Medievalist gets excited about old and not very clean underwear - news at eleven!

[ossamenta]

Thanks to fabulous Katrin Kania of Togs from bogs, I have seen pictures of extant medieval underpants! Medieval underwear has been a particular interest of mine for several years now. I gave a lecture on it at the Medieval Week in Visby in 2004, but haven't had time to pursue it much since.

Underwear are interesting because they are so seldom seen. Basically the only people in medieval illustrations that have visible underwear are working farmers, people in bed/childbirth and people being executed (saints, criminals, people who supported the losing side etc). There are also some topsy-turvy illustrations of women wearing the man's underpants, which often have been taken as proof for women wearing panties in the Middle Ages. This is a particular controversy. Since underwear is so seldom seen - and what we see on women are long shifts/chemises - we don't know what or if they wore any. Indeed, the early 19th century satirical illustration (can't recall the name, nor find a link - it's the one of people falling down a staircase, used for the Penguin classics edition of Vanity Fair It's Exhibition stare case) is rather clear on the absence of panties. The common objection, particularly among re-enactors, is that they must have worn something when they were menstruating. A counterpoint is that women in 18th C rural Scania did not wear anything under their shifts, but let the blood soak into their shifts and their hosen, as noted by Carl Linnaeus in his Scanian travels in 1749.

I will stop myself from going on about this, since I'm working from memory and as I said above, it's been a few years since I knew the details and the sources by heart. Perhaps there will be a future blog post.

Anyway, these extant underpants were found together with lots of stuff (playing cards, shoes, coins, glass, bits of clothes, iron and copper objects, you name it) in the fillings of one vaulted ceiling at Schloss Lengberg in Austria. The finds are dated to the 15th century. There is a nice photo in an article on the finds (pdf, in German). It's not possible to tell whether they may have belonged to a man or a woman, but they look just like men's underpants in contemporary illustrations.

And the (other) really exciting thing? At this year's NESAT (North European Symposium for Archaeological Textiles), Beatrix Nutz will give a talk on the 15th C bras that were found in the Lengberg assemblage. How awesome is that? Bras are also very rare in illustrations - the only thing I've seen have been suggestions of breastbinding - and merely to know that there are extant ones, now that sends good shivers down my spine in excitement. Can it be May soon?

Comments

[holyschist]

This comment probably contains TMI about my period as a basis for extreme skepticism.

A counterpoint is that women in 18th C rural Scania did not wear anything under their shifts, but let the blood soak into their shifts and their hosen, as noted by Carl Linnaeus in his Scanian travels in 1749.

I'm always boggled by these assertions. Unless women in the past all had incredibly light periods...I would be dripping on the floor. A lot. I mean, I can't even get from the shower to getting dressed fast enough, sometimes. The only time it would get on my shift would be if I were sitting or lying down (not while I was bustling about doing chores), and unless we're talking about joined hose--and I think there's not much medieval-period evidence for women wearing those?--knee socks are going to be just about useless for absorbing blood (not to mention, why get your regular clothes all bloody if you have any kind of alternative?).

And I have not found any historical accounts of women leaving a trail of blood spots on the floor behind them periodically. Do we know that Linnaeus was truly a reliable narrator when it came to women's menstrual practices? I'm just really skeptical about this one, since we have no evidence that it was socially acceptable or practical for women to drip blood on the floor (I would imagine the household dogs would have been thrilled; whoever had to clean the floors, less so), and I can't imagine that historical women found having dried blood crusted down their legs more comfortable than modern women.

(That said, I think the concept of underpants is irrelevant to dealing with menstruation--prior to the very recent invention of sticky pads, underwear did not hold menstrual products in place. I can easily imagine historical women wearing something more equivalent to a menstrual belt and cloth pad, an article which might not even be considered "clothing" and would be unlikely to be included in wardrobe accounts. Naturally, the rare illustrations demonstrating the lack of panties would not show these being worn if the woman was not menstruating.)

[pearl]

Can I ask an obvious question? What do we know about medieval and early modern shifts? Apparently in the 19th century you could tell some male and female shirts apart (according to a Latvian book) because the female shirts had a lower half made from coarser linen or other fibre 'for hygiene'.
(From: Aija Jansome "Tautas Terpa Krekli Vidzeme" (Riga: Zinatne, 1999) ISBN: 5-7966-1105-4)

More medievally, there is what was described in the 1924 Herjolfsnes report by the medical examiner as a possible incontinence pad. So it looks like *something* could have been placed between the legs, but it seems whenever such a thing is discussed it's always a medical issue.
Robin Netherton quoted all the good bits here.
From: Hansen, Fr C. C. "Anthropologia Medico-Historica Groenlandiæ Antiquæ I. Herjolfsnes." In Meddelelser Om Gronland: Udgivne Af Kommissionen for Ledelsen Af De Geologiske Og Geogrfiske Undersogelser I Gronland, LXVII. København: C.A. Reitzels Forlag, 1924.

[holyschist]

I don't think we know that much, but unless the smock can somehow be tucked between the legs, I still think it would be in the wrong place to absorb anything during walking--and at least by the 16th century, when we have more surviving smocks and shirts, you could do this with men's shirts, but not women's smocks. (You also get lower halves of smocks made from coarser linen, and ruffles made from finer linen--but these seem to be to save money by making the hidden parts out of cheaper material; and that could be going on with the Latvian shirts as well, depending on what the author is basing their interpretation on).

I don't know--I guess it's possible that with poor nutrition and more pregnancy and breastfeeding, medieval women had super-light periods most of the time (and when they weren't they stayed in bed), but I'm still skeptical.

[pearl]

I *think* the Latvian author is basing it on only women's shirts having the coarser half, while men's shirts are solid body panels. But double-checking the Latvian instead of the English summary requires a lot more brainpower than I have right now, sorry.

I don't think we know that much, but unless the smock can somehow be tucked between the legs, I still think it would be in the wrong place to absorb anything during walking--and at least by the 16th century, when we have more surviving smocks and shirts, you could do this with men's shirts, but not women's smocks.

I think that is what I was trying to ask, if the smock could have been tucked between the legs somehow. But if women's smocks were fuller (with side gores, right?) then it's a bit bulky. Thanks. :)

[holyschist]

That's a leap from that difference to "for hygiene," especially if that difference is why they think some shirts are women's shirts...anyway, I know less Latvian than you and I'm just being difficult.

For the 16th century, yeah, I don't think it's practical to tuck the smock between the legs--and it wouldn't stay anyway without being tucked into drawers (we have a few examples of women's drawers from the 16th century, but they do not seem to have been widespread, and they weren't closely fitted to the body). Medieval smocks for either sex...we have a lot less information. But if a woman is wearing a smock with a gown on top of it, I don't know what would keep the smock tucked up between her legs.

Re: pads for incontinence--perhaps any use for menstruation wasn't mentioned because it wasn't something people discussed, or a medical matter?

[ossamenta]

I think it's going to be difficult to discuss whether going commando would work for menstruating women, since there is so much variation in amount of blood flow. A Swedish re-enactor tested going without (during an event or LARP, iirc), and stated that the blood just dried on her thighs and rarely went onto her hosen. I could easily do that at the end of the week, but not on the first days. Other women could never do so without dripping all over.

And I have not found any historical accounts of women leaving a trail of blood spots on the floor behind them periodically. Do we know that Linnaeus was truly a reliable narrator when it came to women's menstrual practices?
I cannot verify this, as it's straight from memory. The main source (as far as I know) for menstruation in 18th-early 20th century Sweden is a 1991 ethnology thesis called Skammens röda blomma (The red flower of shame) by D. Malmberg. Unfortunately it's not at any Oxford library, otherwise I'd check.

[holyschist]

Well, yeah--I'm not saying it couldn't work for any women--just skeptical that it could work for all women. It's entirely possible there were lots of different solutions depending on the circumstances and the woman in question.