Clothing and Personal Care

Clothing in medieval Bulgaria combined practical layers with visible signs of wealth and position. A shirt, outer garment, belt and footwear served different purposes; costly cloth and jewellery could turn the same dressed body into a display of rank. Finds from the First Bulgarian Empire and images from the Second provide different views of this material world, from small garment fittings to carefully painted donors.

On this page5 sections

Cloth, leather and making a garment

Flax supplied fibres for linen, and sheep provided wool. Before either became a garment, fibres had to be prepared, spun into yarn and woven into cloth. Cutting and stitching then gave the material its shape. The labour invested in these stages made clothing a product of household skills, specialised work and exchange rather than simply a finished commodity appearing at a market.

Leather served footwear, straps and belts. A belt secured clothing and could support small objects; a cloak added an outer covering that could be put on or taken off as conditions changed. Linen, wool, leather and fur had different qualities, so a person’s clothing could combine materials rather than being made from one fabric throughout.

Layers and everyday movement

Studies using medieval images and written descriptions identify shirts and tunics, longer outer garments, cloaks, head coverings and footwear. Men appear in tunics or coat-like garments with belts, while women are shown in long garments with coverings for the head. The cut, length and decoration of surviving representations vary with the figure and setting.

Clothes also entered the debates surrounding Christian conversion. In 866, Boris I asked Pope Nicholas I about trousers worn by men and women. Nicholas treated this choice as secondary to Christian conduct. The exchange records anxiety about whether an established style of dress was compatible with the new religion.

Layering allowed an outer cloak or coat to be added over a lighter garment. A belt gathered loose fabric and kept it in place during movement. Footwear separated the foot from rough or wet ground, while leather fastenings and garment fittings helped secure the outfit. These practical functions explain why small buckles and fittings are useful evidence even when most of the cloth has disappeared.

Costly fabrics and public appearance

Silk, fine embroidery and fur gave wealthy patrons further means of distinction. Their cost reflected materials and the skills needed to produce and finish them. Precious ornament could be sewn onto cloth or worn as separate jewellery, making the surface of a garment part of its display.

The donor portraits at Boyana Church, painted in 1259, show named patrons in richly finished clothing. Such portraits presented people before a sacred audience and connected their appearance with their role as benefactors. They are especially useful for examining elite dress: details of borders, headgear and ornament belong to an intentional presentation of status.

The Preslav treasure

The tenth-century Preslav treasure brings the workmanship of luxurious adornment into close view. Its pieces include elements of a diadem, necklaces, earrings, pendants and fittings for garments. Gold, enamel, pearls and stones produced contrasting colours and surfaces. The assemblage is associated with the capital’s wealthy courtly world, although the identity of an individual owner is not securely established.

Several techniques explain the objects’ intricate appearance. Filigree uses fine metal wire to form patterns. Granulation attaches tiny metal beads to a surface. Enamel introduces coloured glass into the decoration, while settings hold stones or pearls. An ornament could therefore require several distinct operations before it was attached to a garment or worn against the body.

Small applied plaques and buttons also show how jewellery and dress overlapped. Rather than relying only on the colour of a fabric, a patron could add reflective metal elements that caught light as the wearer moved. These fittings belonged to a different level of expense from a plain textile garment.

Washing and bodily care

Bathing also appeared among Boris’s religious questions. In 866 he reported advice against washing on Wednesdays and Fridays; Nicholas allowed washing for bodily need on those days. The issue was the religious status of an act of care, rather than an account of how frequently people bathed.

Excavated water systems and baths at major centres such as Pliska and Preslav show the investment involved in supplying elite buildings. Water had to be brought to the installation and, for a warm bath, heated. These works placed bodily care within the management of a household or palace, alongside fuel, maintenance and the people responsible for keeping facilities usable.