Before passing to the special covering for the feet and head some further reference to the Old Testament usage may be made. Among the Hebrews the outer garment, as distinct from the inner loin wrapper (ĕzōr) or tunic, evidently took many forms. The tunic (kuttōneth, cf. χιτών, tunica), like its Greek counterpart, was apparently of two kinds, for, although essentially a simple and probably sleeveless garment, there was a special variety worn by royal maidens and men of distinction, explicitly described as a tunic of palms or soles (passīm), that is, one presumably reaching to the hands and feet (Gen. xxxvii. 3; 2 Sam. xiii. 18 sq.).[6] The kuttōneth could be removed at night (Cant. v. 3). For the outer garments the most distinctive term is the simlah. This was worn by both sexes, though obviously there was some difference as regards length, &c. (Deut. xxii. 5). Ruth put one on before going out of doors, and its folds could be used for carrying small loads (Ruth iii. 9; Ex. xii. 34). The law forbade the creditor to retain it over-night as a pledge (Ex. xxii. 26 sq.), and consequently we may assume that it was a large outer wrapper which could be dispensed with out of doors by men, or indoors by women. The simlah of the warrior (Isa. ix. 5) can be illustrated from the Assyrian sculptures (Ency. Bib., art. “Siege”); according to Herodotus (vii. 69) the Arabs under Xerxes wore a long cloak fastened by a girdle. The outer girdle (Heb. ḥagōrah; the Arabic equivalent term is a kilt from thigh to knee) varied, as the monuments show, in richness and design, and could be used as a sword-belt or pocket much in the same way as the modern native uses the long cloth twined twice or thrice around his body. The more ornate variety, called abňēt, was worn by prominent officials (Isa. xxii. 21) and by the high priest. The modern oriental open waistcoat finds its fellow in the jacket or bolero from ancient Crete, and seems to have been distinctively Aegean. The same may also be true of breeches. The pantaloons worn by modern females, with short tunic and waistcoat, are not found among the Bedouin (e.g. of Sinai), trousers being considered undignified even for men. But a baggy kind of knickerbockers is represented in old Aegean scenes, and it is noteworthy that the Arab mi’zar (drawers such as were worn by wrestlers or sailors) takes its name from the izār or loin-cloth (Ency. Bib. 1734). Such a cloth may once have passed between the legs, being kept in position by the waistband (examples in Perrot and Chipiez, Greece, ii. 198 sq., 456). On the other hand, among the Africans of Punt the waistcloth passes from each knee to the opposite thigh, and two sashes hang down to conceal the parts where they intersect (Müller, 108). The people of Keft (Aegeans) wore a similar arrangement which is a step in the direction of the proper drawers. The latter are found exceptionally upon Semitic Bedouin with an upper covering of bands wound round the body (Müller, 140). However, the woven decorated drawers in Cyprus do not appear to be of Semitic origin (J. L. Myres, Classical Review, x. 355), and it is not until later that they were prescribed to the Israelite priests (Ezek. xliv. 18). But the garment as explained by Josephus (Ant. iii. 7. 1) was properly a loin-cloth (cf. the examples from Punt), and the reason given for its use (Ex. xxviii. 42) points to a later date than the law which enforced the same regard for decency by forbidding the priests to ascend altars with steps (ib. xx. 26). As trousers were distinctively Persian—though the Persians had the reputation for borrowing Median and foreign dress (Herod. i. 71, vii. 61)—they were no doubt familiar in Palestine in the post-exilic age, and in the Roman period the braccae and feminalia were certainly known. On supposed references to breeches in Dan. iii. 21, see Journ. of Philology, xxvi. 307-313.
