one in Dress Accesories?
                  > I
                  > know I've seen a picture of one that's a plan simple tablet woven
                  > band
                  > that looks a lot like the nylon webbing belts I wore in the Army.
                  >
                  > Marc/Diarmaid

                  Pg 35: "Girdles and various other types of belt were from leather or were
                  woven (usually by manipulating a pack of tablets) from threads of silk,
                  linen or worsted." There are some photos of the 'webbing' style you
                  refer to on pg. 48. These are tablet-woven.

                  Arlys
                • Marc Carlson
                  ... Thank you! (I hate it when I hallucinate sources) Marc/Diarmaid (I m currently trying to track down a Victorian drawing of a shoe that I *know* is in this
                  Message 8 of 24 , Sep 2, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Cynthia J Ley <cley@j...> wrote:
                    > Pg 35: "Girdles and various other types of belt were from leather or
                    > were woven (usually by manipulating a pack of tablets) from threads
                    > of silk, linen or worsted." There are some photos of the 'webbing'
                    > style you refer to on pg. 48. These are tablet-woven.

                    Thank you! (I hate it when I hallucinate sources)

                    Marc/Diarmaid
                    (I'm currently trying to track down a Victorian drawing of a shoe that
                    I *know* is in this stupid book, but it doesn't want to give it up...)
                  • Tiffany Brown
                    Just a quick note - it s after my bedtime. Tabletweaving makes very versatile and tough belts in a technique that is easy to add elaboration (during production
                    Message 9 of 24 , Sep 2, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Just a quick note - it's after my bedtime.

                      Tabletweaving makes very versatile and tough belts in a technique that
                      is easy to add elaboration (during production or after) too. I
                      suspect this is what makes them very popular. I think I can find half
                      a dozen extant examples in my tiny reference library. I find even a
                      simple tabletwoven belt far suprerior to any cloth belt, especially
                      for stiffness and grip to the garment underneath. Generally silk is
                      used (ordinary grade wool is not very suitable) some linen, a handful
                      wool - most reflect rich folk easily able to afford silk.

                      I've seen a few 12th french scupltures (I don't look much at other
                      periods) and a few manuscript drawings that are a bit more vaugue,
                      that look to be plaited rope belts.

                      The priest's ceremonial belt - cingulum was often preserved, so we
                      have lots of extant ones, often very heavily decorated. A number are
                      made from cloth, heavily embroidered. I think all the ones I've seen
                      were silk fabric (when you can afford it get the best) although linen
                      could be possible if the embroidery completely covered it. I don't
                      know if this sort of useage transfers to non-clerical useage. Several
                      of the cingula are probably quite stiff from the ammount of emboidery
                      (often goldwork).

                      Teffania






                      On 9/3/05, Marc Carlson <marccarlson20@...> wrote:
                      > --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Cynthia J Ley <cley@j...> wrote:
                      > > Pg 35: "Girdles and various other types of belt were from leather or
                      > > were woven (usually by manipulating a pack of tablets) from threads
                      > > of silk, linen or worsted." There are some photos of the 'webbing'
                      > > style you refer to on pg. 48. These are tablet-woven.
                      >
                      > Thank you! (I hate it when I hallucinate sources)
                      >
                      > Marc/Diarmaid
                      > (I'm currently trying to track down a Victorian drawing of a shoe that
                      > I *know* is in this stupid book, but it doesn't want to give it up...)
                      >
                    • sismith42
                      ... Ah, so my snide little see page one of a Google search for the obvious topic comment wasn t pointed enough? ;-) Stephanie/Estevana
                      Message 10 of 24 , Sep 7, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Carlson" <marccarlson20@h
                        ...> wrote:
                        > --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "sismith42" <sismith42@y...>
                        wrote:
                        > > ...Heck, if we *did* decide to limit ourselves to archaology to
                        > > answer the question of "did they weave belts or not?", well:...
                        >
                        > Shhh! I'm trying to make a point :)

                        Ah, so my snide little "see page one of a Google search for the
                        obvious topic" comment wasn't pointed enough? ;-)

                        Stephanie/Estevana
                      • Marc Carlson
                        ... No, it was fine, for this specific topic (i.e. look here to support your position ). The point I was aiming for was a little broader ( just because
                        Message 11 of 24 , Sep 7, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "sismith42" <sismith42@y...> wrote:
                          >> Shhh! I'm trying to make a point :)
                          > Ah, so my snide little "see page one of a Google search for the
                          > obvious topic" comment wasn't pointed enough? ;-)

                          No, it was fine, for this specific topic (i.e. "look here to support
                          your position"). The point I was aiming for was a little broader
                          ("just because something is logically valid doesn't make it true").

                          Ah well, maybe next time :)

                          Marc/Diarmaid
                        • michaelstuartgraham
                          -Hi, All. If I might weigh in on this subject, as one who wears garters regularly with my 16th/17th Cent kit, garters are intended to be tied above the calf
                          Message 12 of 24 , Sep 18, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            -Hi, All. If I might weigh in on this subject, as one who wears
                            garters regularly with my 16th/17th Cent kit, garters are intended to
                            be tied above the calf and below the knee to hold up the hose. Wool
                            being slightly springy, it allows the garters to hold up the hose
                            without being too constrictive, sort of a period version of elastic.
                            To use the same analogy, we do have modern belts and trousers
                            (sansabelts) that do the same thing, but on the whole, belts for the
                            waist are generally made to be rigid rather than elastic, so as to
                            hold up the stuff they were meant to carry (purse, knife, etc.)and so
                            are made of leather or some other material that has some support. Mike T.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.