How To: Ancient Underwear

Our evidence for ancient costume comes from the interpretation of statues, stone relief carvings, frescoes, mosaics and many other forms of imagery. From these sources it is nigh impossible to know whether underwear was typically worn by our forebears. We can deduce that, perhaps, in hotter climates, such as Egypt and around the Mediterranean, underwear was forsaken to keep cool. Now we are all for “authenticity”, but in a school or at a public event “going commando” might not be the wisest choice [1]. So, if one wanted to create the most authentic look without breaking the law, what might you wear?

It is uncertain whether ancient underwear was a tailored garment or a more straightforward loincloth, also known as a breechcloth or breechclout. Regardless, throughout human history most societies, to one degree or another, have disapproved of genital nakedness [2]. Loincloths, therefore, have been an essential piece of men’s clothing for a long time. Essentially, a loincloth is a piece of material, bark-bast, leather, or cloth passed between the legs to cover the genitals, but not necessarily the buttocks. Despite its simple functionality, loincloths come in many different forms. Even today they remain one of the simplest forms of dress, and in some cases the only garment worn in societies where no other clothing is either needed or wanted.

The earliest evidence for underwear comes from the clothing Ötzi the Iceman was discovered wearing. His attire revealed that, in Europe around 2000 BC, some men wore leather breechcloths. In Ötzi’s case it was made from narrow strips of sheep hide stitched together to produce a garment, originally a 100 cm x 33 cm, that was worn between the legs and fastened with the belt (see right). A very similar design was worn by ancient Inca men in Pre-Columbian South America. A strip of cloth passing between their legs was suspended by a string or tape belt, secured to the tapes at the back while the front portion hung in front as an apron.

From Ötzi’s simple loincloth developed more encompassing garments such as the one shown below left in a carved relief of ancient Egyptian farmers or labourers. This form of underwear is relatively easy to recreate requiring a T-shaped piece of cloth. The width needs to be enough that it can be tied round the waist to form a “belt”. Likewise, a sufficiently long length of material, forming a “tail”, is drawn between the legs, from back to front, and looped through the “belt” to secure it in place. The result is somewhat like a pair of shorts with an apron of cloth at the front (see below right). 

From the Vindolanda Tablets we know Romans wore a type of loincloth known as a subligaculum. While we cannot be certain of its design, it is highly likely that such garments were very similar to the Egyptian versions. The version pictured (right), however, was a type used by gladiators, but it gives a sense of how a subligaculum was worn. Indeed, around the world today, the styles in which breechcloths and loincloths can be arranged are myriad. Both the Bornean sirat and the Indian dhoti have fabric passing between the legs to support a man's genitals. Loincloths are commonly used as an undergarment or swimsuit by wrestlers and by farmers in paddy fields in both Sri Lanka and India, where it is called Kovanam in Tamil, amudaya in Sinhala and kaupinam or langot. A similar style of loincloth was also characteristic of ancient Mesoamerica. The male inhabitants of the area of modern Mexico wore a wound loincloth of woven fabric. One end of the loincloth was held up, the remainder passed between the thighs, wound about the waist, and secured in back by tucking.

Before World War II, the fundoshi (right) was the main form of underwear for Japanese men and women. It is a 35 cm wide (14”) piece of fabric, typically cotton or silk, passed between the thighs and secured to cover the genitals. The fundoshi quickly fell out of use after the war with the introduction to the Japanese market of new underwear such as briefs, boxer shorts and so on. 

Endnotes:

1. A euphemism for not wearing any underwear. It is also worth being aware that darker or coloured underwear can be visible beneath white or translucent garments.

2. At time of writing, finding a more polite form of words was proving difficult.

Horrible History: Brace yourself

National Geographic has broadcast a series on UK television titled “Witches: the Truth behind the Trials”. Each episode explores the events in a particular country regarding the trials and punishment of suspected witches. Cinematic reconstructions, new analysis and expert interviews are used to shed fresh light on the most famous witch trials in Europe and North America.

Subtitled “Salem's Hunts and Hysteria”, the episode is a good introduction into the events of 1692. That said, there are a couple of discrepancies that detract from the production. The first is confusing references to the ethnicity of one of the accused, Tituba. Depending on which expert is speaking or whether it is the narrator talking, she is inconsistently described as South American or native American. Moreover, the actress chosen for the reconstructed scenes would appear to be of African American descent. Similarly, she is termed a servant rather than the more accurate description as an enslaved woman. For the sake of clarity, Tituba was an enslaved South American Kalina woman. The Kalina, also known as the Caribs or mainland Caribs and by several other names, are an indigenous Amerindian people native to the northern coastal areas of South America. Today, the Kalina live largely in villages on the rivers and coasts of Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, and Brazil. All very interesting, but not the focus of this article. Rather it centres on the portrayal of another of the accused, Giles Corey.

The uncredited actor hired for the reconstructed scenes was clearly a bit younger than the 81-year-old Corey, but it was his wearing of braces that caught our eye. The events in Salem occurred in the late 17th-century. The English-born farmer, Corey was accused of witchcraft along with his wife Martha in April 1692. He was arrested but refused to enter a guilty or not guilty plea which was problematic for Salem’s authorities. At the time the common law courts of England [1] thought they lacked authority over a defendant until he or she had voluntarily submitted to it by entering a plea seeking judgment from the court. Evidently, a criminal justice system that could only punish those who had volunteered for possible punishment was unworkable, so a means was needed to coerce defendants into entering a plea. The practice of being “pressed” (known in French as “Peine forte et dure” or “forceful and hard punishment”) was just such a method of torture used on those accused who refused to plead guilty or not guilty to a crime. Those who “stood mute” would have a plank or board placed on their chest to which heavier and heavier weights or stones would be added until a plea was entered. Understandably as the weight of the stones on the chest became too great, the condemned would be unable to breathe and would likely suffocate. So it was for Giles Corey who endured pressing for three days before dying on 19th September 1692.

All of this has been a preamble to discovering the history of braces (“suspenders” in the US). We, at Tastes Of History, were fairly certain that braces of the type shown were not a 17th-century fashion accessory whether in Britain or across the Atlantic in the Colonies. For most of the Mediæval period men wore two separate stockings known as “hose” [2] that went from toe to hip and created a general look similar to tight trousers. They were tied at the waist to either lacing on their “braies” (underwear) [3] or to a separate cloth belt worn beneath their clothing. By the 15th-century conjoined “hose” became popular but these too were still laced with points to a doublet. However, the fashion in 1692 would have been breeches, which were more likely to be held up by a belt, the ages old nemesis of braces.

