Ancient & Medieval Dyes

[Major Weenie]

Hope I've put this in the correct place,

Does anyone have any helpful suggestions for the dye colors used in ancient & Medieval world?

For a long time  whenever I painted ancients I took my color selection from illustrations in the Osprey books.  The other day I decided it was time to start up again on my Roman Patrician army.  With lots of barbarian auxiliaries I began wondering what color tunics I should be using.  Then I remembered that I had a 'Big Coffee Table Book of the Bayeux Tapestry' somewhere.  I figured that the dyes used on that would certainly be representative of early Medieval colors, and perhaps also of ancient shades.  Well, it didn't quite turn out as I expected.  Here's a photo of some Norman boats.



1.) There is a sort of Rust/Murry color, but no red.  I thought that madder red had been around forever.  Has it just faded?
2.) Everyone has heard of 'Woad Blue,' but is it in the tapestry?  Is it the blue-grey?  The almost black is actually a sort of dark bottle green.
3.) I remember many WRG books stating that the favorite color scheme for late Roman Auxilia was white tunic with purple & black decorations.  But many of the elite German guardsmen in the Osprey books are wearing dark blue or light/bright green tunics.  Isn't the dark Napoleonic blue made with indigo, from the Caribbean ?  And how would they get a bright green before the (German) invention of chemical dyes in the latter 19th century?

Any insightful observations would be gratefully accepted.
Regards,
MW

[Steve F]

Don't forget that the "tapestry" had had hundreds of years to fade before anyone photographed it.

[Centaur_Seducer]

Red used to be a really expensive colour in the old days. Now, I haven't been bothered to find a wiki link, but I know from a documentary/article that the British army envied their enemies with displaying red uniforms. The actual colour was extracted from a kind of flea in the american colonies.
Blue and purple are also "difficult/expensive" colours in ancient times.

I can be horrible wrong with the issue as I'm no button counter or that very interested with the fluff around ancient times. I just like the biblical slaughter.

[Steve F]

From Carola Hicks The Bayeaux Tapestry: The Life Story of a Masterpiece (2006):

"The tapestry's ten main tones come from just three plants, their dyes skilfully blended into a subtle palette of two reds, a yellow and a beige, and three tones each of blue (blue-black, navy and mid-blue) and of green (olive, sage and laurel." (p43 of the Vintage paperback edition).

Hicks gives the three plants used as:
Weld (reseda luteola) - for yellow and beige
Woad (isatis tinctoria) - for blue
Madder (rubia tinctoria) - for red.

[former user]

please do not mistake the antique or medieval times for primitive

the only problems with the dyes were that they would fade easier upon exposure to sunlight.
purple used to be expensive, but did not prevent romans to dye leather sandals with it.

the main difference to today would be that wealthier people could afford to wear new (=not faded clothes) more often. To balance this out people used much more colourful combinations, with the poorer ones wearing more faded.
In some cultures certain colours/combinations were socially restricted.

more recent movies that attempt to appear "authentic" will have the people run around in earthy coloured/dirty clothing, which really makes me sick

[Major Weenie]

Interesting materials list,

Hicks gives the three plants used as:
Weld (reseda luteola) - for yellow and beige
Woad (isatis tinctoria) - for blue
Madder (rubia tinctoria) - for red.

I remember reading, somewhere, that the English eventually went with (madder) red coats because it looked different than the 'local opponents,' and was cheap, not quite as cheap as white/grey/undyed, but cheap.

Are we then to infer that the faded, rust colors on the tapestry are really 'madder red' plus 1,000 years of fading?

Years ago, back when I was painting 54mm figures, and old hand explained that he always painted Medieval shields in brighter colors than the surcoats, because he thought that the paint on the shields wouldn't fade as fast as the dye on cloth.

[Steve F]

On fading, Hicks also notes that some repairs made in the 19th century using chemically-dyed yarn have now faded worse than the much older plant-based dyes.

[fastolfrus]

From memory, saffron was the ancient dye of choice for bright yellow and murex (some kind of sea creatures in a shell) provided purple.
Both were highly expensive so usually reserved for royalty etc, but Alexander the Great, when he looted the Persian treasury, decided to dress thousands of his troops in yellow and purple as a "up yours" sort of political gesture.

