THIS, writers. Unless your characters are very wealthy (can pay people to be very industrious in growing, spinning, weaving, sewing on their behalf) or live in a post-textile-industrial-revolution world (aka modern/futuristic), they're not going to have that many clothes.

What they will have is protective outerwear. Aprons are a very real necessity for a lot of jobs, from cooking to blacksmithing and beyond.

Women wore aprons and housecoats into the 1940s and 1950s when doing cooking & cleaning because it was still a bit expensive to own a lot of clothes...so this is within 100 years. Within living memory for many folks.

Coveralls were created to protect clothing, and were handed out as uniforms by factories because the workers complained that their own clothes were getting damaged by their workplace. (Unions helped with this, strongly encouraging the companies doing the damage to their regular clothes to step up with replacement garments that could get damaged and then replaced by the company whose work was damaging them.)

Businesses started having their employees wear uniforms to make them look good and as a signature of their company (UPS brown, for example), but unless the design teams are idiots, those outfits are going to be stitched in ways that you can move easily & comfortably while doing your assigned tasks.

In corporate culture in Japan, the salarywomen are often given a uniform dress to wear, and I know of one business that held a work-slowdown because the way the sleeves of those dresses were cut and stitched, they literally couldn't bring their arms forward to type on their computers in a comfortable way. The company balked at replacing the uniforms, until a section manager agreed to let his female workers wear their own "office-dressy" clothes for a day...and productivity leaped forward by over 200%, literally because they could move their arms and position them comfortably.

Another example of those who effed it up are the officers' uniforms for the Germans during WWII, which were focused on looking fashionable--and they were!--but were horrible to don quickly, awkward wear in actual combat, etc, and it took them far too long to "drop trousers" to use the bushes in a swift, efficient, and safe manner. (Not saying they didn't deserve to be shot for supporting such an evil regime, but you should be able to go to the bathroom without worrying that it'll take you over a minute to put your clothes back together enough to run for cover in summer.)

Prior to the 1700s, servants in manor houses & noble estates often did not wear a uniform; they just wore whatever they had, and depended on aprons and watchcoats and whatever to protect their clothes. Then it became a status symbol to put one's servants into uniforms, also known as livery. If you could afford to do that then, by gum-golly, you were wealthy, and people could literally see that you were wealthy!

As for those famous black maid's dresses with white aprons that every manga loves to draw? Black dye was still a bit expensive, but black hid most stains. White aprons were protective, and were to be changed out frequently...and it was far easier to bleach cloth than it was to dye it black, plus the stark contrast was very eye-catching, and since the aprons could be swapped out frequently (very small amount of cloth compared to a whole dress), the fact that your maidstaff were wearing clean aprons was another sign of how wealthy you were, rather than just making the maid wear the apron all day long, progressively getting dirtier and dirtier.

With all this said, how valuable clothing was also affected how armies moved. Throughout most of recorded history, armies were composed primarily of men...but there were almost always 2 categories of women who followed them on the campaign trail. One, of course, was sex workers (for obvious reasons), but the other was Laundresses...and the laundresses would be ransomed first, ahead of the sex workers, if captured by enemy forces. (Not all were women by any means, btw, but the majority were, so I stuck with that gender.)

They worked hard to get the clothing clean, helped with getting leather armor clean, and provided other grooming services such as lice-combing. "But Jean, why would getting the soldiers' clothing clean be that important?" Dudes, dudes, my dudes...if you need to take a piss or a shit, combat will not stop for you. Peristalsis will happen mid-sword-swing. This was one of the sources of "deadly infections killed many of the fighters who went to war," and laundresses literally cleaned that shit up.

When you're a warrior in an army, marching off through the forests of Gaul, you can only carry so many spare sets of clothes because you're also carrying your armor, your weapons, and your rations, etc, etc. You will want to take care of your clothes, because you don't have many replacements, and you won't get many replacements.

So, writers, when you're writing about pre-industrialized cultures...go easy on how many clothes people own. Also realize that accessorizing can make an old outfit look new, which includes small parts of the clothing that can be swapped out for other pieces in a mix-and-match style.

...One last note:

The most expensive, time-consuming part of building a Norse ship to go a-viking on wasn't the actual ship, which took many men 2+ years to craft. It was the sails, which took many people, males and females, 3+ years to spin and weave and stitch together. There are literal stories of brash sailors robbing other norsemen of their sails because thieving it was faster & easier. (It also explains a lot of the fury of certain blood feuds between clans & holdings, if you think about it.)

Bringing this back to writers again, your period fantasy or historic characters are also going to know how to do upkeep and basic repairs on their own clothing. Laundries and tailors might be a thing in their world, but spot-cleaning and being able to mend small tears before they become big ones is crucial when off doing quests or campaigns or world-saving missions or what have you. Garments are expensive to replace. It may be sexy to have your hero discard their bloody, torn, and ruined shirt after a fight, but even if the garment is ruined beyond repair or wearability, woven cloth is still so valuable that it's worth keeping and cleaning to be turned into something else (legwraps, bandages, resewn into a hat, or used as patches to repair other garments, etc.).

We live in an unprecedented era of wastefulness, where our clothing is often so cheap (and cheaply made) that it's barely worth the efgort of repairing once it begins to wear out, and so easy to replace that we end up amassing more than we need of it. Even less than a hundred years ago, this kind of frivolity was reserved for the EXCEPTIONALLY wealthy. Even fairly well off people would continually recycle their old garments again and again. (Think of Cinderella's mice making that old pink dress into something new with just bits and pieces of the sisters' discarded accessories.... taking ribbons or lace or whole sections of an old dress to use in a new one was very common until quite recently!)

And never underestimate the usefulness of rags. If the clothing is beyond all repair or salvage, it has a new life as rags. You can wrap food in them, stuff them in your shoes for warmth and fit, pad your pillow with them, use them for cleaning, for bandages, for tying and belting your drawers, for patches.... rags are invaluable in a world where paper towels and disposable hygiene products do not exist.