Jump forward in time to the first half of the 18th-century and on their retail website “www. mensbraces4him.co.uk”, EL Cravatte claims that braces appear for the first time in 1736. Furthermore, they were being worn by none other than Benjamin Franklin. Indeed, an early version of the accessory had emerged in France in the 1700s. Known as Bretelles, these were ribbons or straps of silk that were looped in the buttonholes of breeches to support them. It is far more likely that it was these bretelles that Benjamin Franklin wore concealed beneath his waistcoat (as did Napoleon Bonaparte, apparently).

Gradually, after centuries of hose, close-fitting stockings and breeches, it was the adoption of high-waisted trousers during the 1820s in Europe that rendered belts uncomfortable and impractical for the fashionable gentlemen. Bretelles, the strips of decorative fabric attached to the buttonholes of men's trousers, remained the only means of suspension. The original men’s fashion icon and Regency influencer, Beau Brummell, brought them into vogue. But the sheer popularity of trouser-wearing led to the first commercial production of modern braces, or “galluses” as they were sometimes called in the 19th-century. In 1820 London haberdasher Albert Thurston saw an opportunity and started manufacturing the very first modern style braces. Two years later Thurston brought them to public attention, marketing them as “braces”. His design of 1822 with straps of boxcloth, a tightly woven wool, and leather loops attached to buttons sewn inside the waistband of trousers proved exceptionally popular. Thurston’s straps had an “H back” with both straps running over the shoulders from front to back where an extra piece held the parallel straps together thus resembling an uppercase H. Two further designs soon followed. The first were “X back” braces where the two straps crossed behind the back. Next came “Y back” braces still popular today that introduced two frontal straps merging into one back strap. Finally, with the invention of the metal clasp in 1894 and its subsequent adoption in the manufacturing of braces, trousers no longer required interior waistband buttons.

Interestingly, Thurston was not the sole promoter of modern braces. One of the first patents for men’s braces was issued in 1871 to one Samuel Clemens, better known by his pen name Mark Twain. His patent was for “adjustable and detachable straps for clothing” that could be attached to a variety of men’s and women’s garments such as underwear, corsets and regular trousers.

Throughout the 18th- and 19th-centuries it was neither fashionable nor acceptable for a gentleman’s braces to be visible. Braces worn openly were symbolic of the working-class manual labourers. So, when the hot summer of 1893 led many London office workers to remove their jackets due to the heat, social norms of decency were broken. To avoid accusations of impropriety many men temporarily adopted belt use to allow them to remove their suit jackets while retaining respectability.

A year later, in 1894, saw the invention of metal clips removing the need to attach braces by means of buttons; simply opening and closing the clips sufficed. Many clips have a serrated edge, however, and this can cause damage to the trouser waistband with frequent use. Whether using clips or buttons, braces remained regular attire throughout the 1920s but they were still considered “underwear”. Thus, as waistcoats (vests in the US and Canada), which had effectively concealed braces from view, were worn less often in the 1930s, the switch to belts began in earnest. In 1938 Life magazine reported that 60% of American men had chosen belts over braces. The shift happened earlier in America, but England soon followed when the Duke of Windsor [4] popularised belt wearing. Even when the return of fuller-cut trousers in the 1940s revived braces, they had effectively lost out to belts. Yet braces remain a component of men’s formal attire or out of personal preference and have made a comeback since the mid-20th-century trending as statement pieces.

Bon appétit!

References:

Cravatte, E.L. (2024) “The History of Mens Braces”, www. mensbraces4him.co.uk, available online (accessed 24th November 2024).

Shackelford, C. (2022), “Brace Yourself: A Complete History of Suspenders”, , available online (accessed 24th November 2024).

Endnotes:

1. In 1692 Salem was a colony subject to the English crown.

2. “Hose” refers various styles of men's clothing for the legs and lower body, worn from the Middle Ages through the 17th-century when hose fell out of fashion and were superseded by breeches and stockings. The old plural form of “hose” was “hosen”, words that remain the generic terms for trousers in modern German (Hose, singular, and Hosen, plural). The French equivalent was chausses. Some hose had a foot, some did not. Early hose were single-legged and were held up by being tied to the belt of man’s braies (underwear; see Note 3). They can be worn rolled down to knee or ankle in hot weather, while some poor people just wore simple leg wrappings. In the later part of the Mediæval period, from the 13th-century onward, some hose were attached to the doublet using points (laces) tied through small holes.

3. “Braies”, from Latin bracae meaning trousers or breeches (cf. britches), were worn by Iron Age tribesmen in antiquity and by Europeans subsequently into the Mediæval period. In the later Middle Ages they were used exclusively as undergarments. Braies generally hung to the knees or mid-calf in resemblance of today’s shorts.

4. When King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, he and his wife, Wallis Simpson, were thereafter known as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

Horrible History Costume: World on Fire

Created by Peter Bowker, ‘World on Fire’ is a British war drama television series set in the Second World War. It follows the intertwined lives of ordinary civilians across Europe who are caught up in World War II. The first series, broadcast in 2019, covered the lead up to and first year of the war from March 1939 to July 1940. The series revolved around events such as the Defence of the Polish Post Office in Danzig, the Battle of the River Plate, the Dunkirk evacuation and the Battle of Britain. The second series covering October 1940 to May 1941, features the beginning of the The Blitz in Manchester and the North African campaign (including Operation Compass and the Siege of Tobruk) The series returns to occupied France and the activities of the resistance movement and also features the Lebensborn programme that was instituted in Nazi Germany.

While watching the fortunes of the character ‘David’, a Jewish RAF fighter pilot played by British actor Gregg Sulkin, there was something bothering me about the screenshot shown right. While the goggles seem to be WW2 vintage, there is something suspect about the flying helmet and oxygen mask. During the Battle of Britain RAF pilots wore the B Type flying helmet as shown below left. By 1936 this type of helmet was being introduced to make the best use of the Type D oxygen mask. This was the helmet and mask combination with which RAF crews went to war in September 1939. As can be seen in the black and white photograph, the helmet integrated large-domed and zippered ear-pads inside which were housed the earphone receivers. They were padded with rubber to protect the receivers and also offer some side impact protection to the pilot’s head. The electrical wiring for the earphones was external, and the Type D oxygen mask was attached by two press studs. Note that the oxygen mask hose is of a relatively small diameter compared to that shown in the screenshot. The propmakers were undoubtedly aiming to equip ‘David’ with a B Type flying helmet but evidently one was not available to purchase or hire. While the one shown appears to be leather, it does not have the characteristic ear-pads. An attempt was obviously made to create the look, but the resulting helmet is clearly incorrect.

