[h-cost] Christmas Santa Swap
Is there anyone else out there who hasn't had their Christmas Santa swap prezzie yet, or is it just me? With it now being a couple of weeks past Christmas, I think mine must have disappeared into the postal service's black hole rather than just being delayed. Freyalyn in West Yorkshire, England - Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover Photo Books. You design it and well bind it! ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
AW: [h-cost] Christmas Santa Swap
I did not get mine either. I am in Germany. Michaela Is there anyone else out there who hasn't had their Christmas Santa swap prezzie yet, or is it just me? With it now being a couple of weeks past Christmas, I think mine must have disappeared into the postal service's black hole rather than just being delayed. Freyalyn in West Yorkshire, England - Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover Photo Books. You design it and well bind it! ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Re: Italian Underwear
I found it hard to believe that women used not to wear drawers until I saw Rowlandson's Exhibition Stare-Case - admittedly not 16th century, but... http://www.wisc.edu/english/tkelley/NASSR/images/2Rowlandsonstare2.jpg No doubt in cold weather they put on extra petticoats. After all, underwear was simply a washable lining to your outer clothes; if you didn't wear breeches, you didn't need drawers. Kate Bunting Librarian and 17th century reenactor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/2006 06:26 On Jan 8, 2006, at 9:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um, I have a rank newbie question. I was always told that ladies didn't wear drawers in this period. Is that a myth, or a regional thing, possibly? I usually do English. And I've always suspected that it couldn't be true. I've BEEN to England. It gets COLD there. Thanks for your forbearance, Tea Rose My observation, in my research on this general topic, is that logic and practicality are absolutely no guide to the attitudes of a given culture at a given period towards women and underpants. Women either wore them or didn't wear them because it was the appropriate thing to do in their social context and not for any other objective reason. Heather -- Heather Rose Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.heatherrosejones.com LJ:hrj ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Re: knitting stockings
I have a friend who does 18th Century. She is currently knitting stockings on a wooden frame about 8 diameter. This is set with wooden pegs and the fiber is worked in much the same manner as the Knitty-knobby one might use to make cording. She says that one can even turn a heel!! Kathleen - Original Message - From: Sue Clemenger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [h-cost] Re: knitting stockings There are apparently several very inventive methods, but the one I've heard of most often involves creating a loop of some sort in the cable for the circular needle--there are actually books available on the technique, here in the U.S. Not something I've tried (I'm plenty happy knitting mine one at a time with DPNs), but I've heard of them. You could probably find something online pretty easily. I just googled for magic loop and knitting, and came up with these links, among many: http://www.az.com/~andrade/knit/mloop.html http://www.knitaddicted.com/files/MagicLoop.pdf Hope that gives you some idea of what the technique is --Sue in Montana - Original Message - From: Audrey Bergeron-Morin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [h-cost] Re: knitting stockings Using two circular needles to knit one stocking or even two at a time is a technique suggested to me by a knitting group that I sometimes go to. How do you knit two stockings at the same time? ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] Re:stockings/two socks at same time
I just finished a pair of knit from the toe up/ knit two at a time socks on two circular needles. While it was an intersting challenge, I don't think I'll do it that way again. Didn't like the toe and didn't like the binding off at the end of the cuff. I did like the use of two circular needles though I've used cotton jersey sheets to good effect in the constuction of 18c stockings (hose?).. They are a bit more stable and a bit less stetchy and while they don't last too to long, they are cheep. Truly period? probably not, but I'm one of the one's that has to be very careful of their feet and legs. I can control the size better with hand done stockings than with store bought. Needs must when the devil drives, especially on tender feet. And no more blisters (or at leat LESS blisters) Now i'll have to go look at the historic knit site, just what I need, another distr4actions ah well, it's wehat makes life intersting. Mia in Charlotte NC - Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
RE: [h-cost] Another period program on tv
