New discoveries in--ahem--medieval underwear

[L.C. Blackwell]

Maybe some of you knew this already, but I sure didn't!

Six-hundred year old linen bras have been found in Austria. So much for assuming the bra only followed the corset.

[Shakesbear]

Thanks for the link.

Very interesting, as is the assumption that the articles in question were worn as underwear. They could have been worn over a garment, there may have been sleeves attached. Whilst the shape suggests a bra, I would really like to know how the academics can prove it was worn as a supporting garment under other clothes.

[donroc]

I am reminded of comic Rusty Warren's comment about The great Western Bra: "Head 'em up and move 'em out."

www.rustywarren.com - Home

[Nekko]

Originally Posted by Shakesbear

Thanks for the link.

Very interesting, as is the assumption that the articles in question were worn as underwear. They could have been worn over a garment, there may have been sleeves attached. Whilst the shape suggests a bra, I would really like to know how the academics can prove it was worn as a supporting garment under other clothes.

This quote from an article someone else posted in this thread corresponds to what I heard on NPR about these undergarments:
"Medieval written sources are rather vague on the topic of female breast support, sometimes mentioning “bags for the breasts” or “shirts with bags”. Other sources only mention breast-bands to bind down oversized breasts."

The article also gives more information about why they didn't think sleeves had been attached.

[Alessandra Kelley]

That they were "decorated" suggests that they were garments meant to be seen, and thus meant to be on the outside of clothes.

It's a smidgen later than the dates they're suggesting, but German women wore things like this and this.

Any one of those fussy, multipart outfits could have incorporated this Austrian garment.

[Shakesbear]

Originally Posted by Alessandra Kelley

That they were "decorated" suggests that they were garments meant to be seen, and thus meant to be on the outside of clothes.

It's a smidgen later than the dates they're suggesting, but German women wore things like this and this.

Any one of those fussy, multipart outfits could have incorporated this Austrian garment.

Yes! Thanks for the link. I was looking at this http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/images/Cleves,Anne03.jpg earlier and it seems to me that the bodice is laced up over some sort of very fancy garment. I think the only difference is that the ones recently discovered have separate cups. I wonder if they were made to be used by a nursing mother or wet nurse.

[little_e]

Originally Posted by Shakesbear

Yes! Thanks for the link. I was looking at this http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/images/Cleves,Anne03.jpg earlier and it seems to me that the bodice is laced up over some sort of very fancy garment. I think the only difference is that the ones recently discovered have separate cups. I wonder if they were made to be used by a nursing mother or wet nurse.

I've often wondered how they nursed in those outfits.

[Nekko]

Originally Posted by little_e

I've often wondered how they nursed in those outfits.

They (the aristocracy) didn't. They had wet nurses. Ladies of wealth and nobility never nursed their own children. (at least not that I've ever read about)

[ishtar'sgate]

Originally Posted by Alessandra Kelley

It's a smidgen later than the dates they're suggesting, but German women wore things like this and this.

Of course the first one is only suitable for wearing when you're beheading someone. Charming.

[veinglory]

Originally Posted by Alessandra Kelley

That they were "decorated" suggests that they were garments meant to be seen, and thus meant to be on the outside of clothes.

Couldn't the same be said of modern bras?

[Little Anonymous Me]

Originally Posted by Alessandra Kelley

That they were "decorated" suggests that they were garments meant to be seen, and thus meant to be on the outside of clothes.

But chemises and stockings were also adorned. They were certainly not for public viewing....

Originally Posted by Alessandra Kelley

And sitting on a horse with many thick layers of skirts between you and it isn't so bad. Nobody but the poorest of the poor wore a single skirt with nothing under it anyway. Anyone wealthy enough to ride a horse would have several layers of petticoats at least under the skirt.

The part that raises my eyebrows is how the skirts are arranged. Perhaps this is a product of modern films/writing, but women who ride (astride) are always shown with their skirts--not under them for cushioning--but around them, for modesty. Even with a side-saddle, the skirts are shown over the saddle. Hence my owie.


