Having made a Harjolfnes-cut dress in an attempt to emulate the Flemish style, this method seems to work fairly well: you get the smooth tight waist with flared skirt, and the skirt folds very similar to that seen in the snowball scene linked above.

However, on looking closely at some other illustrations, I am no longer convinced that a similar look could not be acheived with the separate bodice/skirt construction.

For reference, here are several illustrations by more detailed painters than the previous pictures:

Execution of John the Baptist. Panel of the Haldern Altar by the Master of the Schöpping Altar, 1440-1450. This clearly has sudden pleating at the waist, its kind of hard to tell if there is a seamline also.

Adoration of the Magi. Panel of the Ortenberg Altar, 1425-1430. This has a clear seam, or at least line, at the waist, but the pleating is questionable.

Crucifixion. Master of 1477, Germany, 1477. This seems to have both a seam line and pleating, IMO. It is possible that the fabric could just be tucked, however.

The Holy Women. Altarpiece of the Seven Sacraments by Roger van der Weyden, 1445. This is definately questionable, but there seems to be sudden pleating at the waist - caused by the belt? or not?

Deposition of Christ Roger van der Weyden. 1438. This does not have pleating or a line, but more like a funny distinct crease at the waist.

I am taking the sudden pleating to be a sign of a seam, because the pleating that I have seen with moderate-weight wools and the Herjolfsnes-style cuts tend to be more gradual and in the form of large folds, not little pleats. Although, if you change the fabric weight/weave, perhaps you could get these smaller folds without needing a pleated seam.

So the time is right (mid15th), the place is right (Northern Europe), and the dresses in the illustrations all seem to be in the same general category as the Flemish gowns.

Could it be that separate bodice/skirt construction was used this early in the northern areas? Does anyone have more evidence for or against this? Or can you get the line-at-waist or pleated effects without using a separate bodice/skirt?

Although Italian and later period paintings which show separate construction are unambiguous about the waist seam, this is because the heavy use of pleating at the waist emphasizes the seam.
But if only slight pleating or no pleating was used at the waist seam between the bodice/skirt, I think you could get a silhouette which looks like those in the snowball and peasant dance scenes. So, if the fashion was to mimick the smooth waist of the Herjoljsnes-style cut that was used earlier (ie 14th cent, presumably early 15th cent), maybe these gowns could have been made with separate bodice/skirt construction?!?

The problem is ... when does a kirtle become a gown? Personally, I think it tends to be when Clothing Historians decide they want to call it "X" rather than becuse of a definable historical style.

So back to your gown & its seem. Funnily enough the 7 Sacraments and Deposition paintings by Van Der Weyden I think fairly clearly show a seem ... but I'd classify these as 'kirtles' rather than gowns as both appear to be intended to have a garment worn over them (hence the pinned on sleeves)

This suggestion of a seem at the waist in mid c15th northern european womens clothing is a pretty big step for many, but not unreasonable considering the evidence, fo which you've provided some good examples.

However ... the gowns (as per the Snowball illus. Personally I agree with you, additionally I'd tak an even more radical position. If you look at the gown worn by John Donne's wife in the Donne Tryptich (1470 Flemish painting of Englishman) the tight upper gown and wide belt really require a seem at the waist to allow for the slim fit to the torso and loose at the hip 'skirt' without the bulk of the pleating that the belt would be required to hold, and hence partially cover.
Now this is a theory with very little evidence.
However in Naomi Tarrants book on the history of clothing (sorry can't recal the title ... but BTW it details medieval stitches found archaeologiclly) sh includes some patterns for extant medieval/early modern clothing. This includes a dress from Spain from c.1500 which if worn with a wide Lady Donne style belt would appear identical. The skirt for this is cut from a circle of cloth ... so radically different to most reconstructions ... but I think it bears consideration.

In conclusion ... For the kirtle, yep by the mid-C15th I think the waist seam was widely used in northern europe. You'll find it far easier to identify this pattern in illustrations than the typical renactors 'little black dress' style.

For the Gowns ... some yes, I see a gradual trasition from the loose pleated gown of the 1440s to the tight fit of the 1470's, and I feel your suggestion likely to be an intrinsic part of that.

Of course you'll get told you don't know what you're talking about but tht's the risk you take with theories and new(ish) ideas. (The ish was because I've argued the same position for about 5+ years with limited success)

Cheers
and great to see people challenging the accepted ... and providing evidence when they do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Key:
[snip]...Naomi Tarrants book on the history of clothing...includes some patterns for extant medieval/early modern clothing. This includes a dress from Spain from c.1500...