This, and I'll add, vast secondhand market in clothing. That one simple tunic would cost the equivalent-in-labor of a new car today, and it would change hands as many times as one.

People in Ye Olden Times--the earliest garments we have evidence of, up through the middle ages (and well beyond, for all but the wealthiest people)--didn't wear simple, box-shaped garments because they didn't know how to sew anything fancier.

They did so because a Big Rectangle had the most resale/re-use value, since it could be tied, laced, belted, or otherwise fastened to fit a wide range of bodies. The same garment could be worn throughout pregnancy, as well as before and after. If it was no longer needed, it could be passed down or sold to virtually anyone. And when it became worn at the seams or hems, it could be re-sewn as a slightly smaller rectangle, and still fit a lot of people.

In Renaissance Europe, clothing got a lot more structured--and to a significant degree, this was as a status symbol. If you wore a fitted, short jacket over tights and those silly-looking puffy shorts (or a doublet, nether-hose and trunk hose), everybody who saw you would know that you could afford to buy all that fabric and then waste a bunch of it by cutting it into very specific shapes.

And if it fit well, then they'd also know that you were (probably) the first owner of said garments. Because the clothes were still expensive, they'd still be passed down, but there was a lot more need for clothing resellers, where secondhand clothes could wait for a buyer whose body they would fit. (Used clothing was a common gift or tip for servants, and if it was something they couldn't wear, they'd sell it.) In this way, clothing styles would percolate their way down the class ladder, both in the form of actual garments that had once belonged to a very rich person, and dupes made with simpler/cheaper materials and techniques, and perhaps modified for practicality.

And that's how you get fashion cycles: once something starts showing up on too many of the common people, the rich would move on, either exaggerating the trend to a point that, outside of that fashion context, looks ridiculous--

Like these silly, silly shoes:

(Note: these are probably exaggerated; the name of this picture is "Young Man Meeting Death," and we're presumably supposed to see him as a frivolous type of person who is about to find out why he should have lived a more serious and pious life.)

--or going in a different direction entirely.

So yeah, if you're writing secondary-world fantasy, give some thought to where the clothes are coming from, and how that's going to affect the styles and choices the characters make. If your working-class character in a Vaguely Medieval Fantasy Land is wearing fitted clothing, either that society has magic spinning and weaving technology, or your character is a serious fashionista/o, who is putting in a lot of time and effort into the project.

Similarly, if that type of setting has courtiers in a dazzling variety of impractical and elaborate garments--and several different outfits of it apiece--that implies a significant degree of urbanization and upward mobility, driving a secondhand market for those items, as well as providing the skilled labor to make and maintain those types of clothes. (You know these?

There was an entire trade centered on washing & ironing these things. Separate from actually making them, I mean. It involved tiny, specially shaped irons, and buckets of starch. Royalty or major nobility might have a servant dedicated to this highly specialized labor, and people a little lower on the ladder would send them out to be done. Ideally, you'd have each of your ruffs washed and re-set every time you wore it; people did re-wear them to save money, but they got droopy fast--hence the emphasis, in paintings featuring this trend, of crisp stiffness.)

How would this all compare to leather and hide based clothing? As the material doesn't need spinning and weaving, only tanning, cutting and sewing would it be cheaper and more common?

So. Not a tanner or a cloth maker here but - tanning can be very chemically specific. For those curious my perspective is of an animal pathologist's assistant. I have cut up several cows.

You do have the opportunity to amass a lot of leather if you hunt large animals, but post the adoption of farming and herding, most people are not feeding themselves that way. And there is just more small game overall. Leather is not necessarily easier, quicker, or less expensive to make than cloth, it just depends on what resources you have that are most abundant.

So the steps to making leather are as follows:

(Under the cut because, uh. I know this stuff from my job, which is “open a dead animal and let the doctor see what’s wrong with it” and most of it is messy.)

Addendum to the leather reblog above, but salt is also historically very expensive, and pretty crucial to most of the older European methods of hide treatment I was able to find when reading up on tanning a few months ago. I can't remember if you still need it if you're using alum, but alum is still something you're going to have to buy in order to process your skins. (From what I read, tanning with brains was an Indigenous American technique, which was rapidly adopted by the colonisers bc of its efficient use of resources that are easy to hand, but modern American sources tend to drown out everything else when looking at historical stuff online without institution access, so I wouldn't state that categorically.)

The original thread is why I cringe every time I read a fic in my home fandom – which is roughly Fantasy Medieval/Renaissance in technology – that has main characters tear each other's clothing to show how excited they are for boning down.

In a premodern context, if someone tore my clothing carelessly, let alone deliberately, we're not fucking. We're no longer on speaking terms. They're dead to me. A shirt is bad enough; at least those were comparatively disposable, and could probably be repaired in a way that's unnoticeable when you wear it (shirts in most premodern European societies are underwear, not outerwear), but a doublet? Fuck right off into the sun.

‘Ooh, you can tell how ~horny~ I am for you because I crashed your car in order to get into your pants.’ That's what you sound like. Tear your own fucking shirt if you're that keen.

It's such an incredibly modern trope to me. I could MAYBE understand it if it's supposed to be a flex on how wealthy someone is, but my poor as shit blorbo with his hand-to-mouth existence who owns three shirts MAXIMUM should not be doing this. Would not be doing this.

The earliest I could see that trope as plausible in my mind is the Victorian period. There was still a healthy second-hand market for clothing, but clothing production had become far more mechanised than it ever had been before, and tearing a shirt probably wouldn't send you to the poor house. (But please still don't tear a suit jacket or a woman's bodice. That's hours of sewing work alone, even after the advent of treadle sewing machines. What's wrong with you.)

Don't forget dyeing, which had to be re-done and was itself a whole fucking profession.

