On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Melanie Schuessler wrote: > On Feb 12, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Catherine Olanich Raymond wrote: > > It might > > also depend on whether Viking women bound or otherwise wore > > undergarments > > that supported the breasts (something we really have no data on at > > present). > > Indeed. I notice that the reconstruction is worn over a modern bra.
The white showing through does indeed look like a modern bra, but if so it's not a particularly supportive one, in light of how low the model's bustline has sagged. > It's also interesting that the article says the brooches (called > buckles in the article) were worn "centrally" over the breast (which > presumably means right over the nipple--ouch) That seems to be Larsson's theory judging from the reconstruction picture. She seems to think this is a better explanation than the shifting of the brooches as the body decomposed in the grave (typically the reason cited for brooches found at waist level)--but note that the model in the picture has large breasts that have sagged low enough to be close to the waist. On a small breasted woman, or a woman whose breasts were supported, or even on a very long-waisted woman, it wouldn't be possible to position the brooches near the natural waist and have them anywhere close to nipple level. > , but the same sentence > implies that the brooches were generally found at waist level. > Perhaps they assume that all Viking women had very large and/or saggy > breasts at death? To those who study the drawings of these grave > finds: is it true that the brooches generally show up at waist level > rather than farther up the torso? It varies. A friend on another list sent photos of two examples of brooches in situ (some of these are reconstructions of how the skeletons & brooches were found): Gotland http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z123/Castlegrounds/grave%20plans/HPIM1392.jpg Birka http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z123/Castlegrounds/grave%20plans/taf40fig5grave968.jpg Here's a picture I found of the Adwick-le-Street woman's grave, though this is harder to parse, but it is genuinely in situ: http://www.show.me.uk/site/news/STO201.html Reconstruction of a Viking woman's grave from the Isle of Lewis: http://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/school/tolstaprimary/2004site/vikings/vikingsburials2.htm > I have to say I don't think I've > ever seen anyone in re-enacting circles wear them as high as the > collarbone (cited in the article as the location that this new theory > is debunking). Depends on what she means by collarbone and where she's measuring from. Possibly it depends on the strap arrangement as well. On my double-wrapped apron dresses the top of the brooches rides near my collarbones (though out toward the end of my collarbones, near the armpits), because the dress is most secure that way. > I also wonder about Larsson's assertion that what was thought to be > the front of the garment was actually the back. I don't buy it for the Pskov find, at least. It would be insane to bother to sew lengths of precious red and blue silk to your linen apron dress and then put that part of the dress at the small of your back, where only cowards sneaking up on you would be likely to see it. > I know that > archeology is complicated and that the passage of time obscures many > things and that fabric is often ignored during excavation, making it > difficult to determine where things were later on, but still... > > Very interesting topic! Indeed. -- Cathy Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "You affect the world by what you browse."-- Tim Berners-Lee _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