Saffron is still expensive now.

A cheaper source of yellow dye (but not bright yellow) would be dandelions or dried onion skins. I suppose it depends where you live.
Heather can produce some interesting colours too.

[Daeothar]

Years ago, back when I was painting 54mm figures, and old hand explained that he always painted Medieval shields in brighter colors than the surcoats, because he thought that the paint on the shields wouldn't fade as fast as the dye on cloth.

A reasonable train of thought to explain that, is to assume the cloth got washed regularly, and the shields not. Those would be wiped off at best I suppose. Also, they could have been varnished, for added durability in the field. And then there is the fact that shields form a solid, smooth surface, reflecting light better than course cloth, which would always appear more muted and flatter because of it. (assuming no silk is in play  )

Dyed fabric has individual strands rubbing against eachother, damaging and releasing the pigments faster. Wringing them out after they got wet/washed would only speed up that process.

So IMHO, his method seems right.

[former user]

textiles were very valuable before industrialized weaving.
they would be used, patched, given away and reused until torn.
dye is a chemical process that achieves the colour or binds the colur by a chemical reaction.

shields are either painted with bound pigment (which is usually colour stable, depending on the colour) or the covering leather is dyed.
But

shields, even when sheeted with metal, do not survive for long. one battle and You need a new one.
(after beating the Wikings at Stamford bridge, the Saxons reportedly replaced their damaged shields with captured ones and used them in Hastings)

that is why painted shields always look new....

[Doc Twilight]

textiles were very valuable before industrialized weaving.
they would be used, patched, given away and reused until torn.
dye is a chemical process that achieves the colour or binds the colur by a chemical reaction.

shields are either painted with bound pigment (which is usually colour stable, depending on the colour) or the covering leather is dyed.
But

shields, even when sheeted with metal, do not survive for long. one battle and You need a new one.
(after beating the Wikings at Stamford bridge, the Saxons reportedly replaced their damaged shields with captured ones and used them in Hastings)

that is why painted shields always look new....

I disagree. The archaeological evidence is that the Romans, for example, used their shields until they literally fell apart. Having used a Roman shield myself on a number of occasions, I can assure you that it can survive more than one battle, and the evidence would seem to support the same of the historical scutum and its descendents.

Perhaps this is true of "inferior quality" shields, but one did not simply produce hundreds of thousands of shields and then replace them willy nilly after every engagement.

Why do shields always look freshly painted? Quite frankly, because soldiers often repainted them -between- engagements. An army on long campaign may not have had time for this luxury if it was constantly engaged, but if a group of soldiers was sitting in camp for days between active operations, as was often the case, there was the usual sort of maintenance. Tunics were patched, socks darned, shoes fixed, and shields repainted.

As for the issue of the original question, the color of tunics, we have a suprisingly large amount of evidence regarding Roman tunic colors, but very little in terms of shield colors (the Dura Europos shield being the sole painted example yet discovered of a Roman shield, but that's another matter enitrely...). Generally speaking, regular soldiers and auxiliaries were issued with tunics that were either red or off-white. The off-white tunics were initially simply off-white, but beginning in fourth century, they had contrasting hems of various colors (purple and green being very common).

The debate at the moment is a matter of which tunic was used for which purpose. I am of the opinion that the red tunics were worn in the field and on operations, whilst the white tunics were worn on parade. However, there are others who feel precisely the opposite. It's a matter of how you interpret the evidence, practicality, etc. My view is that white is easy to stain, difficult to keep clean, etc, whereas red (while it fades) stains less easily, hides wounds (the real reason the British adopted red uniforms), etc. Another piece of evidence is that Roman burials unearthed in Egypt have determined that soldiers were usually buried in their white tunics, which would coincide with the practice popular in that part of the world at the time of being buried with one's most precious possessions. An -alternative- (and valid) suggestion is that these men are all officers, and wearing finer quality uniforms.

Initially, the Auxilia were issued standard pattern tunica/tunics (or, depending upon the interpretation of the evidence, purchased to a certain pattern). They would have looked very much like regular Roman soldiers, albeit likely with different shield types and tactics.
By the time of the "Barbarian Auxiliaries" (or Foederati), you had both "Roman style" auxiliaries, who would have been hard to distinguish from the classic "Legion", and "Barbarian style" auxiliaries, who were simply recruited or hired and operated in their own peculiar styles/patterns. Interestingly enough, by the time of the fifth century, the evidence seems to suggest that the Foederati were becoming more "Romanized" in terms of gear, equipment, and tactics, whilst the "Romans" themselves were becoming more "Cosmpolitan." You have to remember that, by the time of the fourth century, there was no such thing as a true "Auxilia" formation any longer. All those born in the Empire had been granted citizenship under Septimius Severus (third century), and as a result, the need for Auxilia who "earned their citizenship" through service was no longer needed.

Auxilia -were- maintained as units, but it was more a unit title, sort of like the British Army having Dragoons, Hussars, Fusiliers, etc.
Instead, the true "Barbarian" recruits were the so-called "Foederati", levies and volunteers from the various "Barbarian" tribes given shelter by the Empire, in exchange for a percentage of their manpower for military service.

As for issue, the general evidence suggests that many pieces of equipment were produced in state armories. The evidence also suggests that this included, at least initially, legionary clothing in some quantity. During the latter half of the Western Imperial era, however, many tunica were probably privately purchased items, very similar to civilian clothing, perhaps trimmed in a common color (which may explain the prevalence of certain trim patterns in our finds of Roman era military clothing.) Certainly, the officers and NCOs had access to higher quality uniforms, but it is significant that the Romans are one of the few "ancient" powers upon whom we can generally lay the claim of "state issued uniforms"  which implies a level of sophistication not reflected in Europe again until the eighteenth century!

It is true that colors in the ancient and medieval world varied dramatically. In ancient Pontus, for example, we are told that Mithridates equipped his troops in purple or blue  tunics and "jewel encrusted armor" which would imply that they were quite a wealthy power.  By the time of the wars with the Romans, Mithridates apparently had these troops dressed in more appropriate armor, but the purple (or blue) tunics remained. Purple clothing amongst commoners in Western Europe would have been almost unheard of (purple is extremely unpleasant to make as a natural dye color, and extremely expensive to boot).

On the other hand, while Brown was the color of many peasant clothes in Europe, Japanese Emperors jealously guarded Brown as the color of the Imperial family, and one could not own Brown clothing without special permission.

We are also told that the Vikings had all sorts of colors in their clothing, probably because they raided near and far.

So, to summarize, it really depends upon the era you're attempting to represent, where you're representing that force, etc:) The general view would be simple, however. For Patrician Roman "Barbarians Auxiliaries" (Foederati) in the Roman style, you've got either off white, or madder red, as good colors, with solid evidence for both. For those unruly, unshaved masses, pretty much anything goes.

Hope this has proven somewhat helpful,

Doc

[former user]

You cannot take a roman shield as a model for every shield, firstly - these belong to the finest quality of shields ever produced, with three crossover layers bound in cloth and covered with leather, thicker in the middle and flexible etc.
As to personal experience with shields...
well, the usual reenactment shield nowadays is of varying layers of wood with leather binding, and it is used to protect against blows up to full contact scale, and even this is not maximum power used in real combat, apart from the fact that weapons are blunt.... (if even of metal - never heard of roman reenactors who destroy their wonderfully painted shields with metal weapons)

my personal experience says that even after the maximum reenactment wear possible nowadays, You will need a new one (not a roman one, OK - but then, I never heard/seen of any treated with sharp cutting edges/projectile points).
As for the sharp weapons - well, no experience available here - I've seen only the tests that would tear any shield to pieces.
And I have demolished some myself....
Anyway, what I learned is that shields are disposable objects (I recall the story about Hastings) and then, the topic was about colours

As for the history and archaeology of the roman army, I recommend:
Yann le Bohec, all kinds of publications about the roman army from a historical POV,
but especially: The Imperial Roman Army
and
M.C. Bishop and J.C.N. Coulston, ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT
which is the most comprehensive record available up to date, complete with interpretations

just for starters 

[Major Weenie]

Some interesting stuff there,

I remember, around 10 years ago, that there was a 'Roman Tunic Controversy.'  For ages 'everyone' (don't know exactly who everyone was, but you get the idea) agreed that Roman Legionaries wore madder red tunics.  Then someone advanced the theory that the official tunic was white.  Perhaps unbleached wool?  And then the various Legions, vexallations, units, etc. might have dyed them preferred colors.  After all the dust settled gamers seemed to conclude Red = Legion, White = Auxilia.  By the late empire many of the Auxilia seemed to be wearing purple embroidery on white tunics, but purple dye was always held to be expensive.  Historians knew this from the evidence they had for the value of Phoenician purple dye.  Then somebody, somewhere, suggested that woad & madder could have been mixed for a cheap purple.  I seem to remember very early Byzantine manuscripts & mosaics showing guardsmen in either light green or blue tunics.  But that may have more to do with the colors used for manuscripts & mosaics than it does for cloth dye.

[former user]

byzantine is something different

I don't remember the quotation, but there is an ancient source that states a certain unit being "granted" to wear white.
red is seen as standard because it was associated with spartan red.

Anyway, apart from the late roman white tunics, there is no source preserved whatsoever, unless someone checks the colours on the propaganda reliefs, if anything is preserved.

From my POV, roman wargaming miniatures are always too uniformed - but with the lack of evidence, everyone can suit themselves   

[Doc Twilight]

byzantine is something different

I don't remember the quotation, but there is an ancient source that states a certain unit being "granted" to wear white.
red is seen as standard because it was associated with spartan red.

Anyway, apart from the late roman white tunics, there is no source preserved whatsoever, unless someone checks the colours on the propaganda reliefs, if anything is preserved.

From my POV, roman wargaming miniatures are always too uniformed - but with the lack of evidence, everyone can suit themselves   

I respectfully disagree regarding being "too uniformed." Ancient sources (Roman and otherwise) are supported by archaeological evidence to show that the Romans were remarkably well uniformed and equipped. There may have been a mix of armor types, but they all carried the same shield styles, wore helmets and armor built to common patterns, carried the same issue swords, etc.
There were at least four official armories in use during the Imperial period (in the West - I'm not positive about armories in the East, as I haven't done much work in the East after the death of Julian II.) Unfortunately, we haven't been able to unearth a single one of them, which would be a hell of a find. One theory is that those who conquered the Western Empire simply destroyed them or put them to other uses.

Actually, we do have a few scraps of red tunics, and other dyed colors, from at least the third century onward, so we know that they used red, we just don't know for certain that it was more common than, say, white. In most reliefs surviving from the era, soldiers in general are depicted wearing red or white, whether or not they are Roman soldiers, from Biblical scenes, etc.

The Eastern Romans did use purple, at least for the guard units. Purple is a very "Greek" color, and it would be appropriate for that side of the empire.

As for the durability of reenacting shields viz the real thing, the unit I met and talked with had built their scuta to rigid standards, as close as the archaeology will allow. I personally saw them throw full size, fully functional scuta, (and the later lance type javelin whose name escapes me at the moment) thrown from combat range. The weapon placed a hole in the shield and was then retrieved. (These guys argue against the 'Roman javelins were built to bend upon throwing' debate, and the archaeology seems to agree with them.) Anyway, the shield survived, albeit with a small dent from the use of the weapon. It was fairly formidable.

I've also seen shields recovered from Saxon burials. Read a whole thesis on the subject recently, actually. The most common repairs seem to be replaced later facings and patched up edge pieces.  They were -remarkably- durable. The "shieldwall" tactic would have been fairly useless if the shields were utterly destroyed after one go, after all. I do know that some of the Saxons discarded their round shields for Norman style kite shields before Hastings. Not quite sure why this was the case, although a friend thinks it was simply because they were "new and fashionable."

That said, they could certainly be destroyed, under the right circumstances. Personally saw a Norman kite shield, supposedly recovered from an engagement with Saxons, which had literally been split in twain by a massive weapon (probably a large axe!) Not an easy feat, certainly.

-Doc