Indigo is one of the hardest natural dyes to start a pot of, especially without a thermometer or indigo white, so once you got that pot started you kept it going. Indigo also has to be processed into a water-soluble form by treating it with ammonia. How do you source ammonia in a pre-industrial world? Well, the local piss barrel at the tavern is full of something that will certainly turn into ammonia if you let it sit. There were almost wars over the argument of whether the dyers should have to pay money to take the piss from the tavern or whether the publican should pay THEM for the SERVICE of taking away the piss, which after all is garbage.

Dark or vivid colours are expensive, and natural dyes are not fast--that is, they fade with washing and sunlight and wear, so you have to keep re-dying them every so often. Black in particular was VERY expensive, moreso than ANY other colour. Certain fibers dye very well and certain ones do not.

Yellow and green were favourite colours of the common folk--bright yellows in particular were very easy to get with cheap dyestuffs, and you see bright sunshine yellow very often in medieval art of ordinary folks. Denim blue was middling expensive. Purple, pink, and orange did not exist as perceived colours--remember, colour is a function of language. Meaning if you don't have a word for the colour, you don't perceive it. Red was difficult and the only thing more expensive than red was, as I said, black.

Dyers and fullers had smelly jobs and worked with piss--their workshops were, like the tanner's, on the edge of town, and downwind if possible.

Oh yes, what's a fuller. Well, wool is full of oils and stuff from the ship, and you need to eliminate those if you want the fabric to be thick and warm and insulating. So you need to soak it in urine and use your feet to rub it over a special textured surface to get all the oils out and shrink and felt the fabric. Loden, felt, and duffel are all fabrics that require fulling in order to become.

Spinning was done by most everybody all the time every day; that's why you see pictures of women with long distaffs leaning on their shoulders as they go about, in some art of ordinary life in the middle ages. You could spin all day while doing everything else. Weaving, however, was a profession, usually male, and weavers were very respected people in all societies that had them.

Pulling the fleece was an activity that you had to do before the wool could be spun. The process for turning a sheep's wool into a garment consisted of many more steps than shear, spin, weave, sew.

This machine eliminated the drudgery of spinning, spreading from the East to Europe starting in the late 1200s. It freed up women's time to do more, and made spinning itself a job you could make money doing--the word "spinster" is the term for that profession, and elderly women suddenly could have money of their own, support themselves. This was very important!! This was a labour-saving machine that gave more power to women in Europe and made the making of fabric and fiber faster and easier than ever before!

5. Dye the threads. It's much easier to dye skeins of yarn than it is to dye fabric or garments in pre-industrial ages, so dyeing would be done at the yarn stage. Dyeing the yarn also means you can do things like have the weft be one colour and the warp another. This results in some of the most exciting and beautiful fabric in existence:

6. Weave the fabric. The loom was another piece of technology that was constantly being improved upon, because society was built on looms. In fact, the predecessor to the computer was the loom! Look up a video of a jaquard loom sometime, you'll see it uses punchcards to "program" in the different patterns of the fabric it produces. The song "four loom weaver" is actually "power loom weaver". Power looms were another improvement that made weaving faster. The luddites were the first labour strike and organization, and it was about? That's right, WEAVING.

7. Fulling, polishing, and other finishing techniques. Moire is made by calendaring. Felt is made by fulling. Polishing, waxing, and all kinds of other techniques are used to make all the different varieties of fabric that exist. The way we live now is sad and pathetic, we don't come into contact with much in the way of variety of fabric anymore. Everything is disposable, paperthin and made of plastic or cotton or bamboo, knits mostly. When you get into historical costuming, you meet all kinds of fabrics--lush brocades, velvets, and coutils, and silk. But it's NOTHING compared to the hand-woven fabrics of times past.

Machines can make fabric fast, but it's looser than when a human is doing it. The density of some hand-woven fabrics is so great that you don't need to hem them! Likewise, the translucency of some ancient linens made in Egypt is still a mystery we're trying to figure out how to reproduce, because machine-spinning and machine-weaving meant we LOST these techniques. People who spin and weave and hand-make fiber their whole lives can make it as thin as a spider's gossamer, and not even machines can do that today. Machines are wonderful and humans should not have to labour so much if a machine can do it, but it's worth noting that just because it's made by machine doesn't mean that it's better quality, just that its cheaper and faster to make. I'm sure if we tried, we'd find ways of machines being able to do it, especially with the "sort things and detect things" algorithmic programs software engineers have come up with, the ones that detect cancer and so on.

8. Sewing the garment. I'm putting a note here for sewing bc sewing by hand is a lot easier and faster and better than by machine sometimes. I hand-sewed an entire pair of pants and the hems were utterly invisible when I was finished, it was astonishing. I also used a running stitch for most of it and that's. That's the normal stitch to use, you just backstitch every ten stitches or so and then keep going. It wastes far less thread than a sewing machine. To make those pants I only needed three stitches: running, backstitch, and whipstitch. And I learned by watching Nicole Rudolph when she's sewing, she does the same stitches for the most part! There's speciality stitches for locking in the ends of corset bones (flossing) and so on, but the majority of the long seams are just the running stitch! Needles and pins were precious commodities in pre-industrial times, and there are letters between John Adams and his wife Abigail that illustrate this, which were famously made into the latter half of the song "Piddle, Twiddle and Resolve" in the 1969 musical 1776.

Needles were at first made of bone, hand-carved, in very ancient times; but needles and pines of steel and brass were also produced later on as metalworking tech started being able to do so. These were very precious, and the little tiny strawberry that hangs off a traditional tomato pincushion, the one full of what feels like sand? That was for cleaning the rust and tarnish off your needle, so it would go through the fabric easier. You can still buy bone and brass needles in the traditional style from historical merchants, and try for yourself sewing the historical way!

