Yeah, I mean the first one. I'm just not buying trilateral symmetry. I'll buy three panels if you use the third one for overlap, giving a double-breasted effect, but not otherwise. Unless you can show me a whole "geneology" of trilateral garments.
The second link looks much more credible to me.
--- In SCA-Garb@yahoogroups.com, "Quokkaqueen" <quokkaqueen@...> wrote:
> Just checking, Rashid, do you mean the three panels like this:
> Or an overlapping, wrapped style with two panels at the front and one panel at the back?
> If I've been following references right, the closed, three-panel style is an adaption from a suggested pattern in a CA where six of the almost-funnel pieces were sewn together (the top hem of the fragment is only 15 cm across, so you need quite a few of them to go all the way around ones bust), because the person who suggested it presumably had a chest less than 90 cm around.
> Where it morphed into the three-panel sort is that the number of seams were reduced, so you had two 15 cm wide almost-funnels, and two 30 cm wide funnels, treated as three 30 cm wide panels.
> The patterning can be easily modified into 4 panel-symmetry, which is a bit more likely, eg:
> And seems to fit in well with the bilateral symmetry that most other items of preserved clothing seems to have used. The exception seems to be the diagonally-cut 'bathrobe' jacket pieces found at Hedeby, but I agree in general that the three-panel interpretation is unlikely. Without any hard evidence, though, I think it's an interpretation that is likely to remain for quite some time. It's a _really_ strange textile piece, and it seems to inspire a lot of people to make their own interpretations.
> --- In SCA-Garb@yahoogroups.com, "Charles" <unclrashid@> wrote:
> > 3 panels just doesn't ring true to me.
> > Rashid