New discoveries in--ahem--medieval underwear

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.

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

Alessandra Kelley said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

thothguard51 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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/2012/buestenhalter-aus-dem-mittelalter.html.en does give some more information. I now wonder if the finds are the

linen lining of garments

Click to expand...

Alessandra Kelley said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

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

little_e said:

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

Click to expand...

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)

Shakesbear said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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/2012/07/well-cut-through-body.html

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.)

It's a puzzle.

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.

I have a hard time believing women wore nothing under their shifts, regardless of what historians say. For one thing, wind chill. And another--though it was less common, women did ride horses. Can you imagine sitting on a bouncing saddle (and a side saddle would hardly be less uncomfortable) without undies? *dies*

I think this may actually be the forerunner of the much hated brassiere, though I had thought the basques of dresses back then would have served much of the same purpose.

Alessandra Kelley said:

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

Click to expand...

Couldn't the same be said of modern bras?

Alessandra Kelley said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Alessandra Kelley said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...."