Medieval "lingerie"

[mandie_rw]

Saw this floating around Facebook - what do you guys think of it?

Discovered in a castle vault, the scraps of lace that show lingerie was all the rage 500 years ago

My knowledge of pre-16thc clothing is sketchy at best, but after a good look, I think saying the find "totally rewrites" fashion history is a bit of a stretch. A fascinating find? Yes, definitely. But it hasn't totally blown my mind and made me question everything I know about the history of women's undergarments!

Of course, it is the Daily Mail...

Comments

[sewloud.livejournal.com]

I have a GREAT desire to try it I must say.

I think it's really interesting and the description of the other two as "shirts with bags" is pretty hilarious to me. I guess it does make sense to me, I LIKE boob support, and it could be the first step on the way to the corset.

The undies also do make sense to me, from a really really functional level. They'd provide you a way to hold some ahem reinforcements there during a certain time of the month. Yeah women probably had FEWER periods then but I'm SURE they HAD them. And in a drafty castle that could prevent the unwanted "updraft" nicely.

I would have questioned the dating but it was radiocarbon dated so I'd say it's definitely that old.

[mandie-rw.livejournal.com]

Agreed! On the "bra", you can see the strip with eyelets hanging down to the waist, and a waist-length support garment would make perfect sense as a precursor to the garments we know existed acentury or so later.

And same with the undies. Kind of funny that the article's screaming about bikini undies, whereas I'm like, makes perfect sense on a bodily function level to me?

If someone uses this for justification for Ren Faire bikinis I'll have to hit them... ;)

[blackcat452.livejournal.com]

I don't know what to make of the bra, but my first thoughts about the panties are the same as Robins. During that time of the month, they might have been used to support the "rags"they used, or so I have been told.

[mandie-rw.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's what made sense to me too, with the undies. The bra looks like it was about waist-length originally (the piece hanging down has eyelets), so I guess it's proof that at least one person, in that particular area, was wearing a support garment in c1480! I don't know enough about pre-16thc clothing to know how much that rocks some people's world, haha.

[isabelladangelo.livejournal.com]

On phone. Will write more later, but yes! Does rewrite history! I've been wanting an English copy of the report. Found in Germany last year. Is from 1480!

[mandie-rw.livejournal.com]

I dunno - to me (again, very sketchy pre16thc knowledge here!) the "bras" just prove that someone, possibly more than one someone, wore support garments in Lengberg Castle in 1480. I didn't realize support garments were so highly contested! Very cool to have found them, of course - I had noticed a trend toward "No medieval woman EVER wore support garments OMG!1!!", and that shuts those people up. xD

[isabelladangelo.livejournal.com]

There is one 15th c medical journal (letter?) that advised women who were well endowed to cut pockets into their shift to support their "large tracts of land". I can't recall who wrote it, only that it had been the only evidence for some sort of support garment beneath the gown. Most people believed that the dress itself was cut to support the bust - which this would go against a bit.

And yes, there are a lot of people who don't believe that women wore underwear - even during that time of the month. There is a ton of articles on how they just bled into their gowns (seriously) and it wasn't a big deal to have a bloodied chemise. It's why they wore dark colored skirts and gowns, according to these interesting individuals.

Despite paintings showing women in underwear (uh, I see d cups there...) that look like modern underwear, there are still people that refuse to believe. Partly because of letters from the time (I recall one person telling me that this ambassador to Spain wouldn't have said that when a royal lady fell off her horse and her skirts went up over her head that he could see "all that heaven endowed her with" or something akin to that if she was wearing underwear. Apparently this person I was arguing with at the time didn't think just seeing legs was shocking. *facepalm*

So yes, very contested. I'm so glad this has come out and with pictures! The original archeological report is in German so...I can't read it. I've been wanting the English translation. Yes, this might be the daily mail but the report and find are both very real and very well documented in archeological research using known methodology.

[heidilea.livejournal.com]

I hate hate HATE it when I see the "bled into their gowns" theories. It makes no sense. Wouldn't the excess show up on extant gowns? And why would you risk ruining expensive fabrics?

[isabelladangelo.livejournal.com]

http://www.netherton.net/robin/FittedDressFAQ.pdf
Scroll down to "What kind of undergarments where worn with this?" to find out exactly how contentious the whole "there were no bras!" thing is. A lot of people are now changing their pages to include the find so you can't see the older stuff anymore...

[situveuxmoi.livejournal.com]

Cool, but the archaeologist training in me has me recoiling- more research needed!

Link to good discussion :

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=151807

[mandie-rw.livejournal.com]

That is a good thread! It didn't cross my mind that the underpants could even be men's (again, very little pre 16thc knowledge here!), for instance, but that's another good point!

I just hate the way the article presents it, like, "Look! Medieval women everywhere wore bras and panties just like modern women!!" That's the Daily Mail for you, I guess, making even fashion history sensational! xD

[heidilea.livejournal.com]

My thoughts were along the same lines. Some of the same people who posted it on facebook thought maybe the "bikini" was actually for menstration. The bra...well, it is Tyrol. And it's not like Tyrol was the center for activity in Europe in the 15th century. I think it's probably a regional fashion.

[chocolatepot.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's a bit of a stretch. With the panties, as has been said, reinforcements etc. They may not have been everyday wear. The "bra" is clearly a longer garment - there's a bit on the side that shows how long it would be, but they're acting like the rip under the bust is the original lower edge - so that could be an outer garment, a warmth garment, etc. The fact that there are lacing holes on the side means that this could be a pregnancy-specific thing.

Why did I read the comments? "Chemises and sack gowns", what do they have to do with this? FTLOG.