| Fig. 12. Assyrian Warriors with captured Idols. |
Special protection for the feet was chiefly necessary in rocky districts or upon long journeys. In early Egypt men of rank would be followed by a servant carrying a pair of sandals in case of need; but in the New Kingdom they Footgear. were in common use, although a typical difference is observed when princes appear unshod in the presence of the Pharaoh, who wears sandals himself. The simplest kind was a pad or sole of leather or papyrus bound to the foot by two straps, one passing over the instep, the other between the toes.[7] A third was sometimes fastened behind the heel, and the front is often turned up to protect the toe (Egypt and elsewhere). The Semites of the XIIth Dynasty wore on their journeys sandals of black leather, those of the women and children being more serviceable, and, in the case of women, parti-coloured. Practically the same simple sandal came into use everywhere when required. But the warrior had something stouter, and the Hittites wore a turned-up shoe bound round the legs with thongs. Among the latter is also found a piece of protecting leather reaching halfway up the shin, and similar developments with tight-fitting bandages, buskins or laced garters were worn in Assyria and Asia Minor (see fig. 12). Such coverings find their analogies among the peasants of modern Cilicia and Cappadocia. Stockings, it may be added, do not appear, and are quite exceptional at the present day.
| From Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, Oct, 1907. Fig. 13.—Sacrificial Scene on a Seal from Gezer. |
| Fig. 14.—Hittite Weather-god. |
The treatment of the hair, moustache and beard is extremely interesting in the study of oriental archaeology (see Müller, Meyer, opp. citt.). A special covering for the head was not indispensable. The Semites often bound Headgear. their bushy locks with a fillet, which varies from a single band (so often, e.g. Palestinian captives, 10th century) to a fourfold one, from a plain band to highly decorated diadems. The Ethiopians of Tirhakah’s army (7th cent.) stuck a single feather in the front of their fillet, and a feathered ornament recurs from the old Babylonian goddess with two large feathers on her head to the feathered crown common from Assur-bani-pal’s Arabians to Ararat, and is familiar from the later distinctive Persian head-dress.[8] But the ordinary Semitic head covering was a cloth which sometimes appears with two ends tied in front, the third falling behind. Or it falls over the nape of the neck and is kept in position with a band; or again as a cloth cap has lappets to protect the ears. Sometimes it has a more bulky appearance. In general, the use of a square or rectangular cloth (whether folded diagonally or not) corresponds to the modern keffiyeh woven with long fringes which are plaited into cords knitted at the ends or worked into little balls sewn over with coloured silks and golden threads.[9] The keffiyeh covering cheek, neck and throat, is worn over a small skull-cap and will be accompanied with the relatively modern fez (tarbūsh) and a woollen cloth. Probably the oldest head-dress is the circular close-fitting cap (plain or braided), which, according to Meyer, is of Sumerian (non-Semitic) origin. But it has a long history. Palestinian captives in the Assyrian age wear it with a plain close-fitting tunic, and it appears upon the god Hadad in north Syria (cf. also the Gezer seal, fig. 13). With some deities (e.g. the moon-god Sin) it has a kind of straight brim which gives it a certain resemblance to a low-crowned “bowler.” Very characteristic is the conical cap which, like the Persian hat (Gr. kurbasia), resembled a cock’s comb. It is worn by gods and men, and with the latter sometimes has ear-flaps (at Lachish, with other varieties, Ball, 190) or is surmounted by a feather or crest. It was probably made of plaited leather or felt. Veritable helmets of metal, such as Herodotus ascribes to Assyrians and Chalybians (vii. 63, 76), and metal armour, though known farther west, scarcely appear in old oriental costume, and the passage which attributes bronze helmets and coats of mail to the Philistine Goliath and the Israelite Saul cannot be held (on other grounds) to be necessarily reliable for the middle or close of the 11th century (1 Sam. xvii). A loftier head-covering was sometimes spherical at the top and narrowed in the middle; with a brim or border turned up back and front it is worn by Hittite warriors of Zenjīrli and by their god of storm and war (fig. 14). Elongated and more pointed it is the archaic crown of the Pharaohs (symbolical of upper Egypt), is worn by a Hittite god of the 14th century, and finds parallels upon old cultus images from Asia Minor, Crete and Cyprus. Later, Herodotus describes it as distinctively Scythian (vii. 64). Finally the cylindrical hat of Hittite kings and queens reappears with lappets in Phoenicia (Perrot and Chipiez, Phoen. ii. 77); without the brim it resembles the crown ofthe Babylonian Merodach-nadin-akhi, with a feathered top it distinguishes Adad (god of storm, &c.) at Babylonia. Narrower at the top and surmounted by a spike it distinguishes the Assyrian kings.
When the deities were regarded as anthropomorphic they naturally wore clothing which, on the whole, was less subject to change of fashion and was apt to be symbolical of their attributes. The old Babylonian hero Gilgamesh Costume of the Gods. and the Egyptian Bes (perhaps of foreign extraction) are nude, and so in general are the figurines of the Ishtar-Astarte type. Numerous bronze images of a kneeling god at Telloh give him only a loin-cloth, and often the deity, like the monarch, has only a skirt. In course of time various plaids or mantles are assumed, and in Babylonia the goddesses were the first to have both shoulders covered. Distinctive features are found in the head-dress, e.g. crowns (cf. the Ammonite god, 2 Sam. xii. 30) or horns (a single pair or an arrangement of four pairs), and in Babylonia symbolical emblems are attached to the shoulders (e.g. the rays of the sun-god, stalks, running water). Long garments ornamented with symbolical designs (stars, &c.) are worn by Marduk and Adad. The custom of clothing images is well known in the ancient world, and at the restoration of an Egyptian temple care was taken to anoint the divine limbs and to prepare the royal linen for the god. The ceremonial clothing of the god on the occasion of festal processions, undertaken in Egypt by the “master of secret things,” may be compared with the well-known Babylonian representations of such promenades. The Babylonian temples received garments as payment in kind, and the Egyptian lists in the Papyrus Harris (Rameses III.) enumerate an enormous number of skirts, tunics and mantles, dyed and undyed, for the various deities. A priest, “master of the wardrobe,” is named as early as the VIth Dynasty, and later texts refer to the weavers and laundry servants of the temple. It is probable that 2 Kings xxiii. 7 originally referred to the women who wove garments for the goddess in the temple at Jerusalem.
In Egypt the king was regarded as the incarnation of the deity, his son and earthly likeness. The underlying conception shows itself under differing though not unrelated forms over western Asia, and in their light the question of religious Royal costume. and ceremonial dress is of great interest. Throughout Egyptian history the official costume was conventionalized, and the latest kings and even the Roman emperors are arrayed like their predecessors of the IVth Dynasty. The crook which figures among royal and divine insignia may go back to the boomerang-like object which was a prominent weapon in antiquity (Müller, 123 sq.). It appears in old Babylonia as a curved stick, and, like the club, is a distinctive symbol of god and king. It resembles the sceptre curved at the end, which was carried by old Hittite gods. The Pharaoh’s characteristic crown (or crowns) symbolized his royal domains, the sacred uraeus marked his divine ancestry, and he sometimes appeared in the costume of the gods with their fillets adorned with double feathers and horns. In Babylonia Naram-Sin in the guise of a god wears the pointed helmet and two great horns distinctive of the deities.[10] This relationship between the gods and their human representatives is variously expressed. Khammurabi and the sun-god Shamash, on the former’s famous code of laws, have the same features and almost the same frizzled beard, and, according to Meyer, the king in claiming supremacy over Sumer and Akkad wears the costume of the lands.[11] Ordinary folk could not claim these honours, and in Egypt, where shaving was practically universal, artificial beards were worn upon solemn occasions as a peculiar duty. But the appendage of the official was shorter than that of the king, and the gods had a distinctive shape for themselves; if it appears upon the dead it is because they in their death had become identified with the god Osiris (Erman, 59, 225 sq.). Young Egyptian princes and youthful kings had a long plaited lock (or later a lappet) on the side of their head in imitation of the youthful Horus, and the peculiar tonsure adopted by the later Arabs of Sinai was inspired by the desire to copy their god Orotal-Dionysus.[12] Thus we perceive that ancient costume and toilet involves the relations between the gods and men, and also, what is extremely important, the political conditions among the latter. When the king symbolizes both the god and the extent of his kingdom, ceremonies which could appear commonplace often acquire a new significance, any discussion of which belongs to the intricacies of the history of religion and pre-monarchical society. It must suffice, therefore, to record the Pharaoh’s simple girdle (with or without a tunic) from which hangs the lion’s tail, or the tail-like band suspended from the extremity of his head-dress (above), or the panther or leopard skin worn over the shoulders by the high priest at Memphis, subsequently a ceremonial dress of men of rank. That the Pharaoh’s skirt, sometimes decorated with a pleated golden material, should become an honorific garment, the right of wearing which was proudly recorded among the bearer’s titles, is quite intelligible, but many difficulties arise when one attempts to identify the individuals represented, or to trace the evolution of ideas.[13]
The well-known conservatism of religious practice manifests itself in ceremonial festivals (where there is a tendency for the original religious meaning to be obscured) and among the priests, and it is interesting to observe that despite Ceremonial costume. the great changes in Egyptian costume in the New Kingdom the priests still kept to the simple linen skirt of earlier days (Erman, 206). Religious dress (whether of priests or worshippers) was regulated by certain fundamental ideas concerning access to the deity and its consequences. That it was proper to wear special garments (or at least to rearrange one’s weekday clothes) on the Jewish sabbath was recognized in the Talmud, and Mahommedans, after discussing at length the most suitable raiment for prayer, favoured the use of a single simple garment (Bukhāri, viii.). It was a deep-seated belief that those who took part in religious functions were liable to communicate this “holiness” to others (compare the complex ideas associated with the Polynesian taboo). Hence priests would remove their ceremonial dress before leaving the sanctuary “that they sanctify not the people with their garments” (Ezek. xliv. 19; cf. xlii. 14), and every precaution was taken on religious occasions to ensure purity by special ablutions and by cleansing the clothes.[14] In the old ritual at Mecca, the man who wore his own garments must leave them in the sanctuary, as they had become “taboo”; hence the sacred circumambulation of the Ka’ba was performed naked (prohibited by Mahomet), or in clothes provided for the occasion. The old archaic waist-cloth was used, and at the present day both male and female pilgrims enter bare-footed and clad in the scanty iḥrām (C. M. Doughty, Arabia Deserta, ii. 479, 481, 537). In several old Babylonian representations the priests or worshippers appear before the deity in a state of nature.[15] It is known that laymen were required to wear special garments, and the priests (who wore dark-red or purple) were sometimes called upon to change their garments in the course of a ceremony. Thus the temples required clothing not merely for the gods but also for the attendants (so at Samaria, 2 Kings x. 22).
In the late usage at Harran the worshipper, after purifying his garments and his heart, was advised to put on the clothing of the particular god he addressed (de Goeje, Oriental Congress, Leiden, 1883, pp. 341 sqq.). The reason is obvious, and the principle could be variously expressed. But we are not told whether the prophetess who wore bands on her arm and drew a mantle over her head (so read in Ezek. xiii. 17-23) actually used the clothing peculiar to some deity, nor is it quite clear what is meant when a Babylonian ritual text refers to the magical use of the linen garment of Eridu (seat of the cult of Ea). The Bishop Gregentius denounced as heathenish the rites in which the Arabs wore masks (W. R. Smith, 438), and one is tempted to compare the use of masks elsewhere in animal worship. Next, one may observe upon old Babylonian seals, eagle-headed deities with short feathered skirts attended by human beings similarly arrayed (Ball, 151) or figures draped in a fish skin (Menant, Rev. de l’hist. des relig. xi. 295-301) or a worshipper arrayed somewhat like a cock (Meyer, 63; cf. Lucian’s De Dea Syria, § 48; for “bees,” &c., as titles of sacred attendants, see J. G. Frazer, Pausanias, iv. 223, v. 621). Although there is much that is obscure in this line of research, it is a natural assumption that, in those ritual functions where the gods were supposed to participate, the rôle was taken by men, and the general idea of assimilating oneself to the god (and the reverse process) manifests itself in too many ways to be ignored (cf. W. R. Smith, 293, 437 sq., 474; C. J. Ball, Ency. Bib., art. “Cuttings”). But the deities were not originally anthropomorphic, and it is with the earlier stages in their development that some of the more remarkable costumes are apparently concerned.
Of all priestly costumes[16] the most interesting is undoubtedly that of the Jewish Levitical high-priest. In addition to a tunic (kuttōneth) and a seamless mantle or robe (mĕ’īl), he wore the breastplate (ḥōshen), the ephod, and a rich outer girdle. Breeches were assumed on the Day of Atonement. His head-dress was as distinctive as that of the high priest at Hierapolis, who wore a golden tiara and a purple dress, while the ordinary priests had a pilos (conical cap, also worn in Israel, Ex. xxviii. 40) and white garments. But the various descriptions cannot be easily reconciled.[17] The robe had pomegranates and golden bells that the sound might give warning as he went in and out of the sanctuary, and “that he died not” (Ex. xxviii. 35). According to Josephus they symbolized the lightning and thunder respectively. The “ephod of prophecy” (so Test. of Levi, viii. 2) was essentially once an object of divination (see [Ephod]). The “breastplate of judgment” was set with twelve jewels engraved with the names of the tribes; the foreordained covering of the semi-divine being in the garden of the gods bore the same number of stones (Ezek. xxviii. 13, Septuagint). This breast ornament finds analogies in the royal and high priestly dress of Egypt, and in the six jewels of the Babylonian king.[18] The sacred lots which gave “judgment” in accordance with the divine oracle (Num. xxvii. 21) have been plausibly compared with the Babylonian tablets of destiny worn by the gods and the mystic lots upon the bosom of Noah.[19] The two jewels also engraved with the names of the tribes in a suitable setting, worn upon the shoulder (see p. 102, c.), served, like the twelve mentioned, for a memorial before the Deity, effectively bringing them to remembrance, without any action on the part of the bearer, and thus tacitly involving supernatural intervention as amulets are regularly expected to do. The golden plate inscribed “holy to Yahweh” placed over the head (the details are discrepant) had a mystic atoning force (Ex. xxviii. 38), and in general writers recognized the peculiar efficacy of the costume and its symbolical meaning (Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 14; Jos. Ant. iii. 7. 7; Talm. Zeb. 88b). Although Jewish tradition ascribed this gorgeous and significant array to the Mosaic age (if not to the pre-Mosaic days of Levi, so the Test. of Levi), its very character, in common with the high priest’s status, combines kingly and priestly powers in a manner which is impossible for the period (about 15th-13th cent.). Where the king is the human representative of the Deity he is theoretically and officially the priesthood, although the priests carry on the ordinary subordinate functions. The Hebrew kings, at all events, undertook priestly duties, and not until after the fall of Jerusalem does the history allow that usurpation of monarchical rights upon which the prophet Ezekiel (q.v.) encroaches. The embodiment of political and religious supremacy displayed in the high priest’s authority, clothing and symbols can only reflect exilic or rather post-exilic conditions.[20] (See further [Priest].) In the Maccabaean age the high priest Jonathan received the purple robe and crown and the buckle of gold worn on the shoulder as a sign of priestly and secular rank (1 Macc. x. 20, 38, 89, xi. 58). His brother Simon received similar honours (xiv. 48 sq.), and Hyrcanus, the “second David,” was supposed to have had two crowns, one royal and the other priestly (Talm. Kidd. 66a). The later Rabbis wore most sumptuous apparel, and were crowned until the death of Eliezer ben Azarya.