---

That's one I haven't seen yet! Is it generally available?

I have seen (and have to find again) an image of a loose gown (houppelande) where the front is clearly pleated into a yoke (not hidden by a belt).

Here is another garment that can fit into the mix: http://www.virtue.to/guest_authors/hungarian.html: smooth folds, fitted body, with a waist seam.

--------------------

Naomi Tarrant
The Development of Costume. London: Routledge, 1993, (reprinted 1996).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Key:

The problem is ... when does a kirtle become a gown? Personally, I think it tends to be when Clothing Historians decide they want to call it "X" rather than becuse of a definable historical style.

---

Hmmm. The kirtles (visible front lacing, often short-sleeved) and Flemish-type lower-class gowns (here, I mean the ones with no visible closure in general, at least not in the same way as the clearly front-laced kirtle (see previous threads for the discussion of hidden front lacings and side lacings), usually with long, tight sleeves, and a high neckline (not the upper-class V-neck gowns )) look like they fit, fold, and hang the same way over the entire abdomen. The only distinguishing features that I have noticed between the two are: 1) visible lacing on kirtles, usually no visible closure on gowns; 2) often short-sleeves on kirtles, I can't remember ever seeing a short-sleeved gown; 3) gowns often worn over kirtle, kirtles not worn over gown (just over smock). So, I have also been assuming that the cut of the kirtle and gown would be similar, with differences primarily for the method of closure.

However, back to your comments. You've neatly illustrated my point that you are differentiating between kirtle and gown based not a modern assumption of what they should be and therefore categorised them accodingly to fit.

There are gowns with short sleeves (often with a purfelled trim ... see Christine de Pisan illus.), there are gowns with the 'invisable' side-lacing which are over the smock rather than a 'kirtle'. There are clarly long sleeved 'kirtles'

In the Ferreting tapestries I've seen it's often hard to tell.

However this is missing the point. I'm not convinced they differentiated. I'd suspect that kirtle was an underdress and a gown was any dress (including underdresses).

What this thread points out is that the waist eem ws used. Now turn this on it's head. Where is the evidence for not having a wait seem. If you look in the MoL's book on textiles hey show a long gore dress, but th extant piece looks like a skirt panel (must recheck the top edge)!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Key:
...This suggestion of a seem at the waist in mid c15th northern european womens clothing is a pretty big step for many...

---

I had not realized there was such a controversy about waist seams. In my experience with 16th century costuming, the big question was, "When were skirts and bodices separate garments?" not "When were there waist seams?"

Is there a particular year that you are concerned with, before which there were or were not waist seams? I'll take a look through my collection of images and see what I can find.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irmele:
I had not realized there was such a controversy about waist seams. In my experience with 16th century costuming, the big question was, "When were skirts and bodices separate garments?" not "When were there waist seams?"

---

The existence of waist seams on 16th century garments is very strikingly clear in even relatively crude illustrations, even from the very beginning of the century. I personally am interested in the general range of 1450-1475, and for English garments I'm focusing on the 1460s (although there is scant enough information that it is hard (for me, at least) to separate out English from French or Flemish or German, or 1460s from 1450s from 1470s). The problem here is that while there are quite a few extant 14th century garments, and also 16th century garments, there is little or nothing from the 15th century, at least the mid-15th century. If anyone knows of any extant garments between 1425 and 1475, anthing at all, please! please! I'd love to know about them.

So we have a big jump here: the Herjolfsnes-style 14th century garments, made of multiple long panels without a waist seam, and the 16th century garments with bodice attached to the skirt with visible pleating at the waist seam (which draws attention to the seam). When did the segue from long vertical panels to separate bodice/skirt construction occur and how? Did bodice/skirt construction slowly filter in while retaining the same look as the paneled-construction garments? Or did the bodice/skirt construction herald in a new style with the pleated waist seam? The pleated-waist style of the turn of the century is rather later than what I'm interested in, which is part of the reason that I've never really considered the bodice/skirt construction as possible for the mid-15th garments before.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irmele:
I would like to post this specific question to two SCA email lists whose members include true reenactors and costume historians. Any objections?