By the end of 1941 the B Type helmet was superseded by the C Type which was intended to be used with the later types of oxygen masks. The pilot shown in the colour photograph above is wearing a C Type helmet with its distinctive rubber earphones and a Type G oxygen mask. The hose for this mask had a significantly larger diameter, all of which neatly circles us back to the mask worn by ‘David’ in 'World on Fire'. This too has a large, corrugated rubber hose but it connects beneath a distinctive circular outlet valve. This combination makes the set up instantly recognisable as a Mark V respirator (also known as a ‘gas mask’). Looking at the photograph above right, it seems the propmakers or costumiers may have simply cut away the eyepieces and upper part of the Mark V facemask. Alternatively, they may have taken an outlet valve and hose and attached these items to a bespoke facepiece, possibly of canvas or rubber. Unfortunately, determining the precise construction of the prop facepiece is complicated by the lighting effect inside the ‘cockpit’ and the image quality of the screenshot. Regardless, it seems such a shame that the production company could not have recreated the iconic look of one of ‘the Few’ but there it is. 

And finally…

This has either been a ‘rant’ on some pet peeves with media representations of historical themes or food for thought. We have tried not to be unreasonably critical but thought there was an opportunity to highlight a strange costume choice and then present a more accurate historical picture. In this way we hope everyone can learn something. Regardless, thank you for reading this far. So, until next time, bon appétit.

Reference:

T6 Harvard Ltd, ‘Wartime RAF Flying Helmets’, Available online (accessed July 31st, 2023).

Horrible History: “Hollywood Ninja”

Introduction  What follows was inspired by a @HistoryFilmClub tweet shown right. Like many who responded, naming just one historical inaccuracy in a film or TV show proved far too difficult. Sadly, and contrary to the claims of directors, producers, costume designers et al., far too many historically themed media productions are beset with inaccuracies. Not wishing to be unreasonably critical, we thought there was an opportunity to highlight some of the more common errors and then counter them with whatever historical evidence exists. In this way we hope to learn something, but there are some caveats to be born in mind:

• 
  We know films and TV dramas are fictional, whether they claim to be “based on true events” or not. Yet that does not always excuse the liberties taken with characters, timelines, locations, costume, technology, props, action sequences (especially fight scenes), and a whole lot more.

• That said, “errors” are clearly excusable if a production is rooted in the fantasy genre, is not claiming 100% historical accuracy, or is not a factual documentary.

• However, where inaccuracies appear, especially in documentaries, we think it only fair to point them out because they mislead audiences.

• And finally, we are well aware from our experience advising filmmakers, and from being on set, that liberties are sometimes taken due to production constraints.

Ninja  So, with that in mind, what can we “learn from mistakes” with depictions of Ninja? First off, why are they always wearing black? This cliché, which has fed into many aspects of modern culture - films, TV, graphic novels, video games, etc. - is largely a fantasy. Even the term ninja is incorrect!

Historically, the word ninja was not in common use. In period documents the more correct term was shinobi-no-mono (忍びの者), or shinobi (忍び) for short, which first appears in poems dated to the late 8th-century AD. The underlying connotation of shinobi (忍) means “to steal away; to hide” and, by extension, “to forbear”, hence its association with stealth and invisibility, while mono (者) means “a person”.

Men in black  The stealthy assassin in black robes with almost supernatural abilities in the arts of concealment and murder so beloved of movies, video games and comic books remains a very compelling image. The historical reality is somewhat different, however. In feudal Japan, shinobi were a lower class of warriors often recruited by samurai and governments to act as spies and assassins. Precisely when they first appeared is difficult to determine but the image of them wearing black is not. This idea seemingly derives from a tradition in Japanese kabuki theatre where stagehands (also known as kuroko, or “black person”) would wear a black outfit to indicate that they were not part of the scene. In a similar way, actors would also wear black to indicate that they could not be seen by the other characters. If the role of shinobi was not to be seen, then dressing head-to-toe in black begins to seem plausible.

Hiding in plain sight  The primary function of the shinobi, however, was to carry out their tasks without drawing attention to themselves. It therefore makes much more sense that, if they wanted to blend in and be unobtrusive, they would dress as an ordinary peasant or whatever character was appropriate. As Jacob Dorey points out on Quora.com: [they] “could wear black, but only if wearing black fit the context”. Furthermore, it would not have looked out of place for shinobi to wear masks as part of their disguise since masks were commonplace in Japan (Dorey, 2019). In most everyday circumstances, however, black would draw attention to an individual thus defeating their clandestine purpose [1]. Nor would shinobi have worn a uniform or livery unless to do so suited the situation they were in. To enter an enemy castle, for example, it seems sensible that they would “hide in plain sight” disguising themselves as a samurai, servant, ashigaru (foot-soldier), or whoever might be expected to be inside. The key aspect to remember is that shinobi were spies and saboteurs first and foremost. They were not always trained fighters and were most certainly not all assassins (Dorey, 2019).

Tools of the trade  Clearly, some shinobi were schooled with weapons and trained to use them, which leads us to briefly discuss the iconic “ninja sword”. The alleged preferred weapon of the shinobi of feudal Japan was the ninjatō (忍者刀), ninjaken (忍者剣), or shinobigatana (忍刀). The example pictured (right) is typical of those available to buy online which are commonly described as “authentic” or “traditional” ninja swords. The black-clad “Hollywood ninja” featured above carries just such a sword. The square-shaped tsuba (“guard”) is clearly present, which supposedly identifies the sword as a “ninja” weapon, while its shortened length compared to an average katana (“sword”) [2] allows for the characteristic strapping across the back beloved of 2oth- and 21st-century pop-culture. But there are some problems with this popular representation as portrayed by modern ninjutsu practitioners as the weapon of the ninja.

Firstly, the square tsuba on samurai katana can be seen in period Japanese images, an example of which is pictured below left. Moreover, an internet search for “ancient Japanese tsuba” will return numerous results where the majority of patterns are circular, but also octagonal tsuba, cross-shaped ones, more floriate designs and, importantly, square guards (below right). In other words, a square tsuba cannot be taken as conclusive proof of a weapon exclusively used by shinobi.