Many people in fact already practise an ancient form of fabric and garment-making: Knitting and crochet! There's a much older predecessor to these, called nalbinding, that is very interesting and practised with roving rather than spun and plied yarn, and uses a flat wooden or bone needle. It creates very dense, not very stretchy things, and was used by the Norse. Nalbound things are VERY cold-proof, and eventually felt--and that's a good thing, felt is very warm stuff! My mom made me a nalbound hat once and I miss it every winter.

Now, garments were not just fabric of course. People have liked decorating everything since time immemorial, and embroidery, buttons, beads, and other things were used. Another type of decoration, one very popular in the SCA, is TRIM! Trim is made by weaving on an inkle loom, which looks like this:

This one doesn't have the cards visble, but the pattern can be produced with cards that can be turned:

This produces a brocade, and yes, you can weave letters or all kinds of patterns into the "tape" that is produced. Depending on what fiber you use, and how fine the threads, these can be trims or hair-ribbons or shoulder-straps or all kinds of things!

Lace was also a very precious and complex form of decoration, and pieces of lace were so incredibly expensive and treasured that they were passed down as heirlooms. We're used to lace being white or maybe cream, but at certain points in France, blue lace could be found. And nothing is really stopping you from dyeing your lace, or using dyed threads to make it, other than fashion and convention.

Of course, places outside Europe (which is my speciality and has been my whole life) have their own fabric and decoration techniques, from the wax resist of batik to the special tie-dye from Japan called Shibori, to ikat, to the quilling of many North American Indigenous people (not to mention wampum beads, hand-carved of shells!). Everyone likes to decorate themselves and their clothing!

@elodieunderglass, this seems right up your alley, at least in the latter parts.

Thank you so much!

have some questions re: brain tanning, because I listened to this fascinating podcast for a class that talked about how Native Americans were reviving the practice. I don't know if chronic wasting disease is a concern with brain tanning or not. but generally yeah laypeople shouldn't mess around with animal brains

also, black wouldn't be expensive in areas where wool or fleece bearing animals came in black. alpacas and llamas can be black

Hello! Shepherd and hand spinner here. Black animals are not truly black.

Here's one of my Icelandic ewes, Presley:

Icelandics are what's known as a primitive breed, that is, she's very close to the kinda sheep early shepherds would have been keeping. Icelandics and other primitive breeds have this neat ability to shed ( otherwise known as roo) their coats in the spring, unlike modern breeds, like my wensleydale, which MUST be shorn.

You can see looking at Presley's cost that she is not actually pure black. She has steaks of silver, and the tips of her wool are sun bleached to a more brown color. Sun bleaching happens with almost every dark wooled animal. Here's some lambs from a couple years ago. Only about a month old in this pic, but their black coats are already turning brown at the tips (when shorn, the wool nearest the skin is still very dark/black).

Having spun up many, many naturally black fleeces I can tell you: if you want your cloth, yarn, thread, etc to be truly black, it must be dyed. There's too much variance in animal fiber to get a consistent, deep color. White animals similarly are more of a cream color. Here's the fleece of my white ram, Appa.

He has almost no markings and this is about as white as a sheep can be, which isn't very. But crucially, it's MUCH easier and cheaper to bleach a creamy wool to true white than it is to dye a dark wool to true black. A sufficient concentration of ammonia would do it, and you can find that in... Urine!

Hell, urine was the traditional source of ammonia used in the process of fulling woolen cloth (the final step after weaving where the cloth is shrunk and felted), so it would have been pretty readily available (comparatively).

So yes. Black cloth, as in truly black, the kind you would want if you wanted your workers's uniforms to look at all polished and presentable, would need to be dyed, which would cost more.

—Siobhan Angus, Camera Geologica: An Elemental History of Photography

it's funny although a little exasperating how artists designing "princess" or medieval-esque gowns really do not understand how those types of clothes are constructed. We're all so used to modern day garments that are like... all sewn together in one layer of cloth, nobody seems to realize all of the bits and pieces were actually attached in layers.

So like look at this mid-1400's fit:

to get the effect of that orange gown, you've got

the best I can tell you is that they were technically in a mini-ice-age during this era. Still looks hot as balls though.

Coats and surcoats are really more for rich people though, normal folks will be wearing this look:

so you know that ballgown look that people default to when making "princess" designs

this is kind of the fashion equivalent of when an AI has been trained to approximate what art looks like without understanding what it's drawing or how physics work. A costume designer has general recollections of about how the dresses looked from art, and a lot of the art they're learning from is also romanticized revival recreations of earlier art, so things are getting pretty confused structurally.

(I have to blame Disney for a lot of the specific trends but to be clear this was already happening before Disney was born.)

You can probably recognize how the gestalt of the bodice evokes what would actually be two layers--a gown laced over an under-gown, maybe with a stomacher in the same color as the gown.

The skirt is the very distant legacy of a trend that starts around here, in the early 1500's:

deliberately slitting the skirt of your gown so that it shows a triangle of the under-gown peaking through.

You know what a farthingale is? it's this thing.

Reeds sewn into the skirt to give it that round bell shape without needing 100000 layers underneath. Unsurprisingly invented in Spain, where it's hot as fuck. This is also the era where the farthingale starts its evolution into the eventual hoop skirt. You see that wide "ballroom" shape in a lot of princess designs. Princess Peach is a classic example.

Farthingale becomes hoop skirt, and using basically the same technology (reeds sewn into the fabric for support) the under-gown/kirtle becomes stiffened and shaped.

Eventually you get to this very pronounced version of the "slashed skirt" shown in the left figure, below. You can see that the red skirt is probably part of a whole dress, because the red sleeves in the same fabric are visible under the outer gown. (you can also see the chemise at the edge of the neckline). They did have detachable sleeves back then, as a standard part of a gown, so the red sleeves could be pinned to the chemise instead of attached to the body of the gown.