---

Fine with me

From the MoL volume (_Clothing and Textiles_, Crowfoot et al), on a comparison of a London garment (presumably the bottom sections of a woman's dress, late 14th century) with the Herjolfsnes finds, pp 181:

quote:

---

There are the remains of seven skirt panels, all incomplete. None have indications of a hem or of stitching along any lower edges. Little remains of the seams joining the panels, many apparently having broken away or perhaps been cut away.....Of four tapering pieces from the tops of skirt panels, two can be satisfactorily matched to larger lower sections. Three of these sections measure 100 mm at the waist edge, one seems to curve in to give a smooth fit over the hips, and another, the only one to show any indication of this, has evidence of single thread gathering along the upper (?waist) edge (Fig 149)....

The longest surviving section of a skirt panel measures 690 mm (followed by others 650 mm and 520 mm). The original cut and arrangement of these panels is difficult to ascertain now. Each has one edge almost on the straight grain of the fabric. In only one instance, however, does the seam appear to be along the line of a warp thread; in all other cases there is a divergence of 10-20 mm down the length of this edge, perhaps more indicative of a casual than of a sophisticated approach to cut. None of the skirt panels appears to have been of the rectangular form found in other excavated medieval dresses and usually associated with triangular gores in the skirt to give additional fullness at the hem. The Scandinavian dresses are mainly without a waist seam, but probably represent much older shaping traditions. Waist seams become noticeable in Italian paintings of the 1320s when clothing for men and women began to be moulded closely to the form of the body. Although tomb effigies and brasses of the late 14th century repeatedly show women wearing closely-fitted dresses, they do not include details of seams to indicate exactly how this shaping was achieved. It is clear, however, that a change in cut was necessary, a change which is exemplified in these fragments from London.

---

Rogier van Der Weydens "Descent from the Cross" shows Maggie's dress very clearly with a waist seam.

hope this helps?

--AM

--------------------

To accompany Robin Netherton's comment about the coexistance of several styles, I point you to the women on the left side of The Birth of the Virgin from the CFGA website.

Irmele

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Netherton

I think something that's easily overlooked is that there doesn't seem to
have been a single "change." Waist seams appear in certain contexts, in
certain styles, in certain countries, at various points in 15th century
(mostly in the last half of the century, earlier in Italy). For a long
time versions with the waist seam appear right alongside similar gowns
with no waist seam. There are some styles that were clearly made possible
by waist seams and some that clearly had none, but there was no one single
point at which people stopped using versions without seams and switched to
versions with seams.

One style, though, that is often assumed to have a waist seam and most
likely does not is the female V-necked overgown (France, Flanders,
1420-1490). Yes, I'm sure there's an exception here or there, but the
general style seems to depend on a shoulder-to-floor construction. The
confusion arises from the use of a belt, which has often been assumed by
costume historians to hide a seam. (Late in the century, when the V-necked
gown shifts to a more fitted variant, the belt often drops low or
disappears, showing that there is no seam beneath.)

Some other forms of overgowns, particularly from the very late 15th
century, do have a clear waist seam. These include many of the "tapestry"
gowns and many of those with overlapping fronts.

That's overgowns. Undergowns are another issue. Some undergowns from the
mid-15th century have waist seams. Others, still made on the style of the
14th century fitted dress, evidently have none. These appear side by side
in some manuscripts. The older version continues to appear in artwork with
some regularity through at least the 1470s in Flanders, I'm not sure about
other areas.

One advantage of the waist seam is that it allows you to treat the two
halves of the garment as independent entities, without one half
influencing the cut, grainlines, etc. of the other half. Thus you can
build up the bodice half with interlinings or stiffeners, without
affecting the skirt. Or you can add fullness high up in the skirt without
affecting the bodice. Given the increasing interest in structured torsos
that continued in the 16th century, the waistline seam would have become a
vital element of such constructions, and this probably accounts for the
ultimate shift to waistline seams as the norm for most styles. (Make no
mistake, though, some styles of the 16th century are still built without
the waistline seam.)

The waist seam was also a crucial step in the development of the separate
foundation garment. Once you've developed the habit of building a
structure into your bodice section, it's just one more logical step to
save repeated labor by building that same structure into a separate
undergarment that can be worn under various dresses. Thus you have the
invention of the corset. This, in turn, makes it possible for dressmakers
to fit gowns from measurements rather than on the individual, because a
corseted person's measurements and proportions are stable. But this is
another lecture ;-)

You may forward this message to your other lists if you feel it would be
useful.

--Robin