Victoria Had a Secret in the Fifteenth Century
By Twistie
It may be badly deteriorated, but this scrap of linen may be one of the most important discoveries in the history of human dress for many a decade. Why? Because it proves that women’s underclothes existed in the fifteenth century.
For hundreds of years, most costume historians have believed that until well into the sixteenth century, women’s undergarments consisted pretty much entirely of the smock, a sort of undergown.
How did this amazing discovery come to light? Well, some renovations were recently done to Lengberg Castle in East Tyrol. During the work, more than three thousand fragments of clothes and other items of day to day usage were uncovered. The pieces were believed to have been buried when the building was expanded in about 1480.
The piece pictured above is described as a bra, but there is a strip down the lefthand side of it that clearly shows holes for a lacing to go through, indicating to me that it’s more along the lines of an early corset. There is apparently another garment similar to this one and two ‘shirts with bags’ that appear to have been meant to serve a similar function of breast support.
Perhaps even more amazing is the fact that two pairs of what seem to be women’s underpants were also found.
My guess? From the number of layers of cloth in the front, and the fact that there don’t seem to be so many layers in the back, is that this is actually medieval Kotex. Some experts in the subject believe that women didn’t do anything to contain menstrual flow back in the day, but there have been some vague references here and there to ‘clouts’ for women which seem to have been worn at certain times and not others. Hmmm… this looks like some strong potential evidence to me.
I don’t know about you, but I’m eager to see what new facts can be gleaned from these exciting finds!
If nothing else, SCA costuming will never be the same.
July 18th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Thanks for sharing! Very interesting. I wonder how many historical romance authors will see this and then wish they could retroactively insert this information into their books?
July 20th, 2012 at 2:17 am
Of course they had something bra-like (I agree it was probably some sort of corsety thing and something for menstrual blood. Wiggly boobs are uncomfortable and so is a leaky bottom. And good clothes too WAY TOO MUCH FREAKING WORK to allow them to be ruined by bloodstains.
I’m always shocked at the ability of historians of all sorts to throw common sense right out the blinkin’ window.
July 20th, 2012 at 3:50 am
According to the paper I read this morning the pants were gents’s underwear. I wonder how they could tell?
July 22nd, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Because there are dozens of pictures in manuscripts and paintings that show men wearing identical garments.