>Right figure, you can see this shit is getting elaborate now. I think that's a white under-gown with a yellow gown and a burgundy overgown. The collar around her neck is actually a partlet, not connected to anything else, just tucked in and maybe pinned underneath the neckline. But they're starting to have separate skirts now, so it's also possible she's only wearing a yellow skirt with the overgown on top it.

At this point whalebone is coming into the picture in a BIG way, and that's when you start to get Tudor style boned gown/kirtles tight around the bust really taking off. Also boned sleeves, if you can believe that. The smooth flat conical bodice is the product of a boned kirtle, which will eventually become stays, which will eventually become a corset.

anyway by now we're fully out of the medieval period and into the early modern/renaissance.

look at this bad ass bitch, hat ON titties OUT, who is doing it like her

I went to the ren fair recently, which got me interested in the specific historical inspirations of common “Renaissance Festival” clothes and consequently bugged my sister about her research so hard that it made us miss our turn

One common outfit you see (thanks to Amazon) is this modern take on the kirtle

On the left: Amazon. On the right: a recreation of what people actually wore. You can see how we have the same basic concept with a very different execution. This is what you would call a kirtle.

Another common ren fair look is the outer-wear stays. Always with the un-collared billowy undershirt.

I want to draw attention to the lacing. Stands to reason that costumers now would use contemporary lacing rather than that of previous eras. But check out even the romantic depictions of clothing from the 1870’s below this. No grommets. That’s just pure fabric baby.

Very few renaissance era women ever wore anything exactly like the ren fair corsets. For one thing, cross lacing wasn’t common, and metal grommets were not accessible to normal clothing makers. For another, structured stays (or “bodies”) were underwear, not outerwear. (Apparently something more popular with English peasants than French peasants, who didn’t use them.)

Left: stays (underwear). Right: jumps (outerwear)

Stays are boned. Jumps are not. Stays/bodies were pretty expensive due to the craftsmanship, and a poor person would have budget for a single pair. You can imagine this investment was not as popular with women who did hard physical labor. Jumps got really popular in the mid-1700’s and largely replaced stays in working class fashion.

A brief history lesson: clothes are ephemeral; we lose them as they are worn out, cut down, repurposed, and thrown away. Before modern anthropology and modern record keeping, it was difficult for anyone to know what anyone else looked like in the past or even a country away. Words used to refer to one kind of garment kept being used even as that garment changed in structure and purpose over time. Even after paper became common enough for printing art, it wore out fast and art was lost. References were hard to get.

What we think of as “peasant garb” is actually the product of a game of telephone that travels back from Romantic Revival art, and many of those (urban) artists got their idea of what rural peasants wore from opera costumes. The costumers working at the opera were not going out to the country side to take notes on what farmers actually wore, nor did they want to. Opera is show biz, you want it to be evocative, but not ordinary. Their costumes would have been based on what urban folks were wearing, with extra little touches like a shepherds crook to make it look “rural”.

Below: some mid-to-late 1800’s artistic depictions of peasants wearing improbably nice fabrics/clothes (probably a reflection of opera costumes). The painting of the peasant girl on the right is wearing more-or-less jumps.

You can see how the romantic art depictions of unstructured vests eventually inspired the “medieval revival” styles of the 1960’s/1970’s which lives on in the ren fair. Not only the neckline of the vest, but the style of undershirt with an open neck and billowy sleeves.

Compare (unstructured, laced, outerwear):

Nobody wore that in the 1400’s or 1500’s, but they wore things that looked similar at a glance. When 1960’s artists went back looking for early modern/medieval styles to replicate, they mostly had a hodge podge of this art to reference and extrapolate from.

The fact that a historical laced kirtle with an over skirt looks a lot like stays worn on the outside, probably made this confusing for artists. Undershirts of the 1500’s were collared and high necked, however, with tighter sleeves.(Below, 1500’s kirtle)

One last example of 1800’s romanticism, this time depicting a contemporary girl. Looks familiar, right? We’re back at the ren fair, if you take the bonnet off.

It does look similar to what was being worn in the 1800’s. Here’s a cartoon showing a working class woman in the 1870’s.

TLDR; what we think of as “Renaissance” or even “medieval” peasant garb is actually a remix of the working class clothes from the 1800’s, with some confused memories of the kirtle from older art thrown in.

Structured stays? 1500’s. The blousy no-collar undershirt? 1700’s. The cross lacing? 1800’s.

Anyway. This image of peasants has always been costume & fantasy. That’s why I think it’s kind of fun that it reaches a terminus in the anachronism and fantasy of a Renaissance Festival.

Virtual 3d reconstruction of the thermopolium discovered during the last excavations in Pompeii.  Made by the Spanish archaeologist Pablo Aparicio Resco, based on original photographs by Luigi Spina / Parco Archeologico di Pompei.

Note: “Thermopolium” is a popular word created by the archaeologists; there was no such word in Latin, the actual word is Caupona; the modern equivalent of Restaurant, and at the same time Cafe/Bar and fast food stall.

The Nutshell Studies of Unexplained Death

Frances Glessner Lee, a millionaire heiress, revolutionized the study of forensics and crime scene investigation. She believed that crimes could be solved by a detailed analysis of visual and material evidence.

She used newspaper reports, and interviews with policemen and morgue workers to create miniture crime scenes(which were extremely detailed) such as suicides, accidental deaths, accidents as homicides and homicide, potentially, as suicides. Of the twenty she made, eighteen have survived and of those eighteen, eleven show violent deaths of women. Everything from the wallpaper to the presence of alcohol and drugs was added to the miniture crime scenes.

This helped investigators train to identify crimes and clues found at crime scenes and left a big mark on the field as we know it today. They were also used in Harvard Associates in Police Science (HAPS) seminars. She called them nutshell cases, a name that was inspired by a detective who told her this:

As the investigator, you must bear in mind that there is a two-fold responsibility—to clear the innocent as well as expose the guilty. Seek only the facts—Find the truth in a Nutshell.

