Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: belts
- 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
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)
> (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...)
- --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Carlson" <marccarlson20@h
> --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "sismith42" <sismith42@y...>wrote:
> > ...Heck, if we *did* decide to limit ourselves to archaology toAh, so my snide little "see page one of a Google search for the
> > answer the question of "did they weave belts or not?", well:...
> Shhh! I'm trying to make a point :)
obvious topic" comment wasn't pointed enough? ;-)
- --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "sismith42" <sismith42@y...> wrote:
>> Shhh! I'm trying to make a point :)No, it was fine, for this specific topic (i.e. "look here to support
> Ah, so my snide little "see page one of a Google search for the
> obvious topic" comment wasn't pointed enough? ;-)
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 :)
- -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.