Actually I saw that codpiece info also, and it was written , I believe, by a doctor, not a costume historian. If I can find it, I will post a link. Dame Catriona MacDuff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Elinor Salter Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:42 AM To: Historical Costume Subject: Re: [h-cost] Another period program on tv They aren't the only one, I've got a book that proves Henry was suffering from neurosyphilis* by the time he decided to, er, break up with Anne. It's pretty flimsy evidence (supposedly Elizabeth's line about being a barren stock after James was born meant she didn't menstruate, so obviously she was suffering from inherited syphilis), only remotely plausible because Henry wasn't exactly faithful to his spouses at a time when there wasn't any way to prevent STDs. Leah *Or tertiary syphilis, I've seen both terms -- what happens when the syphilis spirochete starts damaging your brain. Have you also read the theory that one reason for the development of the codpiece was to help serve as a pouch to disguise (or prevent staining on clothing by) external treatments for the rashes caused by syphilis? What's the name of your book - I'd like to keep an eye out for it. I do love the genre of diagnosing past medical mysteries. -- Elinor Salter ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
RE: [h-cost] Re: Italian Underwear
We don't really know - such information was too well known/too distasteful to be written down anywhere. Protection that sticks on to the underwear is a very recent development, however. Previously a belt arrangement was used, for which pants were not strictly necessary. Kate Bunting Librarian and 17th century reenactor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/2006 17:23 This leads me to ask, and please do not take offense anyone... How did 16th women deal with their monthly courses without underpants? Rags, I know, but how were they held up? This part of clothing never seems to be dealt with, though the Costume Society of America (Dress) once had an article on 19th C. inovations. Dame Catriona MacDuff Interested in 16th C. womens issues __ ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
RE: [h-cost] Re: Italian Underwear
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Kate M Bunting wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/2006 17:23 This leads me to ask, and please do not take offense anyone... How did 16th women deal with their monthly courses without underpants? Rags, I know, but how were they held up? We don't really know - such information was too well known/too distasteful to be written down anywhere. Protection that sticks on to the underwear is a very recent development, however. Previously a belt arrangement was used, for which pants were not strictly necessary. Self-stick came in when I was in high school. When I started needing protection in the mid-1970s, we used belts, and belt-style pads were still sold for many years after that. There are occasional written references from the middle ages to menstrual cloths (the one I recall was in the context of a nasty comparison of someone/something as being as foul as one, but I'm afraid I read that before I started keeping track of citations, so I don't recall where it was). For someone who isn't starting from an assumption of the presence of underwear, it's a no-brainer to assume the cloths were either tied up with a diaper sort of arrangement or held in place via a belt. And in fact, Poul Norlund's team found the remnants of a sort of belt on one of the female corpses in Herjolfsnes, Greenland. If I remember right without hauling down the notes, it was an arrangement of linen (rag?) pad within a piece of sealskin slung between the legs, which was held by a linen cord around the hips -- sort of a string bikini. The information is tucked into the medical section of the 1924 archaeological report, not with the clothing, so is often overlooked by people who see and read only the clothing section written by Norlund. I don't think it's mentioned at all by Else Ostergard in Woven into the Earth. The doctor writing the 1924 medical analysis concluded from the deformities in the woman's bones that she might have been incontinent, and deduced that the pad was thus an incontinence pad. Heather Rose Jones has pointed out on this list (and I agree) that it could as easily have been a menstrual pad, a possibility not mentioned at all by the doctor. Either way, though, it shows that at least one medieval woman had a means for catching fluids. (I find it particularly interesting that the people preparing her body for burial did not remove the pad.) (In case all that looks familiar, I cribbed most of it from a post I wrote to this list in September 2004, the last time this came up. And that wasn't the first time we talked about it!) --Robin ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] medieval quote on underwear
I got The Letters of Abelard and Heloise for Christmas, and was interested to come across this quote today. Heloise is asking Abelard to draw up a rule for her convent, pointing out that the existing monastic Rule of St Benedict makes no provision for nuns, so they cannot follow it properly. And the first example she cites is: Leaving aside for the moment the other articles of the Rule; how can women be concerned with what is written there about cowls, drawers or scapulars? Or indeed, with tunics or woollen garments worn next to the skin, when the monthly purging of their superfluous humours must avoid such things? Of course, this is a 1970s translation of medieval latin clothing terms, but I think we can probably rely on drawers and woollen garments. Caution probably required with tunics ;-) Jean Danielle Nunn-Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Greetings! Welcome to the 16th century, a fun and exciting place. G Drawers arrived in England during Elizabeth's reign but were considered novelties and foreign. They weren't adopted as regular wear until later. I've lived in England (as well as Canada and the US) and didn't find it that cold at all, so I think it is all a matter of perspective. Certainly once you have all the correct layers on, drawers aren't going to make much difference except for possibly during activities like horseback riding. However, having seen 16th century sidesaddles (rather odd looking contraptions - one was round and perfectly flat with a peg sticking up for the leg to hook over) even then the drawers would be rather immaterial. Cheers, Danielle At 11:53 PM 1/8/2006, you wrote: Um, I have a rank newbie question. I was always told that ladies didn't wear drawers in this period. Is that a myth, or a regional thing, possibly? I usually do English. And I've always suspected that it couldn't be true. I've BEEN to England. It gets COLD there. Thanks for your forbearance, Tea Rose ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume -- Jean Waddie ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
RE: [h-cost] Re: Italian Underwear
This leads me to ask, and please do not take offense anyone... How did 16th women deal with their monthly courses without underpants? Rags, I know, but how were they held up? This part of clothing never seems to be dealt with, though the Costume Society of America (Dress) once had an article on 19th C. inovations. Dame Catriona MacDuff Interested in 16th C. womens issues -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kate M Bunting Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [h-cost] Re: Italian Underwear I found it hard to believe that women used not to wear drawers until I saw Rowlandson's Exhibition Stare-Case - admittedly not 16th century, but... http://www.wisc.edu/english/tkelley/NASSR/images/2Rowlandsonstare2.jpg No doubt in cold weather they put on extra petticoats. After all, underwear was simply a washable lining to your outer clothes; if you didn't wear breeches, you didn't need drawers. Kate Bunting Librarian and 17th century reenactor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/2006 06:26 On Jan 8, 2006, at 9:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um, I have a rank newbie question. I was always told that ladies didn't wear drawers in this period. Is that a myth, or a regional thing, possibly? I usually do English. And I've always suspected that it couldn't be true. I've BEEN to England. It gets COLD there. Thanks for your forbearance, Tea Rose My observation, in my research on this general topic, is that logic and practicality are absolutely no guide to the attitudes of a given culture at a given period towards women and underpants. Women either wore them or didn't wear them because it was the appropriate thing to do in their social context and not for any other objective reason. Heather -- Heather Rose Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.heatherrosejones.com LJ:hrj ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] medieval quote on underwear
Up until recently...like the late 1960's, women didn't need underwear to deal with the products used during their cycles. Belts and rags were the choice of the day. Since skirts were worn by women, and their smocks, shifts, chemises were long enough to protect their dresses from any body dirt, along with petticoats, you don't really need underwear. But then men didn't really wear much in the line of underwear for the most part either. Their shirts would have been breeched up around their knarly bits to protect the inside of their breeches. Weird practice though, to my modern eye...why would you give up wearing underwear? Men were wearing braies very early on in history...why give them up? Ahhh! Fashion...it's a fickle thing! Kelly Since, I am a newbie when it comes to period underwear. What did women do during their monthly cycles? And why was it more common for men to wear underwear and not women? ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] missing messages?
Hello - is anyone else missing messages? I've not seen a message I posted two days ago and just got digest 26 after digest 24... Katherine A positive attitude may not solve all of your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort - Herm Albright ___ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] medieval quote on underwear
If you are pregnant or breastfeeding you are unlikely to have monthly cycles. Admitted women who are not sexually active won't be pregnant much but once you take nuns out of the equasion most women wouldn't need sanitary protection much during their life. On 10/01/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But Danielle, I was under the impression with reading and the History Channel, that during the Medieval and Renaissance periods Europe was going through what historians/scientists considered a mini Ice Age. Plus, my finace' who was stationed in Europe has mentioned that when he was involved with Ren faires and the like that the castles were quite chilly. Since, I am a newbie when it comes to period underwear. What did women do during their monthly cycles? And why was it more common for men to wear underwear and not women? I betcha I'm going to be quite embarassed by the obvious reasons. :-) Roscelin Danielle Nunn-Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Greetings! Welcome to the 16th century, a fun and exciting place. G Drawers arrived in England during Elizabeth's reign but were considered novelties and foreign. They weren't adopted as regular wear until later. I've lived in England (as well as Canada and the US) and didn't find it that cold at all, so I think it is all a matter of perspective. Certainly once you have all the correct layers on, drawers aren't going to make much difference except for possibly during activities like horseback riding. However, having seen 16th century sidesaddles (rather odd looking contraptions - one was round and perfectly flat with a peg sticking up for the leg to hook over) even then the drawers would be rather immaterial. Cheers, Danielle At 11:53 PM 1/8/2006, you wrote: Um, I have a rank newbie question. I was always told that ladies didn't wear drawers in this period. Is that a myth, or a regional thing, possibly? I usually do English. And I've always suspected that it couldn't be true. I've BEEN to England. It gets COLD there. Thanks for your forbearance, Tea Rose ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume -- Jean Waddie ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume -- Caroline ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
RE: [h-cost] Dress Dummy ...
I'm wondering about how compressible that they are. Will she squish down indefinately with a corset? Say, should I have one that fits, and then lace her into it to *that* place because on her it will tighten far more than it does on me? I even wondered about making a couple of different shells -- say one for the appropriate level of squished-ness for an Italian -- because I generally don't wear a corset with those. This replay is a little late, but I didn't notice anyone else answering, so here's my experience: I have a Uniquely You dress dummy, and she doesn't compress well at all -- this may be due to the fact that I'm on the small end of the size dress dummy they suggest I buy. I have a great deal of trouble zipping up the sloper that compresses her into my modern shape - I needed my husband to help hold the sloper together while I zipped, and he didn't think we could do it! My corsets will not fit on top of her -- she doesn't have enough squish left. I've considered making a second sloper of me in a Victorian corset, just to try and see. The reason I haven't done so already is (1) I've lost weight and the form doesn't fit me at all anymore. (Sigh. It's a good thing, but sad when your garb don't fit no more). And (2) that the dress form's bust is so firm that I'm not convinced that I can move it into the proper corseted location. However, this is what I'd recommend trying in order to represent your different levels of squish :-). Do note, that if you leave one sloper on the dress form, after awhile the padding will squash into that shape, and won't rebound well. Good luck and enjoy! -sunshine ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
RE: [h-cost] Dress Dummy ...