As for arguments that “ninja” carried swords shorter than the typical katana is also not evidence for a distinctive weapon of shinobi. As stated earlier, there are many types of Japanese swords that differ by size, shape, field of application and method of manufacture. Some of the more commonly known types are the uchigatana, tachi, ōdachi, wakizashi, and tantō. Of note, the wakizashi is an almost perfect fit for the shorter sword assumed to be carried by shinobi. Which begs the question, what need is there to manufacture yet another sword exclusively for so-called ninja?

Contemporary examples of such swords are displayed at the Koka Ninja Village Museum in Kōka, Shiga; at the Gifu Castle Archives Museum in Gifu, Gifu Prefecture, Japan; and at the Ninja Museum of Igaryu, established in the mid-1960s about the time the popular image of the ninja was being defined. Indeed, before the 20th-century there is no historical evidence for the existence of a “katana-like short sword legendarily used by ninja”. Instead, the designs demonstrated by alleged replicas may be based on the design of the previously mentioned wakizashi, or chokutō swords or those associated with ashigaru, the common infantrymen who simply did not possess any “ninja-like” attributes.

In summary  The term ninja, or as we now know, shinobi, has a broad definition but most usefully describes someone who conducted mostly espionage, but sometimes also sabotage, assassination and psychological warfare, on behalf of feudal Japan’s ruling class. Yet to perform these roles covertly, the notion that they infiltrated places wearing black robes, in groups, is fanciful at best. Trained shinobi would most likely wear whatever clothing and carry whatever equipment necessary to achieve the task. If that meant disguising themselves as a fully equipped samurai or the lowliest peasant, then so be it.

Should you be interested, Dr Kaillie Szczepanski has written a good introduction on the history of ninja, or shinobi, for ThoughtCo.com which can be read here.

And finally…This has either been a rant on some pet peeves with media representations of historical themes or food for thought. Regardless, thank you for reading this far. Until next time, bon appétit.

References:

Dorey, J., (2019), “Did Ninja's actually wear black or does that come from movies & folklore & in reality they wore clothing that would help them blend into daily life?”, quora.com, available online (accessed May 31st, 2022).

Szczepanski, K., (2019), “The History of Japanese Ninjas: feudal warriors who practiced Ninjutsu”, ThoughtCo.com, available online (accessed May 31st, 2022).

Endnotes:

1. Counterintuitively black is not necessarily the best colour to use as camouflage at night. As strange as it may seem dark blue or even dark red works better, and multiple subdued colours have been proven to break up a person silhouette.

2. The word katana was used in ancient Japan when speaking generally of “Japanese swords”, as it is today. There are, however, many types of swords that differ by size, shape, field of application and method of manufacture. Some of the more commonly known types of Japanese swords are the uchigatana, tachi, ōdachi, wakizashi, and tantō.

Horrible History Costume: Oddballs

Introduction  What follows was inspired by a @HistoryFilmClub tweet shown right. Like many who responded, naming just one historical inaccuracy in a film or TV show proved far too difficult. Sadly, and contrary to the claims of directors, producers, costume designers et al., far too many historically themed media productions are beset with inaccuracies. Not wishing to be unreasonably critical, we thought there was an opportunity to highlight some of the more common errors and then counter them with whatever historical evidence exists. In this way we hope to learn something, but there are some caveats to be born in mind:

•  We know films and TV dramas are fictional, whether they claim to be ‘based on true events’ or not. Yet that does not always excuse the liberties taken with characters, timelines, locations, costume, technology, props, action sequences (especially fight scenes), and a whole lot more.

•  That said, ‘errors’ are clearly excusable if a production is rooted in the fantasy genre, is not claiming 100% historical accuracy, or is not a factual documentary.

•  However, where inaccuracies appear, especially in historical documentaries, we think it only fair to point them out because they mislead the audience.

•  And finally. we are well aware from our experience advising filmmakers and from being on set that liberties are sometimes taken due to production constraints.

So, with that in mind, what can we ‘learn from mistakes’ by costumers in historically themed productions.

Furry Romans  You frequently see costumes trimmed with fur in depictions of ancient Roman men and women, particularly on cloaks. Two stills from the film ‘The Fall of the Roman Empire’ (1964) serve as good examples. Top left shows a bearded Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Alec Guinness) and general Gaius Livius (Stephen Boyd) both wearing cloaks trimmed with fur, while the second image is of the emperor’s daughter Lucilla (Sophia Loren) sporting an elaborate cloak edged with fur which is more Mediæval looking than Roman. In a perfect instance of how inaccuracies and errors in one production influence and are perpetuated in another, the bottom two stills are from Ridley Scott's Academy Award-winning movie ‘Gladiator’ (2000) released some 37 years later. ‘The Fall of the Roman Empire’ has been recognized by critics as a major inspiration for Scott’s film, which judging by the bottom two stills, is clearly evident. Both the Emperor’s daughter, Lucilla, and the hero, Maximus, wear fur trimmed cloaks in scenes set in the ‘forests of Germania’. However, in the classical world, the wearing of fur was thought the preserve of uncouth barbarians so it is highly unlikely that an emperor’s daughter or high-ranking Roman general would have countenanced the idea.

From all the sources to which we have access, there is no evidence at all for ancient Romans wearing fur other than by certain classes of soldiers [1]. In historical productions set in this period it seems costume designers, perhaps more familiar with later Mediæval representations, use fur or fur trimming because they assume an ancient precedent, but this is a fallacy. Of course, it is equally likely that outfitting decisions are based on the costumes seen in earlier movies, which often bore little relation to historically reality, or the furry costumes themselves are drawn or hired from older wardrobe stock. Either way there has been, and continues to be, a definite cycle of repeated costume errors in film and television productions.

Bodices  The buxom wench wearing a bodice that reveals too much cleavage is such a tired trope. Portrayals of this sort completely miss the wearing of a chemise beneath the woman’s stays, bodice or corset. In the screenshot shown right from ‘The Alienist’ (2018), a period drama set in New York in 1896, the actress Dakota Fanning is pictured in her corset, an essential item of Victorian era fashion, but wearing it next to her skin. This scene was clearly an attempt at being risqué or to titillate modern audiences as no respectable woman of the period would have worn her corset without her combinations (underwear) beneath. If nothing else, the undergarments protect the skin from the possibility of chaffing, and they act to absorb perspiration. The latter function is quite significant as it was far easier to wash linen undergarments than the corset itself. Ms Fanning, however, has been dressed in the more recent trend of wearing a corset with nothing beneath. In terms of historical accuracy, this mistake could have been easily rectified, which makes one wonder at the motive behind the decision not to do so.

Hemlines  Fashions change so to get the correct style of dress for a historical drama or documentary really depends on two factors: the period being recreated and the social status of the character. In the case of the latter, something as simple as the length of a dress or skirt can be an indicator of a woman’s position in society. The hemline on dresses worn by poorer or working women were generally shorter than the wealthier ladies for simple, practical reasons. A raised hemline kept clothing out of the wet and grime and eased movement when carrying out the woman’s daily chores. For respectable, well-to-do ladies these factors were of less concern. They were unlikely to be performing manual tasks in a dirty environment and yet the risk of expensive material getting wet and muddy while outdoors was ever present. The Victorian solution was the skirt lifter.

Also known as a dress lifter, skirt grip, dress suspender, hem-holder, page or porte-jupe, these were devices for lifting a long skirt to avoid dirt or to facilitate movement. Without one women would have had to use one or both hands to hold up their dress since a dirty skirt was an affront to social decency in Victorian society. As shown above, skirt lifters were typically decorative metal contraptions similar to a pair of tongs. They were suspended from a waist belt by a cord, ribbon, or chain and clamped onto the hem of a dress. The first skirt lifters date from around 1846 but they were most popular in the 1860s-1880s.

Endnotes:

1. There is some evidence that velites (singular: veles), a class of light infantry skirmishers in the Roman army of the mid-Republic from 211 to 107 BC, wore wolf pelts attached to their helmets. Likewise, signiferi (‘standard-bearers’) wore different animal pelts to signify they status. The legion’s Aquilifer, who carried the legion’s Aquila (eagle standard), wore a distinctive lion fur cape, while bear skins seem to have been worn by each century’s Signifer (standard-bearer). Other specialist soldiers such as Cornicines (trumpeters) and the Vexillarius, who carried the vexillum (a flag-like banner) wore wolf pelts.

Horrible History Costume: Movie Armour

Introduction  What follows was inspired by a @HistoryFilmClub tweet shown right. Like many who responded, naming just one historical inaccuracy in a film or TV show proved far too difficult. Sadly, and contrary to the claims of directors, producers, costume designers et al., far too many historically themed media productions are beset with inaccuracies. Not wishing to be unreasonably critical, we thought there was an opportunity to highlight some of the more common errors and then counter them with whatever historical evidence exists. In this way we hope to learn something, but there are some caveats to be born in mind:

• 
  We know films and TV dramas are fictional, whether they claim to be ‘based on true events’ or not. Yet that does not always excuse the liberties taken with characters, timelines, locations, costume, technology, props, action sequences (especially fight scenes), and a whole lot more.

• That said, ‘errors’ are clearly excusable if a production is rooted in the fantasy genre, is not claiming 100% historical accuracy, or is not a factual documentary.

• However, where inaccuracies appear, especially in historical documentaries, we think it only fair to point them out because they mislead the audience.

• And finally. we are well aware from our experience advising filmmakers and from being on set that liberties are sometimes taken due to production constraints.

Body armour  So, with that in mind, what can we ‘learn from mistakes’ with depictions of body armour? Where to start? There are so many historically themed films and TV shows where the costume designers clearly have been allowed or encouraged to let their imaginations loose when it comes to armour. Look at an image of Russel Crowe from the film ‘Gladiator’ (right). While the overall impression is great, armourers, experts and connoisseurs of Roman history will note some weirdness going on. The highly decorated lorica musculata (‘muscle cuirass’) looks the part for an upper-class, wealthy Roman general. Even the pteruges (‘feathers’ or ‘wings’) protecting the upper arms and waist are fine even if a bit wider than most ancient depictions, and only in a single layer where more than one was often the norm (see below). However, both the sculpted versions and the 4th century BC original pictured below reveal that the large articulated plates at the shoulder [1] are wholly inaccurate. In this instance the costume designers have taken a perfectly good representation of a musculata and added the shoulder plates from the archetypal Roman soldier’s (not officer’s) lorica segmentata [2], something for which we have, as yet, no evidence historically or archeologically.

Yet, this ‘Frankenstein’ armour is plausible. The film is set in the late 2nd century AD, so we have evidence that both types of cuirasses existed. What is more, General Maximus would have had the social standing, power and prestige, and be wealthy enough to have had bespoke armour made. Few people would have been in a position to tell me him ‘no’. Besides, the design would have functioned incredibly well since all that has been done is replacing the banded torso plates of lorica segmentata with the two-piece back and breast plates of a musculata. So, although not historically correct, Maximus’ armour is plausible. What cannot be forgiven, however, are the wrist guards.

Wrist guards  Romans wearing wrist guards is a classic and persistent nonsense in film and on TV. In the screenshot (right) from the HBO series ‘Rome’ (2005) both Ray Stevenson and Kevin McKidd are prominently wearing wrist guards. There is, however, no contemporary pictorial evidence for these things, nor indeed has there been any archaeological find identified as 'wrist guards' whether such items were made of cloth, leather or metal (assuming something had indeed survived the intervening 2,000 years). These irritatingly inappropriate costume accessories were introduced, it is believed, in the early years of film-making to disguise the inconvenient fact that most actors wore wrist watches but when removed this meant their tan lines were immediately obvious. It appears the simplest solution by costumiers was to disguise the untanned skin with some form of wrist covering. Thus, the wholly inaccurate ‘wrist guard’ was born. Yet, despite there being no evidence for them and the repeated guidance offered to costume designers by history experts, these ‘things’ continue to feature in Roman period dramas.

Leather armour   Costume designers and makers frequently default to using leather as a relatively cheap and easy material to create a character’s body protection. In a fantasy setting like ‘The Lord of the Rings’, ‘Game of Thrones’ or ‘The Witcher’ it matters little - little that is until one considers leather armour’s questionable protective qualities. What is bothersome is the studded leather ‘fetish gear’ that all too often ends up adorning a character in a historical piece. Pictured above right is Australian actor Travis Fimmel playing the semi-mythical Ragnar Lothbrok in the TV series ‘Vikings’ (2013-2020). What he is wearing is typical of the costume armours created for shows of this genre. There are elements with historical precedent, but this garment of ring mail sewn onto a thin leather cuirass, complete with rivetted patches, is just odd. Why not equip our hero with a ¾ length, sleeved, mail byrnie? There are several possible reasons why film-makers might not:

• 
  As shown right, a shirt of mail is made of thousands of metal rings, typically iron, joined so that each individual ring is linked to at least four others. Surviving examples exhibit rings of a solid ‘washer’ type punched from a sheet of metal or made from wire whose open ends were either welded or rivetted together. To make a shirt, four open-ended rings are linked to a closed ring (either welded or rivetted shut) before they too are closed with rivets. Rows of additional rings are added using the same technique to produce a full shirt of mail. But to produce an accurate mail shirt is both labour intensive and time consuming, and ‘time is money’.

