A marble statue wearing long, carefully arranged folds does not always tell a museum visitor whether its subject is Greek or Roman. A Roman official, a Greek citizen and a Roman woman might appear in garments derived from related Mediterranean traditions. Both societies made extensive use of cloth draped around the body, and they often worked with the same kinds of fibres. The chiton and toga are familiar examples, but people’s working clothes, ceremonial dress and social expectations are equally important.
In classical Athens, a man might work or travel in a short tunic with a cloak, while women wore versions of the peplos or chiton and sometimes added a mantle. Tunics were just as common in imperial Rome. A male citizen might put on a toga when appearing publicly in a formal capacity without wearing one during manual work. Women also wore tunics and draped outer layers. Roman writers associated the stola with respectable married women, although it was never the everyday uniform of all Roman women.
The strongest distinctions concern where garments were worn and what they communicated. Greek fashions varied by city and changed over centuries. In Rome, particular forms of public dress acquired especially strong associations with citizenship, office and traditional standards of conduct. Neither society had a fixed wardrobe shared by everyone. Our evidence comes from texts, images, the equipment used to prepare cloth, and rare surviving textiles; each reveals something different about how people dressed.
What did Greeks wear? The peplos, chiton and himation
A peplos began as a substantial length of cloth, often wool. The wearer folded its upper edge down to make an overfold called the apoptygma, brought the fabric around her body and secured it at the shoulders with brooches or pins. A belt could draw in the waist and allow spare fabric to fall over it. The garment might be left open at the sides or joined there. Changing the depth of the overfold, the amount of material or the belt’s position altered its appearance. The peplos was a way of arranging fabric, with many variations in shape and fastening.
The chiton was likewise made from a length of cloth. Its upper edge might be secured at several points to create openings for the head and arms, with the sides sewn or the shoulders and upper arms pinned or buttoned. Fine folds in images often indicate versions made from linen, but chiton and peplos cannot be separated by an absolute linen-versus-wool rule. These methods produced garments with different fits and folds. The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s account of Greek dress shows how those choices produced different versions of both garments.
Greek sculpture often displays the drapery of a peplos following the contours of a woman’s waist and body. Its folds could be arranged to suggest movement, rather than forming a shapeless covering. A chiton did not have to be more revealing than a peplos. When marble appears to show the body through very thin cloth, the sculptor may be using an artistic convention that renders the form beneath the folds. Without other evidence, the effect cannot establish that ordinary people wore transparent fabric. An idealized statue records artistic decisions as well as clothing.
Men also wore chitons, often cut or belted shorter for jobs requiring free movement. An exomis fastened at only one shoulder, leaving the other arm available for work, and appears in images of labourers. Both sexes might also wear the himation, a large rectangular mantle placed over a tunic or draped directly around the body. A shorter chlamys fastened at the shoulder served riders and travellers. As the Met’s examination of the chiton, peplos and himation explains, the rectangular form of the himation differed from the more elaborately shaped toga of developed Roman fashion.
Greek cities did not all follow the same clothing fashions. What people wore in Athens, Sparta and Ionia differed, and the Hellenistic kingdoms developed styles of their own. The historian Thucydides, writing in the fifth century BCE, remembered elderly wealthy Athenians wearing linen tunics, growing their hair long and fastening it with golden ornaments shaped like cicadas. He associated the disappearance of this fashion with an adoption of plainer habits. Thucydides was already describing changes in Athenian men’s clothing as part of the city’s history.
Another account of changing dress comes from Herodotus. In Histories 5.87–88, he tells of Athenian women using their large dress pins to stab the sole survivor of a failed expedition. The Athenians then supposedly adopted a linen garment that did not need the same fastenings. It is an anecdote about civic behaviour and the memory of a disaster, not reliable proof that one violent incident altered the clothing of every woman. Herodotus connected women’s dress to public morality and political events.
The Roman tunic and the toga
In Rome, the tunica formed the basic layer of dress for many people. Men could wear it under a cloak or toga; women might combine one or more tunics with a mantle. Sleeve shape, length, width and decorative treatment varied with the wearer and occasion. Work required clothing that did not impede movement, while formal appearances allowed for longer and more elaborate garments. Wool and linen were widely used. Greek fashions continued to influence Roman clothing through contact across the Mediterranean.
In Rome, the toga acquired a particularly strong civic meaning. By the late Roman Republic, it was strongly associated with male citizens. Developed versions were large pieces of shaped wool draped around the body, more demanding to arrange than a rectangular Greek himation. Early representations show smaller togas. Imperial portrait sculpture later presents broad sweeps of cloth and much more elaborate folds. A first-century CE Roman statue at the Metropolitan Museum represents a man with tunic, toga and a container of scrolls at his feet, associating his costume with civic activity and public standing.
