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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Jul 29, 2012
      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 2 of 12 , Jul 29, 2012
        > 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 3 of 12 , Jul 29, 2012
          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 4 of 12 , Jul 29, 2012
            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 5 of 12 , Aug 3, 2012
              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.