• If each mail shirt is made from metal, then with the labour and time factors thrown in, production becomes expensive. The cost might be acceptable for one or two shirts to be used in close-ups or by the lead actors only, but prohibitive if hundreds of shirts are needed.

• Accurate mail shirts are heavy and actors unfamiliar with the weight will tire quicker, possibly risk of injury, and their performance may be adversely affected.

To overcome these problems, for the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, Wētā Workshop made realistic looking lighter weight PVC mail for both the lead actors and for the hundreds of extras that appeared throughout the films. Much cheaper than metal, PVC pipe was cut into rings, assembled by hand into a semblance of armour, and then electroplated. A total of 82.9 million links were manufactured from 7 miles of PVC pipe. Notably, metal mail shirts were also used, albeit sparingly because of their weight, for close-up filming where the appearance of plastic rings was distinguishable.

To be fair to the leatherworkers on ‘Vikings’, they did create some brilliantly intricate designs to clothe the different actors and actresses throughout its six seasons. What a shame, though that all their skill and hard work to portray ‘real’ or lifelike Vikings is just fantasy. For those pointing out that ‘Vikings’ was not a historically accurate production, you are quite correct. Yet, this type of fantastical leatherwork, once made, has a tendency to be recycled into other shows including documentaries, and it is in the latter where one ought to expect better production standards. Even so, leather was used as armour.

Cuir bouilli  Meaning ‘boiled leather’ in French, cuir bouilli was a common material used for various purposes in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. It was leather that had been treated to became toughened and rigid, as well as able to hold moulded decoration. It was the usual material for the robust carrying-cases that were made for important pieces of metalwork, instruments such as astrolabes, personal sets of cutlery, books, pens and the like.

Cuir bouilli has been used since ancient times, especially for shields, in many parts of the world. Leather does not survive long burial, however, so excavated archaeological evidence for it is rare. A few examples of Roman horse armour in cuir bouilli have been discovered and preserved. Typically these are chamfron designed to protect the horse’s forehead, nose and eyes. Likewise, an Irish shield of cuir bouilli with wooden formers, deposited in a peat bog, has survived for some 2,500 years. The technique was commonly used in the Western world for helmets; the pickelhaube, the standard German helmet (a Bavarian version is pictured right), was not replaced by the stahlhelm (‘steel helmet’) until 1916, in the middle of World War I. As leather does not conduct heat the way metal does, firemen continued to use boiled leather helmets until World War II, and the invention of strong plastics.

In the Mediæval period, cuir bouilli was also used for some body armour, being both much cheaper to manufacture larger pieces suitable for breastplates and much lighter to wear than plate armour [3]. Indeed, the latter was too expensive for most soldiers to afford so its use was largely reserved for the wealthy armoured horsemen or men-at-arms (‘knights’). Unsurprisingly, cuir bouilli was much less effective than iron/steel armour at withstanding direct blows from bladed weapons, hammers, maces, or later gunshot. It could be reinforced against slashing cuts with the addition of metal bands, strips or splints, however. Modern experiments on cuir bouilli armour have shown it can reduce the depth of an arrow wound considerably.

Mail  As described above, mail is a type of armour consisting of small metal rings linked together to form a flexible mesh. It was in common military use between the 3rd century BC and the 16th century AD in Europe, and longer in Asia and North Africa. A coat of mail is often referred to as a hauberk, and sometimes a byrnie. Mediæval sources referred to armour of this type simply as mail (maille, maile, male, or other variants). In 1786 Francis Grose's ‘A Treatise on Ancient Armour and Weapons’ introduced the term ‘chainmail’, a term now commonly (but erroneously) used thanks to it being popularised by Sir Walter Scott's 1822 novel ‘The Fortunes of Nigel’.

In some films, knitted mail spray-painted with a metallic paint is still used instead of actual metal to cut down on cost. The small budget film ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’ is a perfect example where knitted ‘armour’ adorns the actors. More recently, films striving to achieve more costume accuracy often use PVC rings, once again to reduce costs and the armour’s overall weight as mentioned before.

Extra padding  Mail armour provided an effective defence against slashing blows from edged weapons and some forms of penetration by thrusting and piercing weapons. A study conducted at the Royal Armouries in Leeds concluded that ‘it is almost impossible to penetrate using any conventional medieval weapon’ [6]. The degree of protection offered by mail to weapons is determined by four factors: the linkage type (riveted, butted, or welded), the material used (iron versus bronze or steel), the weave density (a tighter weave needs a thinner weapon to penetrate), and the ring thickness (generally ranging from 18 to 14 gauge (1.02 to 1.63 mm diameter) wire in most examples). Where mail is not riveted, a thrust from most sharp weapons could penetrate by forcing the rings open. When mail is riveted, however, only a strong well-placed thrust from certain spears, or a thin-bladed or dedicated mail-piercing sword can penetrate it. However, the projectiles from weapons such as war-bows and crossbows can, in nearly all cases, overcome mail.

One of the advantages of mail is its flexibility, but this means that a blow from a poleaxe or halberd, or blunt weapons such as maces and warhammers can often injure the wearer without needing to penetrate the armour. Blunt force trauma can result in serious bruising, painful and debilitating fractures, or potentially fatal concussion if the head is struck. Mail-clad warriors therefore typically wore padded armour, such as gambeson, beneath the hauberk to cushion blows, and separate rigid helms over mail coifs for increased head protection.

Such padding also has the added benefit of preventing or reducing the chance of the metal rings being driven into the wearer’s body. Why then do we often see actors wearing just a mail coif over their head and no additional helmet? A case in point is the example pictured (right) from Netflix’s 2019 movie ‘The King’. Agreed, they are only actors and its make-believe, but there is a very good reason for wearing all these additional heavy, hot and tiring layers of protection - so you don’t die! Imagine the horrendous injuries possible should a weapon strike the man wearing just a mail coif and the rings are driven into that person’s fractured skull. So, if filmmakers want to claim historical accuracy and portray fighting men as they would have dressed for battle, then wearing a padded coif under a mail coif should be a ‘no brainer’.

And finally…This has either been a rant on some pet peeves with media representations of historical themes or, hopefully, some food for thought. Regardless, thank you for reading this far. Until next time, bon appétit.

References:

Bishop, M.C., (2002), ‘Lorica Segmentata Volume I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour’, JRMES Monograph 1, Braemar: The Armatura Press.

Endnotes:

1. In Mediæval parlance these would be called ‘pauldrons’.

2. We do not know what the Romans named this type of armour. Lorica segmentata, meaning ‘segmented cuirass’, was first used by scholars in the 16th-century. Dr Mike Bishop points out: ‘Lorica (‘body armour’ or ‘cuirass’) is obvious, but the qualifying epithet has not survived. A reasoned guess has been made at lorica lam(m)inata, based on the use of lamina to describe a sheet of metal’ (Bishop, 2002, 1).

3. A full set of plate armour was made from tempered steel to completely encase the man from head to toe. Despite weighing around 15 kg to 25 kg (33 lb to 55 lb), the weight was distributed across the whole body. Plate armours were articulated allowing the wearer to remain highly agile so they could run, jump, and otherwise move freely (being winched onto a horse is myth!).

Horrible History Costume: Hair

Introduction  What follows was inspired by a @HistoryFilmClub tweet shown right. Like many who responded, naming just one historical inaccuracy in a film or TV show proved far too difficult. Sadly, and contrary to the claims of directors, producers, costume designers et al., far too many historically themed media productions are beset with inaccuracies. Not wishing to be unreasonably critical, we thought there was an opportunity to highlight some of the more common errors and then counter them with whatever historical evidence exists. In this way we hope to learn something, but there are some caveats to be born in mind:

• 
  We know films and TV dramas are fictional, whether they claim to be ‘based on true events’ or not. Yet that does not always excuse the liberties taken with characters, timelines, locations, costume, technology, props, action sequences (especially fight scenes), and a whole lot more.

• That said, ‘errors’ are clearly excusable if a production is rooted in the fantasy genre, is not claiming 100% historical accuracy, or is not a factual documentary.

• However, where inaccuracies appear, especially in historical documentaries, we think it only fair to point them out because they mislead the audience.

• And finally. we are well aware from our experience advising filmmakers and from being on set that liberties are sometimes taken due to production constraints.

Hair  So, with that in mind, what can we ‘learn from mistakes’ connected with hair in historically based creations. It should be noted from the outset that modern productions place far more emphasis on getting the look and feel of period piece correct. Efforts are made to ensure hairstyles, for example, reflect the historical period, the social status of the individual, or perhaps a particular religious doctrine. Just occasionally, however, styling decisions are taken that deviate from historical accuracy. The most common ones are actresses sporting loose, long flowing locks or the complete opposite, close-cropped hair, in periods where to do so would have broken the cultural conventions of the time or would have been wholly inappropriate given a character’s status or social position.

Haircuts  Hair grows more or less at the same rate regardless of gender but, in much of western Europe, men have tended to wear their hair shorter and less styled than women. Surprisingly, it is not clear why that has been the case, although it could simply be down to what was considered acceptable at one point in time becoming a long-standing social convention. As far back as the Roman era, it was popular for women to wear their hair long with a distinct parting, but any man openly taking care of his lustrous locks was frowned upon. Roman soldiers noticeably followed this norm by keeping everything short and manageable. In fact, on campaign where washing facilities are limited, hygiene potentially compromised, and an increased risk of body lice, then short hair makes eminent sense. With a few exceptions over the centuries, men have largely adhered to this notion even if the fashion was for elaborate wigs as in the 18th century. For most of this country’s history, middle- and upper-class women, in Britain (and across its empire), let their hair grow long into adulthood. In contrast, it was not uncommon for poverty-stricken women to cut off their tresses and sell their hair to wig makers as a much needed source of income. The fashion for letting hair grow long and for elaborate coiffures began to change in the post-Edwardian first quarter of the 20th century. When women were first deployed as drivers and nurses nearer to the front-line trenches in the Great War of 1914-18, they too began to cut their shorter for the very same reasons of hygiene and cleanliness.

Hairstyles also changed through necessity. During the Great War we begin to see a fashion for shorter hair becoming popular as more and more women went to work in factories. This trend continued in the ‘Roaring 20s’ and the age of the flapper, reflecting how social norms were altered quite radically. By the 1940s hairstyles such as the Victory Roll popularised by the actress Veronica Lake (below) were no longer all about glamour. It involved wearing hair up - very important during World War Two when so many women were once again operating factory machinery in support of the war effort.

Covering the head  The wearing of hats or head coverings such as scarves by wartime female labourers, such as the ‘Muntionettes’ of World War One shown right, made eminent practical sense. It kept hair cleaner in dirtier environments and for safety’s sake ensured hair would not be snagged in machinery. For some head coverings continue to play a significant role in several different religions. While some commentators draw attention to Islam, often with negative connotations, Muslim women who wear the Hijab are far from alone as both Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism also have a long tradition of covering the head.

In fact, women covering their heads and their hair has much longer antecedents than either Catholicism or Islam. In many ancient societies, for example the Greeks and Romans, a woman out in public without her head covered, or with loose, long flowing hair, was a sign of impropriety - loose hair, loose woman. An example quoted by Sebesta & Bonfante (2001) serves to illustrate the point. Sulpicius Gallus, a Roman consul in 166 BC, ‘divorced his wife because she had left the house unveiled, thus allowing all to see, as he said, what only he should see’ (Sebesta & Bonfante, 2001, 49). This should hardly seem an alien notion because as previously mentioned it is still considered appropriate in certain social groups today, especially as part of religious doctrine.

More than that, taking the Romans as our touchstone, much like today a woman’s hair was an expression of personal identity. Hairstyles were determined by a number of factors, namely gender, age, social status, wealth and profession, but how one dressed one's hair was an indication of a woman’s status and role in ancient Roman society. What is more, the Romans were not alone in thinking hair was a very erotic area of the female body and thus a marker of a woman’s attractiveness. Consequently, it was deemed appropriate for a Roman woman to spend time on her hair to create a flattering appearance. Hairdressing and its necessary accompaniment, mirror gazing, were seen as distinctly feminine activities, although it should be remembered that hairstyling was clearly the leisure pursuit of the cultured, elegant woman. Simply having the time to style her hair in fashionably complex and unnatural hairstyles indicated wealth and social status. Not for the Romans were modern-day hairstyles reflecting comfort and naturalism. Indeed, a 'natural' style was associated with uncultured barbarians, who the Romans believed had neither the money nor the sophistication to create these styles. The association with barbarians was also a reason why Roman men kept their hair cut short. 

Ooh, Matron  Despite the desire for elaborate hairstyles emphasising her attractiveness, women in ancient Rome, such as Sulpicius Gallus’ wife, were still restricted by their society’s values. As mentioned, it was deemed scandalous for ancient Greek or Roman women to be seen in public without their heads, and hair, uncovered. So, in the stills shown below we are presented with three actresses portraying Roman ‘matrons’, more of which later. The top left image of Polly Walker [1] from the HBO series ‘Rome’ (2005 - 2007) is a good representation of how one would expect a high-born, cultured Roman woman to dress in public. Moving clockwise, the second image is from the Sky Atlantic series ‘Domina’ and has the actress Kasia Smutniak wearing a veil, presumably pinned to her hairdo [2]. There are a few noticeable problems with this look. Firstly, this style of veil has more in common with representations of women in ancient Greek art but not Roman. Secondly, as described above Roman women of noble birth would have paid a great deal more attention to dressing their hair than the loose hairstyle depicted. Admittedly ‘Domina’ is set in the Roman Republican era so the myriad of elaborate coiffured hairstyles of the later Imperial period that are typically returned on internet searches would not be appropriate either. Thirdly, the production’s stylists might argue that this type of headdress reflects the flammeum, the veil worn by Roman brides on their wedding day, but that does not really stand up to historical scrutiny. For starters Roman ritual dictated that the flammeum was always a yellow-red (luteum) colour to protect the bride as she passed from the protection of her family’s lares [3] to her husband’s (Sebesta & Bonfante, 2001, 48). More significantly, the flammeum totally covered the bride’s hair and face, and indeed much of her body; the veil depicted clearly does not. Curiously wearing a veil in this manner is not represented in contemporary Roman art or sculpture yet they frequently appear in the arsenal of many studio wardrobe departments. Much like the ‘Hollywood’ toga, more about which here, it seems most likely that this type of veil is an active choice by costume designers to simplify an actress’ outfit. The benefits are that simple cloth veils are easier to wear and avoid the more complex, time-consuming drapery of the palla, which is essentially the female version of the male toga. The final image from director Ridley Scott’s film ‘Gladiator’ (2000) shows Lucilla [4], the sister of Emperor Commodus played by Connie Neilson, in the arena of the Flavian Amphitheatre (‘Colosseum’). Bearing in mind all that has been discussed so far, and ignoring the historically incorrect off-the-shoulder dress, why would a woman of the royal family appear in public without her hair and head covered? It is wholly inappropriate - but it’s just the movies, right?

So, what is appropriate?  What all these actresses have in common is that they are all depicting Roman ‘matrons’ (Latin: sing. matrona; ‘mother’), a title that exemplified certain ideals and status in ancient Roman society. From contemporary sources a matron was freeborn and either married or a widow, but beyond that the concept of a ‘matron’ is rather hard to define. Every Roman implicitly understood what being one signified. Yet, we are aware that matrons dressed in a certain distinctive style according to the ideals of the time. The clothing worn ‘signified her modesty and chastity, her pudicitia (Sebesta & Bonfante, 2001, 48). During the late Republic and throughout the life of the Empire a matron generally wore an ankle length tunic covered by a long woollen dress known as a stola. Significantly for the current discussion, her hair would be bound with woollen bands (Latin: vittae, sing. vitta) to protect her from impurity and as an indication of her modesty. When she went out, she would add a palla (see right) a mantle draped over the shoulders and often over the head as well very much in the ‘Middle Eastern custom of veiling women’ (Sebesta & Bonfante, 2001, 48). In ancient Roman society this was ‘a symbol of their honour and of the sanctity and privacy of family life’ (Sebesta & Bonfante, 2001, 48). Young girls, prostitutes, and those who had forfeited the title of matron, usually through being caught in adultery, were not permitted to wear either the stola or palla. Young girls instead wore tunics (Latin: tunicae, sing. tunica), while prostitutes and women convicted of adultery were required to wear togae (Latin: sing. toga) (Kittell-Queller, 2014); further information on this iconic Roman garment is available here.

And finally…

This has either been a rant on some pet peeves with media representations of historical themes or, hopefully, some food for thought. Regardless, thank you for reading this far. Until next time, bon appétit.

Endnotes:

1. Polly Walker portrayed a fictionalised version of Atia the daughter of Julia Minor, sister of Gaius Julius Caesar. Her father was the praetor Marcus Atius Balbus. She had at least one younger sister, and possibly an older one. Due to this, she is sometimes called Atia Secunda or Atia Balba Secunda. She was an influential high-born Roman woman. Not only was she the niece of Caesar, she was also the mother of Gaius Octavius, Caesar’s adopted son and heir, who became the Emperor Augustus. Furthermore, through her daughter Octavia, she was also the great-grandmother of Germanicus and his brother, Emperor Claudius.

2. The series ‘Domina’ (Latin: ‘lady’ or ‘mistress of the house’) charts the rise to power of Livia Drusilla (30th January 59 BC - AD 29), the daughter of Roman senator Marcus Livius Drusus Claudianus and his wife Alfidia. In 38 BC, having divorced her first husband, she married Gaius Octavius (also known as Octavian. When the Senate granted Octavian the title Augustus in 27 BC, effectively making him emperor. Livia became the Roman empress. In this role, she served as an influential confidant of her husband, although also rumoured to have been responsible for the deaths of a number of Augustus' relatives.

3. Lares were guardian deities in ancient Roman religion. Their origin is uncertain; they may have been hero-ancestors, guardians of the hearth, fields, boundaries, or fruitfulness, or an amalgamation of these. Lares were believed to observe, protect, and influence all that happened within the boundaries of their location or function. The statues of domestic Lares were placed at the table during family meals; their presence, cult, and blessing seem to have been required at all important family events.

4. Annia Aurelia Galeria Lucilla or Lucilla (March 7th, AD 148 or 150 – AD 182) was the second daughter of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius and Roman Empress Faustina the Younger. She was the wife of her father's co-ruler and adoptive brother Lucius Verus and an elder sister to later Emperor Commodus. Commodus ordered Lucilla's execution after a failed assassination and coup attempt when she was about 33 years old.