Fayez Tepe, probably representing Kushan seigniors. |
For the purposes of this blog post, I want to keep strictly to the 500-900 CE time frame, both because it is immediately relevant to my current project and because after this point, local garment variations 'speciate' even more, The Heian noshi being a good example of this trend, although it also occured on the mainland. The early start date allows us to begin with the initial transmission of the garment too.
The round collar robe has an origin, in fact, as a Central and West Asian garment known to us as the lapel coat. Betty Hensellek's paper on the subject does far more justice to the initial development of this garment type in Central and West Asia than I could, but the gist is that it emerged in parallel across a pretty wide geographic area- the earliest visual depictions of the mature garment type that I can recall are Kushan, and tenuously date to the 2nd or 3rd century (Fayez Tepe), but a longer tradition can be discerned in the Persian and Median Kandys- essentially a woolen riding coat worn by nomadic pastoralists. By the 5th century, the mature garment form is definitely developed (although it tends to feature a waist seam and initially, only one lapel until the 7th century at the earliest, with these earlier traits persisting in more isolated regions like the Caucuses) and can be seen in some very early surviving extant garments and in Hepthalite and early Turkic murals- the Kizil Caves are a good example of this. Sassanid and Umayyad rock carvings also attest to the garments presence in Iran and West Asia.
Murong Zhi's funerary robe. |
The robe of red damask, stylistically associated with the middle-late Tang period by its enormous floral medallions, featuring a centred flying crane motif. |
This transformation was certainly not instantaneous. The Murong Zhi robe has an unflared hem extension, and certain white damask robes dated to the Tang in the China Silk Museum's collection seem to fasten using ties- interestingly, apparently looping round the back of the neck to tie on the opposite side. Because they are undyed, they're probably intermediate layer robes. The cut also incorporates piecing, with the sides of the skirt being pieced and a gore inserted at the centre front seam presumably to flare the skirt. A similar approach is taken with a coat from Francesca Galloway's collection which probably dates to the northern dynasties, and this is probably a holdover feature. How did the changes in pattern affect the lapel coat in its eastward transmission? The garment seems to have become longer and fuller- the former, at least, among nobles and officials- and lost its tight fitting bodice and flared skirt. These changes seem to have then been communicated outward into the sinosphere, and can be seen in the round collar garments preserved in the Shoso-in repository. The bodice is similarly unfitted, and the garments are constructed following the same principles. However, notable differences still exist.
Among the Shoso-in relics, no robes with hem extensions are preserved. This can be explained as an accidental skew (after all, the collection is hardly representative), but other distinctions are also present. The biggest one is that the extension panels at the front are not symmetrical, with the seam actually being offset significantly from the centre towards the outside of their respective panels. On surviving Tang period garments, the extension seam is always centred. In a number of Shoso-in robes, the body has no flare, and is entirely rectangular in shape, although others do include a flare from the bottom of the sleeve. Differences in textile choices can also be discerned, and a greater proportion of survivals appear to be tie-dyed (although this is probably because some of the garments were made for actors, dancers and servants) and a good number are garment dyed to produce irregular patterns, a technique entirely absent from Chinese garments. Thus, although it has been commonly argued in the past that the Shoso-in pieces are Chinese imports, this seems to cast doubt on the argument. Even the round collar robe made of green pattern-woven silk in Chinese Lingyang roundels seems to have been made following Nara Japanese cut principles- even though the garment is recorded as being imported from the mainland in 756. An alternate interpretation could be that the fabric for the garment was gifted, and then made up in a local style, which may have, in fact, been the principle behind tributary robes more broadly, which were distributed as far as Sri Lanka and probably among other allied South Asian principalities such as the Turk and Patola Shahis (Schafer, Golden Peaches of Samarkand)- this confusion between fabric and finished garment is common in premodern accounts, probably because the majority of labour was bound up in weaving, and not in sewing or finishing.
Displaced centre front seams also seem to show up in Sogdian art at Panjikent. This isn't visible in all depictions of lapel coats there however, and probably has a distinct origin. The coat here was also probably cut more closely and with a skirt flaring from the waist, judging by extant garments excavated from a Sogdian context, ones with a nearby provenance and by art produced by the Sogdians themselves, and so shouldn't be compared too closely with Chinese equivalents, outside of the obvious importation of Lingyang roundels as a persistent fashion statement from the beginning of the 8th century.
Based on the Sinitic extants I've looked at above, here is how I think the robe evolved from the 6th through 10th centuries. A general trend towards increasing fullness and simplification can be observed, and the collar also progressively narrows. By the mid 7th century, ties seem to have been replaced with loop-and-button closures constructed using strips of silk and turks head knots, and skirt gores are no longer seen. Between the Northern Dynasties and the Tang, the side of opening flips too.