"In reenacting and SCA circles, the ubiquitous 15th century women’s casual outfit consists of a short-sleeved fitted kirtle, with long sleeves pinned on at the shoulders. While this fashion certainly existed to some extent in 15th century Western Europe, was it as common as many modern-day reenactors and medieval recreationists believe? What was the most common fashion, as depicted in art? What options are there other than the pin-on sleeve?"

For the rest:
Sleeve Article

I don't know if "debunking" would be the proper term for what your paper is doing. The word implies a falseness about the entire aspect in both SCA and LH/RE circles and historically.

Pin on sleeves may not be as common as portrayed in the SCA/re-enactor setting, but from the images in your document, it did happen, maybe more often with saints than the common person.

Personally, when I have my proper overdress on, I don't wear the pin on sleeves, for the comfort reason you touched upon.

I'll read the document in more detail and offer any constructive insights, if I have any.

Cheers,
Jenn

I theorize that the sleeve may be appropriate in private space, as evidenced by the images that I did find. The use of the sleeve in art on particular saints also points towards this association. I don't think it appropriate that women appear in this "state of undress" in a camp setting, in the company of men and women.

Non-detachable long sleeve, and a short sleeve dress with the intention of having sleeves pinned to it as needed.

However I cautiously disagree. I am seeing the pin on sleeves used not just in private spaces. They are used at public wells, receiving male visitors, and doing various public work/chores. I also see the long attached sleeve being worn while in private spaces, like making the bed.

The impression that I come away with is that the pinned-on sleeve is used by both Upper and Lower class ladies. This makes it used for two different reasons.

The Upper class lady will be showing off a higher quality sleeve. As everyone would know how the dress is constructed, I doubt that they hoped they are fooling anyone into believing the whole dress is of such higher quality. