"Only men wore underwear"... and a laurel asks, "WTF?"
I know I shouldn't read news stories with the same eye as I read a scholarly article or documentation. I know this.
And still I fail to heed my own advice, and have a face-palm moment.
Everyone is all het up over the bra-like garments from the late 15th century that we're finally finding out about. Here is the article that is getting reposted ad nauseum.
Read through it. First, 4 garments are getting attention. According to this other article, two were essentially false fronts to hide cleavage. One was compared to a long line bra. As I posted on Facebook, do you know what a long line bra is? A corset with cups. The fourth, looking at the seams visible in the picture, has some very interesting, very MODERN seam placement. Now, I am hardly a late 15th century costuming genius, but it is constructed like no other garment I've ever seen from that time period. Ever. And let's be frank... One solitary garment does not a fashion trend make.
BUT...
The thing that made my head explode was a line in the first article, and I pray to GOD it isn't a direct quote from the archeologist (because I would call her an idiot), "Also found at Lemberg Castle in Tyrol was a linen undergarment that looks very much like a pair of panties. But Beatrix Nutz said it is men's underwear - women did not wear anything under their flowing skirts back then."
Did you get that last part?
Let me repeat that:
- women did not wear anything under their flowing skirts back then
(You remember Bill Cosby's description of his wife having a conniption fit? Insert that here.)
Yes... One of the items is a pair of underwear. And it was found in conjunction with a codpiece, and according to the second article, DNA tests were done to find out what gender wore what. So yeah, those particular underwear were worn by a male.
But to say that women didn't wear underwear?
Is she, or, if that last part was inserted by the idiot who wrote the article, high?
Let's look at the facts:
Women wore underwear during Roman times. Here:
Looks like underwear to me. And I'm pretty sure, judging by the boobs, that these are females. Unless they're some males suffering from gynecomastia (fancy term for man-boobs).
Here's a picture of some recreated Roman underwear from a museum.
Oh, but this is late 15th century! Things change! Fashion is FLUID!
Bullshit.
Woodcut from 1474, Boccaccio's Famous Women.
1474. Late 15th century. Boo-yah! Suck on THAT! IN YOUR FACE!
**ahem**
Sorry.
And here is this image of people bathing in a fountain, from the fresco at Castello di Manta, c. 1411. The woman at the front is wearing a shift, but it's sheer... and notice, underwear.
Anyway...
And let's get to the part of the topic that might be slightly... uncomfortable. Menses. Uncomfortable to discuss or not folks, these are the days pre-tampon. These are the days when fabric was expensive and time consuming to make. There is no other practical way for a female to protect her clothing during this time other than by a pair of underwear and some folded scrap cloth. And let's not forget the 3 weeks or so after childbirth.
WHY am I so upset over this? Do you KNOW how many times I got forwarded that "Facts of the Middle Ages" article by well-meaning friends? The one that said things like the reason weddings were in June was because they only bathed in the summer?
I'd retire if I had a dollar for every time. No joke. And I will be damned if I deal with a round of idiots who know that I do medieval reenactment asking me if I'm going commando under my garb to be "more authentic". And all we need is a group of seriously intellectually challenged women in sheer skirts and chitons running around sans briefs of some kind. Because you KNOW it's gonna happen. We already have nipple flashes aplenty from overflowing and low cut wench-wear and corsets... You wanna add to the horror? I generally tend to sit on the ground at events (it's comfy and I don't have to drag a chair), and I will be scarred for YEARS if this misinformation is allowed to proceed unchecked and unchallenged.
No... I hope this was just an idiot journalist extrapolating (Yes, I'm looking at you George Jahn.). I would hope that an archeologist, a FEMALE archeologist no less, would have more common sense.
And still I fail to heed my own advice, and have a face-palm moment.
Everyone is all het up over the bra-like garments from the late 15th century that we're finally finding out about. Here is the article that is getting reposted ad nauseum.
Read through it. First, 4 garments are getting attention. According to this other article, two were essentially false fronts to hide cleavage. One was compared to a long line bra. As I posted on Facebook, do you know what a long line bra is? A corset with cups. The fourth, looking at the seams visible in the picture, has some very interesting, very MODERN seam placement. Now, I am hardly a late 15th century costuming genius, but it is constructed like no other garment I've ever seen from that time period. Ever. And let's be frank... One solitary garment does not a fashion trend make.
BUT...
The thing that made my head explode was a line in the first article, and I pray to GOD it isn't a direct quote from the archeologist (because I would call her an idiot), "Also found at Lemberg Castle in Tyrol was a linen undergarment that looks very much like a pair of panties. But Beatrix Nutz said it is men's underwear - women did not wear anything under their flowing skirts back then."
Did you get that last part?
Let me repeat that:
- women did not wear anything under their flowing skirts back then
(You remember Bill Cosby's description of his wife having a conniption fit? Insert that here.)
Yes... One of the items is a pair of underwear. And it was found in conjunction with a codpiece, and according to the second article, DNA tests were done to find out what gender wore what. So yeah, those particular underwear were worn by a male.
But to say that women didn't wear underwear?
Is she, or, if that last part was inserted by the idiot who wrote the article, high?
Let's look at the facts:
Women wore underwear during Roman times. Here:
Looks like underwear to me. And I'm pretty sure, judging by the boobs, that these are females. Unless they're some males suffering from gynecomastia (fancy term for man-boobs).
Here's a picture of some recreated Roman underwear from a museum.
Oh, but this is late 15th century! Things change! Fashion is FLUID!
Bullshit.
Woodcut from 1474, Boccaccio's Famous Women.
1474. Late 15th century. Boo-yah! Suck on THAT! IN YOUR FACE!
**ahem**
Sorry.
And here is this image of people bathing in a fountain, from the fresco at Castello di Manta, c. 1411. The woman at the front is wearing a shift, but it's sheer... and notice, underwear.
Anyway...
And let's get to the part of the topic that might be slightly... uncomfortable. Menses. Uncomfortable to discuss or not folks, these are the days pre-tampon. These are the days when fabric was expensive and time consuming to make. There is no other practical way for a female to protect her clothing during this time other than by a pair of underwear and some folded scrap cloth. And let's not forget the 3 weeks or so after childbirth.
WHY am I so upset over this? Do you KNOW how many times I got forwarded that "Facts of the Middle Ages" article by well-meaning friends? The one that said things like the reason weddings were in June was because they only bathed in the summer?
I'd retire if I had a dollar for every time. No joke. And I will be damned if I deal with a round of idiots who know that I do medieval reenactment asking me if I'm going commando under my garb to be "more authentic". And all we need is a group of seriously intellectually challenged women in sheer skirts and chitons running around sans briefs of some kind. Because you KNOW it's gonna happen. We already have nipple flashes aplenty from overflowing and low cut wench-wear and corsets... You wanna add to the horror? I generally tend to sit on the ground at events (it's comfy and I don't have to drag a chair), and I will be scarred for YEARS if this misinformation is allowed to proceed unchecked and unchallenged.
No... I hope this was just an idiot journalist extrapolating (Yes, I'm looking at you George Jahn.). I would hope that an archeologist, a FEMALE archeologist no less, would have more common sense.