The developed toga was awkward to wear during physical work. A toga belonged above all to occasions when clothing helped establish a person’s public identity: a visit to the Forum, a legal proceeding, a religious rite or an official portrait. Suetonius writes that Augustus disliked seeing men in dark cloaks in central Rome and ordered the aediles to insist on togas in the Forum and its vicinity (Augustus 40.5). His complaint suggests that many Romans already preferred practical alternatives when they could choose what to wear.
For Roman orators, the arrangement of a toga formed part of public performance. Quintilian, in the first century CE, discussed how the garment should fall, the correct arrangement of the tunic and what the movement of a toga could communicate during an oration. He was describing the trained performance expected of a professional advocate or orator. His exacting directions should not be mistaken for the way every Roman man had to dress on an ordinary morning.
A toga could also identify its wearer’s legal or ceremonial status. A plain adult citizen wore the form called the toga virilis. A purple border identified the toga praetexta, associated with particular officials and priests as well as freeborn children. Other ceremonial togas were appropriate to triumphs and special public events, while tunic stripes could help signal elite rank. Clothing could announce citizenship without implying personal wealth. The funerary monuments of Roman freedmen often portray freedmen in togas, allowing formerly enslaved individuals to emphasize the legal and civic status they had acquired.
Greek and Roman women's clothing: peplos, stola and palla
The Greek peplos and Roman stola served different purposes, despite some similarities in their appearance. The peplos was defined by the way a piece of cloth was folded and fastened. The stola, in Roman texts, was an overdress connected to the respectable married woman. It might be worn over a tunic, with a decorated lower border sometimes called an instita. A palla supplied a further draped layer that could cover the shoulders or be drawn over the head. Similar fabrics and shapes could carry quite different social meanings.
The importance attached to the stola appears in Ovid’s Ars Amatoria 1.31–34, which refers to the long hem and hair fillets associated with modest women. Ovid invokes an ideal audience that his poem ostensibly excludes. He is employing a recognizable social image, not recording what every woman passing through Rome happened to have on. His language records an ideal of modesty more securely than it records everyday clothing.
Portraits do not show every Roman matron in a stola, and evidence for a legal requirement that prostitutes or adulteresses wear togas is weak. In a review of Kelly Olson’s study of Roman women’s dress, evidence from portraiture is compared with the expectations expressed in literature. Stolas and the associated hair fillets occur less often in images than the moral language of Roman writers might suggest. Olson’s research on the supposed clothing of matrons and prostitutes also challenges claims of compulsory togas for prostitutes. Words such as stolata and togata could classify a woman’s supposed conduct instead of reliably reporting the garment she wore.
A Roman fresco showing women gathered around music depicts several coloured layers of clothing. The folds are visible, but they cannot always be assigned securely to a stola, tunic or mantle. Portraits pose similar problems. A painted funerary shroud from Roman Egypt, dated approximately 170–200 CE, shows a woman wearing a fine striped tunic with a mantle. The Met’s object record specifically cautions that the division between the garment’s folds is uncertain. Its ambiguous folds show why modern labels cannot always identify an ancient garment.
Greek garments carried social meanings as well, though the peplos did not function as a single marker of marriage equivalent to the stola in Roman moral language. Clothing in Greek art could signal ritual participation, age, wealth, gender and occasion. The garments of a girl at a sanctuary, a married woman within a household and the subject of a funerary sculpture were shaped by different settings. Their clothing did not follow a permanent set of legal categories.
What ordinary people wore to work, travel and serve in the army
People also chose clothing for the movements their work required. Farmers, household servants, craftspeople, porters and enslaved labourers wore clothing that could be gathered up, belted or shortened. In Greece, a short chiton or one-shouldered exomis allowed the arms and legs greater freedom. Roman workers relied heavily on tunics. Travellers and soldiers added cloaks, while shoes, head coverings and outer garments varied with local conditions, occupation and a person’s resources.
The pale mantles of Greek statues and the white togas of Roman public portraits can give a misleading impression of everyday dress. An Athenian dockworker had to lift and carry objects, not stand motionless in the folds of a sculpted procession. A Roman fuller, whose trade involved working wet garments, had no reason to undertake his shift dressed in a formal toga. Public images show the identity their subjects wished to convey; they tell us much less about clothing worn for an ordinary walk through rain or a day’s work in the fields.
Roman soldiers also dressed for practical needs. Military dress included tunics, belts, suitable footwear and cloaks or other outer layers appropriate to a campaign. It was these items, together with equipment, that might identify a soldier, rather than any civilian toga. Roman armies served in many climates and enlisted people from different provinces, and their clothing adapted accordingly. In Egypt, Syria, Gaul and Britain, local garments continued to be made and worn alongside forms recognised as Roman.
Roman control of the Greek-speaking eastern Mediterranean made any simple division between Greek and Roman clothing increasingly difficult. Tunics worn in Roman Egypt, for example, reflected centuries of shared fashion and textile practice. The British Museum preserves part of a linen tunic from Roman-period Egypt. The preserved textile bears woven purple and blue wool stripes and dates to the fifth or sixth century CE. Although later than classical Athens and the early imperial period, its preserved seams, fibre and decorative bands give evidence that can be more specific about construction than the folds carved into a statue.
Color, expensive fabric and the meaning of purple
Ancient statues now commonly appear as bare white stone, encouraging the idea that Greeks and Romans dressed primarily in white cloth. Ancient evidence points instead to colourful fabrics and decoration. Painted vessels, traces of colour on sculptures and surviving cloth show stripes, borders and patterned textiles. The Met’s research into ancient Greek clothing emphasizes the role of painted colours in reconstructing appearance. White marble in a modern gallery hides much of the colour present in ancient textiles.
Colour alone cannot establish the value of a garment. Plain wool and linen were useful and widespread, while some dyestuffs demanded higher prices. Yet different methods could produce similar shades, and the value of cloth also depended on yarn quality, weaving, patterns, finishing and the time invested in manufacture. A richly bordered or unusually finely woven garment might have been expensive without sharing the colour normally associated with aristocratic portraits.
Purple dyes carried economic value and, in some contexts, political prestige. Mediterranean marine mollusks supplied dyes famed for their expense and strong hues. Such cloth appealed to wealthy Greeks and Romans, while Roman ceremonial dress attached specific prestige to purple details. The Met’s discussion of Phoenician purple production describes trading centres of the eastern Mediterranean associated with these dyes. The related Spoken Past article on Tyrian purple traces the history of the colour and its associations with Roman rank.
Roman restrictions on luxury changed according to circumstances. The Oppian law, enacted during the Second Punic War in 215 BCE, limited women’s gold, multicoloured dress and certain carriage journeys, while providing a religious exception. In Livy’s account of the campaign to repeal it in 195 BCE, Roman speakers dispute the connection between wealth, female behaviour and public display, as women assemble to demand repeal. The legislation was subsequently overturned. It cannot be used as evidence that Rome had an unchanging legal hierarchy assigning every colour a fixed social rank.
Textile fashions crossed political and cultural borders. Fine linen, expensive wool fabrics and imported silk circulated around the Mediterranean. Roman writers sometimes used complaints about costly or transparent clothing, especially women’s dress, to criticise perceived excess and conduct. Actual fabrics from Roman Egypt show decorated clothing and complex wool motifs. The Met’s third- or fourth-century tunic fragment documents combinations of linen and wool that offer a material counterpoint to the impressions created by literary criticism.
Clothing, marriage and religious ceremonies
Formal and religious occasions also called for distinctive garments. Roman brides might wear the flammeum, a wedding veil, while Greek women appearing in religious processions could dress according to the occasion. Catullus, in his wedding song 61, describes a golden-coloured veil alongside sandals and torches. His verses evoke idealised celebrations, not a factual list of what all brides wore. They also do not establish that the veil always covered a woman’s whole body.
At Athens, weaving could form part of the city’s public worship. Women and girls helped prepare a peplos offered to Athena Polias, the goddess honoured as protector of the city, during the Panathenaic festival. The Acropolis Museum’s account of the east frieze of the Parthenon identifies a folded cloth in the sculpted frieze as this ritual garment, while noting uncertainty over some figures. Scholars continue to debate the interpretation of the relief as a whole. The frieze shows how Athenians chose to depict a civic ceremony, though it cannot document every action or participant.
The illustration used here, Francis Davis Millet’s nineteenth-century Thesmophoria, was painted long after ancient Greek ritual had ceased in that form. The painting records Millet’s nineteenth-century reconstruction of a procession and its costumes. It cannot establish the actual clothing of people attending the Thesmophoria. Contemporary Greek art and inscriptions provide firmer historical evidence. Modern classical paintings often repeat attractive conventions, including long, white and nearly uniform ceremonial dresses, that should not be read back uncritically into antiquity.
Head coverings carried different meanings across communities and occasions. Greek women could pull a mantle over their hair or wear other forms of veil. Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, in Aphrodite’s Tortoise, draws together written and pictorial evidence for widespread veiling and for differences in how it was used. A veil could express social position or emotion as well as satisfy conventions of modesty. Some Roman women covered their heads on particular occasions, while many portraits show them uncovered. Neither society can be reduced to a single rule governing every woman’s appearance.
Clothing and the boundaries of Greek and Roman identity
Greek painters sometimes distinguished their own people from outsiders through clothes. A Greek man in a draped mantle might be contrasted with a Persian shown in fitted sleeves, a patterned garment and trousers. A fifth-century BCE Athenian vase in the British Museum shows an Amazon in decorated trousers, boots and a tunic. As an image of a mythical warrior, it cannot tell us how every foreign woman or fighter actually dressed. Such clothing details helped Greek painters distinguish foreign figures from Greek ones.
Those artistic distinctions did not prevent styles from crossing political borders. Greeks imported textiles, adopted elements of foreign design and wore garments influenced by regions further east. Herodotus even disputes the term ‘Ionian’ for a type of linen dress, saying that it had earlier been called Carian. A garment described by one writer as foreign might already have been familiar locally. Trade, civic identity and personal taste influenced clothing in overlapping and sometimes conflicting ways.
Roman fashions also drew on clothing practices beyond Italy. Soldiers, merchants and migrants carried trousers, footwear, cloaks and ornamented fabrics through the provinces. The toga retained symbolic importance for Roman citizens, but the empire’s inhabitants wore many other kinds of garment. Roman conquest did not eliminate provincial weaving or local fashions. The Egyptian funerary shroud showing a striped tunic together with religious imagery from Egypt illustrates the coexistence of traditions within one imperial society.
The way a garment was made and draped mattered alongside the status it communicated. The Greek himation was draped cloth that could serve practical needs and signal the self-presentation of a citizen. The Roman toga also involved draping, but acquired a more conspicuous association with formal civic status. A peplos could clothe a woman or be woven as an offering to Athena; a stola could evoke an ideal matron even if real women’s wardrobes were less predictable. Meanings shifted by period and setting, and neat costume charts rarely capture all those differences.
Who made the clothes, and how do we know what they looked like?
Every tunic and mantle required substantial work before anyone could wear it. Wool had to be cleaned, prepared, spun and woven; flax needed processing before the fibres could become linen thread. Dyers, cloth finishers and fullers supplied further work. Household members, including enslaved people, spun and wove for long hours, while commercial production supported other workers. Ancient writers often praised the respectable woman at her loom, an image that cannot account by itself for workshops or for the labour of people excluded from elite narratives.
Tools for making cloth often survive when the cloth itself does not. Loom weights and spindle whorls are common archaeological finds, and their size and weight offer clues to the yarns and fabrics that could be produced. Bela Dimova and Margarita Gleba’s survey of textile archaeology in Greece examines how these objects help reconstruct techniques and changes in textile manufacture. Stella Spentidaki’s study of Classical Attica brings together tools, fabric fragments, pictures and ancient testimony to show that production extended beyond the idealized domestic loom.
Romans also paid specialists to clean and finish valuable fabric. Pompeii’s Fullonica of Stephanus was a house converted for cloth processing. The Archaeological Park’s excavation guide describes the workshop’s washing basins and a terrace connected with drying. Fullers could tread garments in cleaning liquids, remove grease and rinse and finish the material. Cleaning a tunic or cloak protected the labour and money spent making it. The related Spoken Past article on Roman fullers and their use of urine explains the fuller and his trade in further detail.
The costume plate shown above was produced in the nineteenth century. It helps a reader distinguish the general shapes labelled tunic, stola and mantle, but its tidy categories risk suggesting that ancient people always dressed according to fixed patterns. Greek and Roman paintings are themselves selective, shaped by artistic conventions and the status of the subjects. Excavated textiles provide physical evidence of weave, seams and dye, but the conditions that preserve fabric are unusual. The surviving examples cannot represent the wardrobe of an entire Mediterranean population.
Physical textiles, images and ancient descriptions each expose the limits of the others. A surviving tunic can reveal seams that a sculptor concealed; sculpture may depict styles missing from preserved cloth; and written sources explain why certain arrangements signalled citizenship, marriage or office. Together, they show that Greeks and Romans shared much of the practical technology of dress while assigning different public meanings to some of the same forms. Neither ‘Greek costume’ nor ‘Roman costume’ was ever as uniform as a single modern drawing makes it appear.
Discussion
Comments