It would be so convienient if an extremely detailed diary was found from 700 years ago:

"Woke up. Screamed at chambermaid. Plucked out eyelashes. Pulled on bra...."

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by veinglory

Couldn't the same be said of modern bras?

True, but back then all clothing was handsewn and hand decorated. The amount of hand labor was incredible, and they only did it where they had to. Nothing was decorated unless it was to be seen.

Some underwear back then had elaborate embroidery, but it was usually on the cuffs and collar of chemises and shirts, the parts that would show when one was dressed.

Evidence exists that fancy brocade underskirts were sometimes no more than a strip of fabric at the bottom of an otherwise plain petticoat, that fancy brocade sleeves which showed were sometimes tied onto a plain underdress or kirtle.

Under the circumstances, if I see a decorated garment from the Renaissance, I'm going to assume it was meant to be seen.

These days embellishment is cheap and easy. Lace has gone from something worth its weight in gold to something you can buy by the yard for pennies. People like embellished clothes, so decorated modern bras are readily available. It's a totally different attitude towards clothes.

[Shakesbear]

Originally Posted by Alessandra Kelley

True, but back then all clothing was handsewn and hand decorated. The amount of hand labor was incredible, and they only did it where they had to. Nothing was decorated unless it was to be seen.

Some underwear back then had elaborate embroidery, but it was usually on the cuffs and collar of chemises and shirts, the parts that would show when one was dressed.

Evidence exists that fancy brocade underskirts were sometimes no more than a strip of fabric at the bottom of an otherwise plain petticoat, that fancy brocade sleeves which showed were sometimes tied onto a plain underdress or kirtle.

Under the circumstances, if I see a decorated garment from the Renaissance, I'm going to assume it was meant to be seen.

These days embellishment is cheap and easy. Lace has gone from something worth its weight in gold to something you can buy by the yard for pennies. People like embellished clothes, so decorated modern bras are readily available. It's a totally different attitude towards clothes.

The strips of fabric were sometimes taken off and cleaned - which is why they were strips. Women's skirts/dresses in the Victorian had such strips on hemlines so that actuals skirt did not get soiled as the skirt swept along the ground.

As to what women used during their menstrual cycle. I did (may have mentioned this) my first thesis on women's foundation garments. I became very curious as to what women used before commercial pads and tampons were available. To my surprise I found that sanitary towels were available from, iirc, c1880. They were made by Southall Bros and Barclays. I spent time asking elderly women what they used as young women. This was back in 1977/8 so the women I spoke to were, mostly, in their 80's and had mothers who were Victorians. Most of them wore a sort of nappy/diaper for protection. Some of them had been given a bolt of fabric and had to cut and hem it. After being used they were boil washed in the copper in the scullery. One of my fellow students was a nun and she told me that the convent she lived in had a copper for the same reason. She smiled when she said that it was rarely used.

As to knickers, my understanding was that women did not wear such garments until the roughly the end of the 18 and start of the 19 centuries. Simple logistics - how the hell did you get to pull down all your knickers with a huge great skirt in the way. Of course the ever inventive Victorians used a pair of knickers, they were not stitched down centre seam.

Some women did wear britches when riding, but I think that was a rural rather than a city thing, and this may go back to the 16th century. Not sure.

One of the reasons that the hunt was so popular in England was that the chaps followed the women, not out of chivalry or politeness but in the hope that they would part company with their horse and land head first in a ditch with their skirts over their heads.

I am finding all this so interesting - learning as well. Thank you all.

[L.C. Blackwell]

Oh, my. Those were elaborate, weren't they? Thanks for sharing the pics.

[thothguard51]

To me this article makes sense because I have always thought that the bra as we know it today, with individual cups and shoulder straps, should have been invented earlier.

[Shakesbear]

Originally Posted by thothguard51

To me this article makes sense because I have always thought that the bra as we know it today, with individual cups and shoulder straps, should have been invented earlier.

Why? Just curious - I cannot think of any women's fashions prior to 1920s that would have made wearing a bra essential. Most corsets supported or crushed breasts and a bra with two cups does not make sense to me.