SOURCE

Etiquette warnings shown before silent films (1910s)

Hats were like the cell-phones of the 1910s.

this picture, probably from the 1920s, depicts a couple guys at a German “dueling club” where upper crust young men would meet up to slash the shit out of each other in highly-regulated blood matches with the express goal of getting cool scars. competitors generally fought with sabers. the mesh goggles and lack of fencing mask help guard against actual blinding while leaving the rest of your teutonic blockhead free to receive lacerations. various tricks were performed to ensure a good bit of scar tissue formed. given the timing in the early 20th century, you can see why Americans now have a media stereotype of Nazi officers with eyepatches and facial scars: it’s because a lot of actual Nazi officers had trophy scarification from college dueling clubs prior to the second World War.

so I'm reading a book of insults, as you do, and I am stumped. pole-axed. agog. if there were legal curses in ancient Egypt, what were the illegal curses?? who decided which curses were legal and which ones weren't?? the public (me) deserves to know

[end submission] i'm passing this off to @thatlittleegyptologist because legal texts are her whole thing but i will say this is a misunderstanding of the word "legal". it's not the legal/illegal sense it's the like... legal warning sense. legal warning would be a better term actually y'know like. a legal contract is a contract drawn up by lawyers... or it could be a contract that does not violate any laws. i hate english.

Hello and welcome to...

[image id: Image of the 'You just activated my trap card meme' which features a black man in a beige and white jacket, looking smug as he prepares to play yugioh cards. end id.]

What you've got there is a quote from what's known as the Adoption Papyrus, which is a legal document created for Nebnefer and Nanefer, a couple who were unable to have children of their own. This being so, that Nebnefer formally adopted his wife as his 'child' so that she would become the sole heir and his family couldn't get their hands on his property and any wealth the two had made together. Basically, the original document serves as a procès-verbal, so if the family tried to take her inheritance away, she could produce this document and they'd have to hand it back. They were still in some legal jeopardy, because his wife had no children, but could on his death, remarry, and potentially have children with a new partner. This would still avoid the dreaded family getting hold of his property and turfing his wife out to live alone on the streets. This is what happened to women if they were not provided for by their husbands before death and the family of the deceased husband wasn't kind. Nebnefer would have been well within his rights to cast aside Nanefer for a wife who could produce children, as per Egyptian custom, but he didn't, and instead created this document to protect her.

So 17 years later an amendment is made to the same document by Nebnefer and Rennefer (same woman, just the name has changed for some reason). During this time they have bought a servant woman, and she has three children. Rennefer is written about in the 1st person, and she states that she has adopted the children of this servant as her own and has been raising them as her own. It is also noted that Rennefer's brother Pendiu has moved in, in the meantime, and has married the eldest daughter of the servant woman. In creating this amendment, Nebnefer not only bequeaths his estate to his three adopted children, but this process formally makes them 'freemen of the Pharaoh', while their mother remains a servant and gives up claim to them, as does whomever their father is. Due to the fact that Pendiu has married the eldest daughter, he becomes de-facto in charge of the estate on Nebnefer's death, but this will take care of Rennefer and the three children. This is the specific passage:

On this day: statement of the Chief of the Stable Nebnefer together with his wife, the Chantress of Seth (of) Sepermeru, Rennefer, to the effect that:

On the verso, the reverse of the document, is where we find the threat you've got quoted there. This is specifically targeted at Nebnefer's family who are not happy at being cut out of receiving his property and seek to denounce the children as illegitimate. The full passage reads:

Basically, she's saying 'If my husband's brothers and sisters want to make a fuss about this, and insult the children by calling them slaves, then I hope a donkey fucks him and then also fucks his wife for good measure. They're legitimate, don't fucking come for them or you will face the consequences.'

This is a 'legal threat' in the sense that it is one that comes within a legal document, and legal documents tend to have this sort of thing in them. They're not curses, because it relies on an action being taken, which is why we say 'threat' not 'curse'. It's 'I hope a donkey will fuck you in the ass if you mess with my kids' not 'a donkey will fuck you in the ass if you mess with my kids'. The fact that Nebnefer's brothers and sisters are witnesses to this document, means that they are well aware of its contents and the threat it contains should they seek to delegitimise it.

I absolutely fucking love that we know this. We have the details of a family squabble and its legal resolution from thousands of years ago, we're able to tell things about the lives and personalities of these people despite the vast gulf of time that separates us.

Just...trying to imagine filling out a living will or something and including some salty asides on the back of one page because my relatives are nutsacks...and having it discovered, documented, and heatedly discussed centuries in the future.

Moral of the story; if you’re going to curse someone, make it memorable?

…And let’s hear it for written language, and the people of recent centuries intent on understanding it.

FUN FACT: I own porn I can't watch.

So this is a copy of Adultery for Fun & Profit, a 1971 X-rated film. It won the Grand Prize at the Amsterdam Adult Film Festival, for the year 1970-1971!

BUT it's on Cartrivision.

Cartrivision was an early home videotape format announced in 1970, released in June 1972, and dead by July 1973.

It has some "fun" features, like not selling VCRs for it: you had to buy it build into a new console TV. Which were huge, because it was the 70s.

There's also issue of Red Tapes (of which this is one!)

See, early on the movie industry hated the idea of home movies. They made all their money on movie tickets, right? People watching movies at home, that's gonna seriously cut into their market. This is why they later sued Sony for the introduction of Beta, arguing that it could be used to pirate movies by recording them off TV. (They lost)

So when Cartridge Television started selling Cartrivision in 1972, none of the movie studios really wanted to start selling their films on home tapes, that idea sounded scary. What if someone had a copy of all their favorite films and could watch them forever at home, and never went to the theaters ever again? The movie studios would go out of business!

So along with releasing a bunch of older B&W movies (the only ones they could license), sporting events, and shows from PBS, Cartridge Television came up with a compromise that worked for the movie studios:

Red Tapes.

So, Cartrivision tapes came in two formats: Black Tapes and Red Tapes. Black tapes you'd buy at the store like any other product, but for Red Tapes (which were relatively recent movies), you instead would go to the store and place an order from a catalog. The store would have it delivered by mail, then you'd come back in and get the tape. You'd take it home, watch it, and then return it back to the store. So... Video rental (like Blockbuster!), except they didn't have any stock on hand, and only got the tapes on-demand by mail? Seems annoying.

BUT OH NO: it's far more annoying than that. See... Red Tapes aren't mechanically like Black Tapes.

You can't rewind them.

You can play them and pause or stop them just like any other tape, but the rewind feature on your Cartrivison TV doesn't work.

So once you start watching a film, you can only go forward from that point. You want to rewatch it? Too bad. Go back to the store and pay for it again.

Here's that tape again. Note that it's red: You can only watch this porn film once. Then you have to return it to the store... the stores that haven't been doing this since JULY OF 1973.

But there's another thing you can see on this picture (barely, because this is a blurry picture, thanks Past!Foone): The visible screws in the corners

So here's the thing: The tape labels for Cartrivision hide the screws. A regular tape will look like this:

BUT when Cartrivision failed in July 1973, a bunch of stores sold off their unsold inventory, including watch-once Red Tapes. And people still had some of the players. But what's the point of having a tape you can't rewind? You've basically destroyed the tape now, since it's stuck at the end and can't be rewound!

So people bought some of those Red Tapes (cheaply, I hope) and then took them home and opened them up with a screwdriver, damaging the labels. They figured out how the no-rewinding mechanism worked, and removed it. So basically every Red Tape you will find for sale on ebay has visible screws, because someone modded it in the past.

Anyway, the format has been dead so long that it's doubly-impossible to watch now. The players were only built into big heavy 1970s TVs, which were long ago thrown out. The tapes have gotten old and brittle. If you somehow DID have a player, and it somehow still worked after half a century, the tape will probably shatter as soon as you try to play it.

And the whole format only lasted 13 months, so there wasn't that much inventory sold in the first place, so there wasn't a huge number of these in existence anyway.

But a final fun fact: Someone HAS managed to get video off one of these tapes. And it was so hard that they made an award-winning documentary about it.

See, this was basically the first home video format for recording TV. The quality was terrible but it was better than nothing, and it turns out some fan with a Cartrivision recorded a copy of Game 5 of the 1973 NBA Finals game. ABC and both teams (LA Lakers & NY Knicks) had video copies of that game... and ALL THREE OF THEM LOST IT. But the fan copy survived, in a format no one could play, on a tape that would shatter if you tried to play it.

So DuArt Media Services got to work trying to rescue the tape. They had to dry it out, bake it, freeze it, soak it in alcohol, and rebuild a broken Cartrivision unit, then do a lot of manual fixups on the digital files they'd captured off the tape, but they finally managed to capture the recording of the game.

This was used for the MSG Network, who were doing a special on the 1973 championship, and had no footage of that pivotal game. With DuArt's work, they had something to show.

DuArt then made a documentary about this, called "Lost and Found: The ’73 Knicks Championship Tape". It won an Emmy.

The punchline? That documentary seems to be lost. I have been looking for years, and have not found a copy, other than a short excerpt on Vimeo.

So yeah. Cartrivision. I'm slightly obsessed with it, even though I've never actually been able to watch a single second of Cartrivison footage. Tapes occasionally show up on ebay, the odd technical manual or spare part, but players are rare, always broken, and probably would just shred the tapes even if they did somehow work. The tapes are just too old. '

Cartrivision is just... dead and gone. Not yet forgotten, but it took media restoration experts a long time and a lot of work to even get a few minutes of footage off one tape. My chances of ever being able to play my Adultery for Fun & Profit tape are basically negative zero.

…This is So Bizarre.

BOOK OF KELLS BOOK OF KELLS BOOK OF KELLS BOOK OF KELLS

so this is an extremely cool resource

the JSTOR article by Catherine Halley

a list of series at Reveal Digital

holy shit this is AMAZING. This is so, so, so, SO important. 

I’ve been stressing out about this for ages, still do, because here’s the problem with gay lit: That copyright term that’s already so ridiculous for 90+ years after publication or death of the author? That’s three times as bad when trying to discuss a generation that was absolutely decimated by AIDS. Families didn’t keep up these copyrights! People didn’t pass down copies to their friends or their kids! There was even a tiktok going around a while back talking about how someone’s queer possessions often got destroyed after they died so their family wouldn’t find them. 

So this is exactly the kind of initiative that is SUPER SUPER important and that I wanna see more of. Because the few paperbacks we have are :) falling the hell apart :) and the magazines were made of even cheaper material than THAT. 

The Welsh Viking is pretty cool! 

He’s going to run 5 kilometres in his viking armour on May 9th to raise money for Stonewall!

Oh my goodness this is getting a lot of notes! Since I see posts on tumblr about how a lot of people seem to think all historians and archaeologists are crusty old bigots I’d just like to add that this guy is an archaeologist. A very vocally anti-racist archaeologist who goes out of his way to be as inclusive as possible to queer people.

Reblogging to watch later!

Always get your historical facts from anti-racist archeologists.

Wait, how’d the run go!?

Oh gosh I forgot to update on that! It went well, he was sore and tired but no injuries, and he raised over 1700 pounds! 

Not to completely derail this post, but I’d also like to recommend Miniminuteman to anyone interested in history and archeology from a non bigoted source. He’s absolutely fantastic, his tiktok is essentially him just debunking bs conspiracy videos and he recently started making a youtube series called Awful Archaeology and there are only three episodes so far but they own my entire heart, it’s great.

