1 - Welcome to #ThreadTalk & gird your loins! We& #39;re talking skivvies, undies, unmentionables, lingeriehttps://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🩲" title="Slip" aria-label="Emoji: Slip">-- that& #39;s right: underwear.

Tonight we& #39;ll part the veil & to find what lies beneath. We& #39;ve got witchcraft, weird myths & plenty of spice. https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🔥" title="Feuer" aria-label="Emoji: Feuer"> https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🔥" title="Feuer" aria-label="Emoji: Feuer"> https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🔥" title="Feuer" aria-label="Emoji: Feuer">

But first, mummies!
1 - Welcome to   #ThreadTalk & gird your loins! We& #39;re talking skivvies, undies, unmentionables, lingeriehttps://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable=-- that& #39;s right: underwear. Tonight we& #39;ll part the veil & to find what lies beneath. We& #39;ve got witchcraft, weird myths & plenty of spice. https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🔥" title="Feuer" aria-label="Emoji: Feuer"> https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🔥" title="Feuer" aria-label="Emoji: Feuer"> https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🔥" title="Feuer" aria-label="Emoji: Feuer"> But first, mummies!" title="1 - Welcome to #ThreadTalk & gird your loins! We& #39;re talking skivvies, undies, unmentionables, lingeriehttps://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🩲" title="Slip" aria-label="Emoji: Slip">-- that& #39;s right: underwear. Tonight we& #39;ll part the veil & to find what lies beneath. We& #39;ve got witchcraft, weird myths & plenty of spice. https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🔥" title="Feuer" aria-label="Emoji: Feuer"> https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🔥" title="Feuer" aria-label="Emoji: Feuer"> https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🔥" title="Feuer" aria-label="Emoji: Feuer"> But first, mummies!" class="img-responsive" style="max-width:100%;"/>
2 - Tradition says Adam & Eve used fig leaves, but the most likely first "underwear" was woven of plant materials or leather. Hence, it& #39;s hard to find extant remains.

Ötzi the Iceman, though, who& #39;s about 3500 years old, had a very well preserved one. So did the Aztecs, pictured.
3 - Loincloths were kind of a global sensation for a while. Got a belt and some felt? Strap it together, vavoom!
Unsurprisingly, the ancient Egyptians used linen for their flappy bits. Indeed, King Tut had a staggering 145 loincloths starched and pressed for the afterlife.
4 - Another kind of underwear (which also doubles as outerwear) art historians cleverly call a "cache-sexe" (or "modesty skirt") in tribal communities all around the world. This one dates from the 12th century & is from the now vanished Tellem People of West Africa.
5 - The Romans, bless their hearts, introduced two-piece underthings.

This mosaic shows female athletes in such garments. I& #39;m pretty sure would still cause a stir on Bella Hadid& #39;s IG. The bottom was called a subligaculum and the top strophium.
6 - Consequently, however, the Romans were not prepared for cold weather. Soldiers wrote home from Britain begging for socks... to wear with their sandals. https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="😳" title="Errötetes Gesicht" aria-label="Emoji: Errötetes Gesicht">

These date from 300-499 AD & were found in Egypt, but Romans likely wore similar.

Apologies to Big Bird...
7 - In China, women wore a variety of undergarments including the dudou, a triangular halter-like top, which popular during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644).

Judging by the very spicy paintings I found (this one was strategically cropped) it was quite scandalous. Ahem.
8 - In the Indian subcontinent, warmer climates meant free-flowing clothes. There was also less sexualization of female bodies.

Well, not until Western colonists started imposing their standards. Because of course.

Here Saravati wears the Kashmiri kurta-mode style of dress.
9 - Which brings us to the Middle Ages in Europe.

1st thing& #39;s first. There were all manner of weird undergarments in the Middle Ages, but chastity belts weren& #39;t one of them.

Nope, they& #39;re a fabrication. We thought this one was from the 15th c--it& #39;s from the 19th. SMH.
10 - Which is not to say men weren& #39;t REALLY CONCERNED with what happened between a woman& #39;s legs. More on that later.

A cilice, or hair shirt, was self-injuring clothing worn by medieval Christians. St. John the Baptist (by Leonardo here) purportedly wore one, as did Charlemagne.
11 - In medieval Europe it was all about the layers for both men and women.

Men wore types of trousers called braes, which came in a variety of lengths & styles depending on need. This is from the rom the Maciejowski Bible (13thC), and gives some idea to construction.
12 - For women, it was about the chemise, and the surcoat, and the layers upon layers. But by the 14th century, tight-fitting tops changed the silhouette, making way for the cone shape of the Renaissance & our friend, stays.

See below. Feat: strategically placed ewer.
13 - Stays, the precursor to the modern corset, used to be called "two bodies" & were fully boned bodices. They could be structured with reeds or whalebone.