But so much easier to take in than let out, isn't it? Betsy, (with the same problem in the opposite direction, but resolved to remedy the situation this year!! Using Walking/archery/low-carbs so far) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [h-cost] Dress Dummy ... snippage I've considered making a second sloper of me in a Victorian corset, just to try and see. The reason I haven't done so already is (1) I've lost weight and the form doesn't fit me at all anymore. (Sigh. It's a good thing, but sad when your garb don't fit no more). Good luck and enjoy! -sunshine ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] att. Bjarne
Hi Bjarne. I have just discovered a source for kammerdug very fine linen. I don't know if it is of the right quality, but seems to. I have boiled it and it has kept the crisp hand. You can get it at Broderi Antik for 399 dkr a meter. it is about 140 cm wide. Hope you can use this info Tania - Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover Photo Books. You design it and well bind it! ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
RE: [h-cost] Cleveland, Ohio
Hi! I didn't see anyone else answer this so I'm going to take a stab -- I just moved to Cleveland though, so I may not be the best person :-) Unfortunately the Cleveland Museum of Art (which has a lovely armor collection) is mostly closed for the next 2 years :-(. They do have one (and only one) exhibit open right now - its on the Arts Crafts movement of the 19th century. There is one artistic dress displayed (I can't remember if it's a day dress or a tea-dress) which has absolutely lovely embroidery. Unfortunately they don't put a mirror behind it, so you have to kind of crane your neck and risk setting off the you're too close to the artifacts alarm to see the back side. Overall the exhibit has some lovely furniture pieces - and some fab glasswork, but I was rather disappointed. They didn't put a lot of context around the items so I didn't learn much that I hadn't already known. If you are interested in 20th century stuff the Case Western Reserve Museum had a lovely 20s exhibit. Very inspiring -- I scribbled all over my lunch bag - having forgotten my sketch book. I went a number of months ago, so they may be displaying something else, but they are always displaying _some_ fashion exhibit. Also the tour of the mid-late Victorian town house that is associated with their museum is great fun. :-) I can just imagine children sliding down the long wooden-floored hallway in the children's wing :-). I've been dying to get to the Kent State costume museum, but I haven't done so yet... It's not directly in Cleveland, but half and hour to an hour outside. There are probably more textile-related places to see, but those are the only ones I know about so far. Oh, no, that's not true -- the CSA lists the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as having textiles. But I haven't been there either, and I'm positive it's 20th century only :-) -sunshine I will be traveling to Cleveland, Ohio next week - any suggestions for must visit fabric or bead stores, museums, etc? I've been invited to give a talk for Quester's group there by a friend; the title is From Here to There and Back Again: A Guide to Travel in Antebellum America. As I don't have a proper travel gown, I plan to dress entirely inappropriately, i.e.. too colorful, too high style, large hoop, too much jewelry, too much hand baggage, etc Thanks for any suggestions on places to visit, Kelly Dorman Backward Glances www.backwardglances.net ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] linen burn test other tests
Speaking of fine linen, I think I may have just gotten quite a bit of that myself. It's pure linen according to the manufacturer, but... If you saw this stuff, you'd understand why I'm hesitant to take their word for it. (Especially since the pure linen thing is second hand info, albeit from a source I trust.) It looks like a high quality cotton muslin, or maybe cotton sheeting old enough to be worn thin, and though there are a few very faint slubs you have to look at it from a few inches away to notice them. It's not fine when compared to finely woven cottons; it's only fine when compared with other linens. I've done a burn test. However, since this stuff is so thin, the results aren't entirely clear to me. For example, it ignites quickly, but so would just about anything that thin. It burns black then after a couple of seconds leaves a thin feathery gray ash, in the same shape as the fabric, which pretty much dissolves at a touch. The fabric near the edge of the ash is a bit brittle, but not enough that I can really distinguish it from cotton that way. I also tried unraveling the fibers, but again, they're so tiny it's hard to tell or even to unravel them at all. Overall, they're no longer than an inch or so, but from what I've read it's common for fabricmakers to treat other fibers as cotton, and to shred 'em so that they can be spun on their cotton equipment. This stuff does have a bit more stretch to it than cotton would, but less than lycra cotton would; it's also got a bit of that 'cool' feel to it, but it's hard to tell for sure, again, because it's so finely woven. When wet, it does seem to hold a bit more water than a cotton of the same thickness. I have about 8 yards of it in white, and about 16 of it in lavender. The lavender is less stretchy than the white, but still has about the stretch of a linen. The lavender is apparently unbleachable! but lately I've run into several linens that I'm sure ARE linen but have been dyed with some mutant unbleachable dye, so I'm not going by that. Besides, if I did, I'd have to assume it was some sort of man-made fiber, and I'm positive as I can be that it's not. Any ideas? Any other tests I could throw at it? (I have no microscope, btw.) I'd really love for this stuff to be linen, but since it just plain looks so un-linen-like I have to be as sure as I possibly can be before I'll use it AS linen! I'm used to being able to pick out linen just by looking and touching; this is frustrating! -E House ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Another period program on tv
Have you also read the theory that one reason for the development of the codpiece was to help serve as a pouch to disguise (or prevent staining on clothing by) external treatments for the rashes caused by syphilis? Classic situation of somebody with a PiledHigh and Deep degree working out of their area of knowledge. The 16th Cent. codpiece was a logical extension (pardon the pun) of the earlier versions which covered the join of hose. That is like saying that the rise of poulaines as a footwear was in response to an historical elongation of the middle toe, or the Elizabethan ruff as a preventative for the gathering of dandruff on fashionable clothing. Poor grasp of the subject combined with a taste for the theatrical does not a reasonable theory make. Mike T. ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Re: Italian Underwear
Hi, All. There was also a consideration that the belt was there to help keep in place a pessary of cloth, a sort of plug to assist with a condition called prolapsed uterus. With no real human tissue left in place, it was an assumption, but a proceedure similar to it is mentioned in 16th Cent. medical texts. Mike T. And in fact, Poul Norlund's team found the remnants of a sort of belt on one of the female corpses in Herjolfsnes, Greenland. If I remember right without hauling down the notes, it was an arrangement of linen (rag?) pad within a piece of sealskin slung between the legs, which was held by a linen cord around the hips -- sort of a string bikini. The information is tucked into the medical section of the 1924 archaeological report, not with the clothing, so is often overlooked by people who see and read only the clothing section written by Norlund. I don't think it's mentioned at all by Else Ostergard in Woven into the Earth. The doctor writing the 1924 medical analysis concluded from the deformities in the woman's bones that she might have been incontinent, and deduced that the pad was thus an incontinence pad. Heather Rose Jones has pointed out on this list (and I agree) that it could as easily have been a menstrual pad, a possibility not mentioned at all by the doctor. Either way, though, it shows that at least one medieval woman had a means for catching fluids. (I find it particularly interesting that the people preparing her body for burial did not remove the pad.) ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Re: Italian Underwear
michael tartaglio wrote: Hi, All. There was also a consideration that the belt was there to help keep in place a pessary of cloth, a sort of plug to assist with a condition called prolapsed uterus. With no real human tissue left in place, it was an assumption, but a proceedure similar to it is mentioned in 16th Cent. medical texts. Mike T. Wait, wait, I have an Occam's Razor here somewhere! -- Adele de Maisieres * Book now for Canterbury Faire http://sg.sca.org.nz/cf.htm * ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] linen burn test other tests
Any ideas? Any other tests I could throw at it? (I have no microscope, btw.) I'd really love for this stuff to be linen, but since it just plain looks so un-linen-like I have to be as sure as I possibly can be before I'll use it AS linen! I'm used to being able to pick out linen just by looking and touching; this is frustrating! Try scrunching up a fist of fabric and hold for a moment and release. If there are lots of sharp creases = linen/ lots of soft creases= cotton/ a few soft creases= blend of natural fiber/polyester/no creases = polyester. If you need to, do this with fabric you know the content of to see what the fiber does. This works great when fabric shopping because no one has to get upset about a lighter in the store! alex ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] medieval quote on underwear
On Jan 10, 2006, at 11:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why was it more common for men to wear underwear and not women? I betcha I'm going to be quite embarassed by the obvious reasons. :-) There's a lot of evidence that medieval Europeans considered underpants to represent masculinity in a symbolic way. That is, men wore underpants and women didn't because underpants were intrinsically a masculine garment. This may seem like a circular argument, but social attitudes towards gendered clothing always seem to end up that way. For a 21st century comparison, substitute dresses and women for underpants and men. There's no logical reason why women wear dresses and men don't other than because society says that dresses are an inherently feminine garment and therefore it's inappropriate for men to wear them. All the logic and reason in the world can't fight it. Heather -- Heather Rose Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.heatherrosejones.com LJ:hrj ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] medieval quote on underwear
