Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Authentic_SCA] 14th Century Bra Kind of Found in Austrian Castle

Expand Messages
  • Scott Carledge
    After attending Tangwystyl s class on Getting into Women s Underwear, I shall hold any decision in abeyance until I hear (read) something from the expert.
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 28, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      After attending Tangwystyl's class on "Getting into Women's Underwear," I
      shall hold any decision in abeyance until I hear (read)

      something from the expert. I join her in amazement that we actually found
      any medieval underwear.

      Colm



      From: Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of Heather Rose Jones
      Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 12:00 AM
      To: Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Authentic_SCA] 14th Century Bra Kind of Found in Austrian
      Castle






      On Jul 17, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Cilean_69 wrote:

      > So they found a pair of ladies undies as well, it is a good read but I am
      waiting for the University information
      >
      >
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Found-castle-vault-scraps-
      lace-lingerie-rage-500-years-ago.html
      >
      > Mind the wrap!
      >
      > Cilean

      They found a pair of underpants. I have yet to see any sound reason for
      identifying them as _women's_ underpants.** Nevertheless, OMG we have a
      surviving pair of medieval underpants!

      Tangwystyl

      **There are excellent reasons for strongly doubting that they are women's
      underpants, but let's just leave it at that for the moment.





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • lilinah@earthlink.net
      ... Well, there s one 16th c. Ottoman underpants, called chakshir, which i have reproduced in my size... So, OMG, we have a surviving pair of medieval European
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 29, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Heather Rose Jones wrote:
        > They found a pair of underpants. I have yet to see any sound reason for
        > identifying them as _women's_ underpants.** Nevertheless, OMG we have a
        > surviving pair of medieval underpants!
        >
        > Tangwystyl
        >
        > **There are excellent reasons for strongly doubting that they are women's
        > underpants, but let's just leave it at that for the moment.

        Well, there's one 16th c. Ottoman underpants, called chakshir, which i have reproduced in my size... So, OMG, we have a surviving pair of medieval European underpants.

        Urtatim (that's err-tah-TEEM)
      • Catherine Olanich Raymond
        ... What reasons are those? We know more about men s underpants from artwork, and they look more like modern tighty-whiteys than anything else, and not like
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 29, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          > Heather Rose Jones wrote:
          >> They found a pair of underpants. I have yet to see any sound reason for
          >> identifying them as _women's_ underpants.** Nevertheless, OMG we have a
          >> surviving pair of medieval underpants!
          >>
          >> Tangwystyl
          >>
          >> **There are excellent reasons for strongly doubting that they are women's
          >> underpants, but let's just leave it at that for the moment.

          What reasons are those? We know more about men's underpants from
          artwork, and they look more like modern tighty-whiteys than anything
          else, and not like these underpants.


          --
          Cathy Raymond
          cathy@...
          (610) 805-9542

          "Remember that time is money."
          --Benjamin Franklin
        • Honour Horne-Jaruk
          ... ...And we have four (or more) 16th century Italian undrepants. Knee-length, but still... Yours in service to both the Societies of which I am a member-
          Message 4 of 12 , Jul 29, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Respected friends:

            --- On Sun, 7/29/12, lilinah@... <lilinah@...> wrote:

            > > **There are excellent reasons for strongly doubting
            > that they are women's
            > > underpants, but let's just leave it at that for the
            > moment.
            >
            > Well, there's one 16th c. Ottoman underpants, called
            > chakshir, which i have reproduced in my size... So, OMG, we
            > have a surviving pair of medieval European underpants.
            >
            > Urtatim (that's err-tah-TEEM)
            ...And we have four (or more) 16th century Italian undrepants. Knee-length, but still...

            Yours in service to both the Societies of which I am a member-
            (Friend) Honour Horne-Jaruk, R.S.F.
            Alizaundre de Brebeuf, C.O.L. S.C.A.- AKA Una the wisewoman, or That Pict

            "If you're a normal human, the inside of your head is not a pretty
            place. Venting it unfiltered to the internet may feel therapeutic,
            but it's unlikely to end well."
            --Goedjn
          • Heather Rose Jones
            I tend to count 16th century as post-medieval. (After all, we have 16th c. underpants from Italy as well.) Tangwystyl
            Message 5 of 12 , Jul 29, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              I tend to count 16th century as post-medieval. (After all, we have 16th c. underpants from Italy as well.)

              Tangwystyl

              On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:41 AM, lilinah@... wrote:

              > Heather Rose Jones wrote:
              >> They found a pair of underpants. I have yet to see any sound reason for
              >> identifying them as _women's_ underpants.** Nevertheless, OMG we have a
              >> surviving pair of medieval underpants!
              >>
              >> Tangwystyl
              >>
              >> **There are excellent reasons for strongly doubting that they are women's
              >> underpants, but let's just leave it at that for the moment.
              >
              > Well, there's one 16th c. Ottoman underpants, called chakshir, which i have reproduced in my size... So, OMG, we have a surviving pair of medieval European underpants.
              >
              > Urtatim (that's err-tah-TEEM)
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > ----------------------------------------------------
              > This is the Authentic SCA eGroupYahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
            • Heather Rose Jones
              ... I forget whether the topic has been covered on this list since my post. (The discussion has been going on in parallel on at least a dozen different lists
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 3, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Catherine Olanich Raymond wrote:

                >
                >> Heather Rose Jones wrote:
                >>> They found a pair of underpants. I have yet to see any sound reason for
                >>> identifying them as _women's_ underpants.** Nevertheless, OMG we have a
                >>> surviving pair of medieval underpants!
                >>>
                >>> Tangwystyl
                >>>
                >>> **There are excellent reasons for strongly doubting that they are women's
                >>> underpants, but let's just leave it at that for the moment.
                >
                > What reasons are those? We know more about men's underpants from
                > artwork, and they look more like modern tighty-whiteys than anything
                > else, and not like these underpants.

                I forget whether the topic has been covered on this list since my post. (The discussion has been going on in parallel on at least a dozen different lists and forums that I frequent.) The very short version is:

                * This exact style of underpants can be seen worn by men in 15th c. German contexts.

                * There is extensive evidence both from art and text sources indicating that medieval Europeans (and by "medieval" I mean pre-16th century) considered underpants to be such a definitively masculine garment that they were used symbolically to represent women usurping masculine authority and status by wearing them. _Every_ artistic depiction I've found (or had pointed out to me) from medieval Europe that portrays women wearing or in the act of putting on underpants is in a context that is specifically depicting the woman either masquerading as a man or usurping masculine authority. The image depicted here:

                http://inpress.lib.uiowa.edu/feminae/DetailsPage.aspx?Feminae_ID=30960

                is typical of the genre. Underpants-wearing women could not be such a consistent and powerful symbol of transgression if underpants were an ordinary, everyday female garment.

                Tangwystyl
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.