This is where things get sticky, though, from a terminology standpoint. This example is from 1660.
14 - Depending on location and time, stays could be what we think of now as corsets--or jumps, which were quilted and padded undergarments that were much more comfortable, like this one below, which had matching POCKETS. https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🌈" title="Regenbogen" aria-label="Emoji: Regenbogen">https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🌈" title="Regenbogen" aria-label="Emoji: Regenbogen">https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🌈" title="Regenbogen" aria-label="Emoji: Regenbogen">

Because pockets, too, were a kind of undergarment.
14 - Depending on location and time, stays could be what we think of now as corsets--or jumps, which were quilted and padded undergarments that were much more comfortable, like this one below, which had matching POCKETS. https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable=https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🌈" title="Regenbogen" aria-label="Emoji: Regenbogen">https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🌈" title="Regenbogen" aria-label="Emoji: Regenbogen">Because pockets, too, were a kind of undergarment." title="14 - Depending on location and time, stays could be what we think of now as corsets--or jumps, which were quilted and padded undergarments that were much more comfortable, like this one below, which had matching POCKETS. https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🌈" title="Regenbogen" aria-label="Emoji: Regenbogen">https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🌈" title="Regenbogen" aria-label="Emoji: Regenbogen">https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🌈" title="Regenbogen" aria-label="Emoji: Regenbogen">Because pockets, too, were a kind of undergarment." class="img-responsive" style="max-width:100%;"/>
15 - YES POCKETS. You can see here, how the pockets worked, under the petticoat. These pockets matched the waistcoat/jumps from above, so I just had to show them.

Because YELLOW POCKETS.
16 - Busks were essential in stay/corset-making, because they helped give rigidity -- but they were also a perfect sexy gift to slip right between the folds, ahem.

Lovers often gave engraved busks to their sweethearts. This ivory busk dates from the 16th/17th century.
17 - If there& #39;s ONE THING that #Bridgerton got SO WRONG it was the corsetry. I powered through.

FIRSTLY. Women in the late Georgian & Regency wore stays, & they were not cinching nightmares. The whole point was to look like they weren& #39;t wearing anything beneath! Below: ca 1800.
18 - The whole "tight corset" trope is just lazy. There were plenty of other horrific beauty standards to concern oneself with. Stays relied on quilting & boning, not tight-lacing.

Even a steel-boned corset, if fitted well, shouldn& #39;t have caused bruising & skin chaffing.
19 - Which brings me to my next topic. We& #39;ve covered tops, but what about bottoms?

WELL. Most of the time women just... didn& #39;t wear anything "down there." During menstruation, even. Though they did sometimes use rags. It wasn& #39;t until dresses got BIG that the privy was a problem.
20 - So how did... women... you know... go?

Well, one way was the bourdalou. These extant "gravy boats" confused (male) historians for quite some time.

It was a portable chamber pot of sorts, designed to allow a lady to relieve herself without soiling her petticoats. Ahem.
21 - Why do we know so little about this stuff? Well, bleeding women were *clearly* witches. No, seriously. Pliny thought so, and then, centuries of Western men agreed.

Eventually, women got "open drawers" because men believed it was improper not to have good ventilation.
22 - Anyway, eventually bustles happened because dresses got SO BIG. The panniers, hoops, & crinolines were not only FLAMMABLE (we& #39;ve covered this) but going to the bathroom was an ORDEAL.

Bustles are super cool from a structural perspective. This one was called THE PHANTOM.
23 - Steel boning meant that yes, sometimes corsets were awful. But, as someone who has worn a good fitting corset numerous times, it& #39;s not a torture device if worn correctly.

I am obsessed with this ribbon corset because it looks like a ribcage & I& #39;m getting Harrowhark vibes.
24 - This corset makes me *feel things.* Right around 1895 or so, so it& #39;s probably chemical dyed. The hook on the front is for the petticoat hitching -- you see similar bits and bobs for affixing the many layers found in gowns of the 19th century.
25 - To get an idea of what I mean, here& #39;s a delightful little video of a woman dressing in an 1898 Worth ballgown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6caqjULoQag">https://www.youtube.com/watch...
26 - Which is not to say there weren& #39;t ACTUAL torture traps. Iron corsets were a thing, for men and women, but some were for orthopedic use.

This one dates from the 18th century. Ouch. But somehow also yum?
27 - Now for a few gowns with STRUCTURE. This 1872 piece still echoes the big crinolines, but you can see the bustle shifting up and back for easier movement around, you know, one& #39;s own life?

Could definitely be poison green.
28 - This dolman from Pingat clearly is making way for the bustle! Bye bye shawls, hello dolmans. It& #39;s got arctic fox fur and chenille, and uses voided velvet. SWOON. Very White Witch.
29 - And this sinner--er, dinner--dress. That is a downright dump truck of a bustle. This dates from 1884/86, and I just wanna touch those pleats please.
34 - Thanks for hanging out with me tonight! It& #39;s always a pleasure. That concludes this week& #39;s #ThreadTalk!

Of note: did the Guggenheim steal its look from this bustle?
You can follow @NataniaBarron.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: