[MR] Romans commit fashion faux-pas (Fwd: [Explorator] DigestNumber 383)

[John Glenn]

While I agree that the popular press often jumps to conclusions in  
reporting on archaeology and they may not be knitted socks. Can we jump  
to the opposite conclusion without a more thorough examination of the  
artifact, bearing in mind that it is an artists representation and not  
an extant sock?  Very little is absolute or definite in archaeology.  
Does sculptor show seams? You can see a representation of a herringbone  
pattern in the picture.  This period is not a current focus for me and  
it was 27 years ago that I took any classes in classical archaeology,  
but I was thinking I had read about knitted Roman socks somewhere and a  
quick google turned up these links.:
http://www.housebarra.com/EP/ep05/06knitting.html

http://scatoday.net/node/view/3765

Is there overwhelming evidence of sewn together Roman hose being more  
common ( as is apparently the case later on)? I ask because I am  
curious and don't intend to just play "devil's advocate" or to be  
argumentative. The British press just seemed more interested in the  
"socks with sandals" humor. Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing the  
links!
  John Craw mka John Glenn,
former archaeologist
On May 23, 2005, at 10:52 AM, SNSpies at aol.com wrote:

>
>
>
> It's not  likely that these were 'woollen, herringbone-knitted sock'  
> as a
> couple of  the articles suggest, but rather woollen, herringbone  
> *woven*
> socks, cut  and sewn together.  They pre-date the earliest knitted  
> items by 5
> or  more centuries.
>
>
>
> Oh, absolutely.
> They were definitely NOT knitted as we know socks today.
>
> Ingvild
> ======================================================================= 
> =
>                    The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
>     List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
>   Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
> Subscriptions:  
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia
>