My first thesis was about women's foundation garments and I find the whole subject fascinating. I have been trying to find out some more information about the finds. This: http://www.uibk.ac.at/ipoint/news/20...lalter.html.en does give some more information. I now wonder if the finds are the

linen lining of garments

[lorna_w]

I confess I never gave an instant's thought to 15th C underwear before today. I assume poor women didn't have any...? And as for posing with a severed head--wow. That's such a complicated message about femininity, my head is spinning

[mayqueen]

I'm also curious how they prove this is worn like a modern bra. I Googled the archeologist and found this article she wrote about it.

[Tepelus]

And what's the deal with head-lopping woman's hands? They look odd.

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by lorna_w

I confess I never gave an instant's thought to 15th C underwear before today. I assume poor women didn't have any...? And as for posing with a severed head--wow. That's such a complicated message about femininity, my head is spinning

It's Judith with the head of Holofernes, a biblical subject very popular for showing strong, virtuous ladies. Mind you, the artist, Lucas Cranach, painted all his ladies as young women in the latest fashionable German dress.

(Apart from depictions of classical goddesses, who he painted nude but still with the same hairstyles and wearing those same amazing hats)

Originally Posted by Tepelus

And what's the deal with head-lopping woman's hands? They look odd.

She is wearing fine white kidskin gloves, and all the joints and knuckles have been slashed in miniature versions of the fashionable German style.

The best-known modern example of that style is the puffed sleeves on Disney's Snow White.

They are also slashed to make room for her many finger-rings. It's really extravagant, and it shows what a fine lady Judith/the young woman is.

[Tepelus]

Oh, okay! I couldn't tell that they were gloves. Makes sense now. Thanks!

[DianeL]

I ran across the story last week and posted about it, observing that breast and genital covering garments are not even as recent as half a millennium ago. Some of the most famous Roman art in the world depicts women in breast coverings (possibly more akin to 12th-century breast bands than brassieres) and cloths strongly resembling briefs.

Our bodies have been built this way for a VERY long time. We've also been covering them for a long time. Even a study of 20th/21st century fashion alone can illuminate just how repetitive we really are in the means by which we do this. I recently read that color blocking was basically invented three years ago. I can tell you it was hugely popular in the 90s, and common also in the 80s, though we did not call it that. "Retro" is hardly new, and silhouette, male and female self decoration, and even cut echo techniques begun even before scissors and seams were invented.

I'll be posting tonight, a really fascinating paper about the "well cut" clothing of the 12th century and how it became fashionable - and how it was achieved at all. The body modifications discussed in this article are still very common even today.

Adding the link for the new post: http://dianelmajor.blogspot.com/2012...ough-body.html

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by DianeL

I recently read that color blocking was basically invented three years ago. I can tell you it was hugely popular in the 90s, and common also in the 80s, though we did not call it that.

Oh, sure. This dates to the late '80s, and women's dresses actually looked like that for a while.

This is a super-famous dress by Yves Saint Laurent from 1965. Most of my female relations of the previous generation owned a version of it.

And this was a famous Vionnet dress in 1922.

Color blocking just got invented?

Who writes this stuff?

[benbenberi]

Whatever the state of medieval underwear turns out to be, it's certain that well-dressed court ladies in the 17-18c did NOT wear panties under their skirts.

(That could sometimes be a convenience. There was a well-known court preacher of the day named Bourdaloue who was very fashionable, but notorious for the length of his sermons, and it really wasn't done to step out in the middle just because nature was calling. The fashionable but prepared ladies of Paris instead showed up with little bowls for their under-skirt convenience, which enabled them to sit comfortably through the *whole* sermon regardless of bladder size. -- to be emptied at the door upon exit, bien sur. The little bowl was called a bourdaloue.)

[pdr]

I don't think we can really say definitely one way or the other.

Bouncing breast were uncomfortable. Nursing breasts needed support. Monthly periods required menstrual clothes which had to be held in place by ? knickers?

I think - can't find the books - that Phillis and Willet Cunnington in one of their costume books mention crocthless women's knickers which could have been worn by your court ladies, benbenberi.

I am sure women wore what they found comfortable and what would make them feel comfortable.