Also Bernadette Banner, who is a edwardian/victorian fashion historian who does everything from reconstruction work, educational videos and debunking historical fashion myths, to more fun stuff like rating historical drama costumes or recreating Wheel of Time outfits.

And these are just the two I’m most familiar with right now, there are SO many great historians and archeologists and anthropologists out there who have a passion for their field and want to share that knowledge while ALSO being great, humble people who stand up against bigotry, racism, and all the historical lies that come with. I’m falling deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole of historical content every week, and I’m loving every minute of it.

This post got me to watch Jimmy’s channel, and I ADORE it AND him, and I’m very thankful. 

I also want to recommend Tasting History with Max Miller, who is a food historian and excellent at pointing out when things in the past were racist or classist. He even had a recent Da Vinci video talking about checking sources and the importance of acknowledging when you get information wrong.

Also the Townsends, are reenactors that talk about food and culture and lifestyle of the 16-1700s of the colonial USA. They make a point of bringing in women and people of color regularly to talk about what those days were like for more than just white guys!

HomeTeam History is a Black American man exploring the history of Africa and the African Diaspora. I don’t know whether he’s an academic, but I do know he’s got LOTS of sources (and lots of primary sources) for every video.

SnappyDragon is a Jewish fashion historian who makes gorgeous clothes and also talks a lot about history, Jewish history, and doesn’t shy away from pointing out racism and antisemitism both in history and in modern uses of history.

Cheyney McKnight of Not Your Momma’s History is a living history educator who talks about the lives of Black people in the United States, both enslaved and free.

Yess I absolutely love all of these

“Female railroad workers employed during wartime eat in the break room of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad in Clinton, Iowa.” Photographed by Jack Delano in June 1943.

The history of the USA according to 1861 Japan

A young, and incredibly handsome George Washington is taught the path of the warrior by none other than the Goddess of America, Herself.

George Washington is forced to defend his wife “Carol” from a dastardly British assassination attempt, led by the nefarious English officer Asura (far left).

John Adams does furious battle with a giant serpent

Benjamin Franklin fires an entire cannon with his bare hands as John Adams directs the fire.

Washington’s on the move in his carriage, whom the author points out with breathless amazement was only pulled by two - yes, *Only Two!* - horses! His trusty soldiers lead the way, with a star-less American flag proudly flying.

George Washington fights a tiger.

Franklin and Adams have had a falling out.

Adams has had enough, he gets on his horse and fires off an arrow at Franklin before speeding away.  Franklin doesn’t even flinch.

John Adams has gone to visit and take care of his mother in a touching display of filial piety.

While Adams’ back is turned, the snake he fought earlier has returned and eats his mother!

Adams beseeches the Fairy of the Mountain (I am deadass serious about ALL OF THIS) to lend him supernatural help in seeking revenge against the matrivorous serpent

The Mountain Fairy hears Adams’ desperate pleas, and enlists the aid of a Giant Bald Eagle (named Freedom) to do battle with this serpent

All is now well under Heaven! America reigns supreme, free from both giant beasts and British influence!

source  I got this from the @thocpodcast

Images that make you enter a fugue state

Surrender to cars?

Jesus Christ, when was the last time a swede did anything useful?

What the fuck those streets were before cars, fucking playgrounds and parks with waterslides?

Or did people commute on them, on the level of whatever technology they were on, the vere purpose they were built for since the first city?

I'm trying my best not to automatically dislike artists, I really do, but sometimes I just wish I could send them milking cows or shoveling gravel.

@santaclausdeadindian "What the fuck were those streets before cars, fucking playgrounds?"

Yes, actually.

[description: a black-and-white photo from the 1900s of a group of girls in pinafores standing in the middle of the street; according to the website I found it on, this is a 'street dance'. The girls are talking to each other in small groups. end description.]

Children used to play in the street all the time. And for most of recorded history, that was relatively safe. Running into someone on foot is not going to kill a child, and horses - let alone carriages- were relatively rare.

Streets used to be public spaces. People would hang out and talk in the middle of the road, or set up shop with a little cart at the side of the road. "Right of way" used to mean "your right to take up space on the street, because you are a free citizen and free citizens get to use the road."

[description: a black-and-white historical photo of two children in the middle of a mostly empty street. One child is sitting in a wagon, and the other child is standing, ready to pull it. End description.]

It wasn't until the 19th century that it became common enough for your average joe to own horses that it was unsafe for kids to play in the street (and they still did anyway!). And it wasn't until the early 20th century that people got cleared off of the street in favour of cars- before then, people and horses and carriages had to share the road, and carriages had to go at the same pace as whatever was around them.

We laugh at the insanely low speed limits of the 1910s and 1920s - really, cars can only go at 3 mph?- but they were there for a reason, and that reason was "to keep the roads safe for horses and pedestrians". If cars could go at top speeds on city roads, they'd only be safe for cars, and people couldn't use their public spaces anymore. But thanks to lobbying by the auto industry and a whoooole lot of PR spin, that's exactly what happened.

I'm going to leave you with two pictures. The first is Mulberry Street in NYC, according to wikipedia, in 1900. The second is Mulberry Street today.

[Description: two photos of city streets. The first photo is sepia-toned, from the 1900s. It shows a city street full of people and carriages. The foreground of the photo is taken up by a group of vegetable sellers, and a group of men and young children standing beside them looking at the camera. The second photo is a modern photo of the same street. It is a heavily decorated tourist district, but most of the street is taken up by cars. The sidewalks are crowded with pedestrians, but they're shoved off to the side. End description.]

Little Italy is a tourist district. It is meant to be walkable so that tourists can browse and look at all the little restaurants and window-shop. And yet 75% of this picture is taken up by a fucking car canal, and people- the people this street was built for - are shoved off to the side, so as not to get in the way.

People got forced off the road in favour of cars. People got forced out of public space in favour of cars.

And if that doesn't piss you off...