Heather's point about drawers/braies/breeches = masculinity is paramount. Beyond that, though, the lack of underwear on women is not nearly so impractical as some people seem to assume. To begin with, it's worth noting that underwear worn with a long skirt can make toileting really awkward, especially if you're squatting over a chamberpot/ditch/whatever. If you have to pull everything up so that you can then pull something down, and then you have to straddle and squat over a target ... quite a balancing act if you're wearing drawers, and even with slit drawers (that don't need pulling down), you still have to reach under the skirts to get the fabric out of the line of fire. Without any drawers, it's an easy matter to step over the pot and squat, using your knees to help spread the skirts away from the body. Of course it would be more complicated during menstruation, but it is for us too. (Spread-and-squat is still typical in certain cultures in which women wear long robes. I remember a picturesque description by a Western female traveler on a bus ride through the middle east: When it came time for a pit stop, the bus stopped out in the middle of the desert. The women went on one side of the bus and sank gracefully down to the sand, their skirts spread in circles around them. The men went to the other side of the bus and peed against the bus [what is it about having to have a standing target, anyway?]. The pants-wearing female Westerner had a much harder time of it -- I believe she learned to carry an umbrella to use as a portable wall.) For men, toileting is done differently from women at least half the time, which changes the mechanical considerations. It's interesting to note that in tunic-wearing periods, men often had shorter garments than women did, which would mean less bulk to lift out of the way. Of course there were many influences on style besides anatomical ones, but this issue may have been one factor in the gender differences in hem length. And as someone else has noted, braies/breeches/drawers were not universal on men even in these periods. It's quite possible, too, that men found it equally useful to go without underwear under long, full robes like houppelandes. Several people have brought up the question of cold climate with the idea that drawers would be logical/necessary for warmth. Just as one data point, I routinely go without underwear when in costume, and I have never noticed any chill up the skirts; the only parts I've noticed to suffer in cold weather are the feet. Given the proper number of layers in the skirts and the use of insulating natural fibers, the area under the skirts seems to maintain its own warm environment. --Robin ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] medieval quote on underwear
snip Several people have brought up the question of cold climate with the idea that drawers would be logical/necessary for warmth. Just as one data point, I routinely go without underwear when in costume, and I have never noticed any chill up the skirts; the only parts I've noticed to suffer in cold weather are the feet. Given the proper number of layers in the skirts and the use of insulating natural fibers, the area under the skirts seems to maintain its own warm environment. --Robin I've found the only time that I really 'need' to wear drawers under my costumes, are when it's really hot. In hot weather having split crotch drawers on keeps things from chafing, and the split enables me to still answer nature's call when wearing a corset and several layers of skirts. That somewhat explains why Italian women wore them and English women didn't. Melusine ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] linen testing
was about to suggest that - although sometimes treated cottons do the same thing. the other thing is something you start to notice when you handkle linen a lot - and apologies that this will sound a bit vague and away with the fairies, but if you run your hand over the cloth, linen threads have a kind of hardness to them - it's as though you can feel each individual thread - with cotton it feels much smoother - more like a single piece. (sorry - told you it woould be vague). Also there's the rip test. If you have enough fabric, make little snip about 2 inches from the cut edge, then rip down the weft. 9 times out of 10, the cotton will have a flat, soft (if feathery) edge, linen will crinkle and curl at one of the ripped edges. It comes from the fact that cotton is't as strong as linen, but is less britle, so when the threads snap, they do so with less force - linen is very strong, but also quite britle, so when it does snap, the linen will snap more violently, in its own little way. Plus linen will almost certainly be harder to tear than cotton. Although, again some modern treatments can alter the properties, it works most times. debs In a message dated 1/11/06 6:41:45 AM GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Try scrunching up a fist of fabric and hold for a moment and release. If there are lots of sharp creases = linen/ lots of soft creases= cotton/ a few soft creases= blend of natural fiber/polyester/no creases = polyester. If you need to, do this with fabric you know the content of to see what the fiber does. This works great when fabric shopping because no one has to get upset about a lighter in the store! alex ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
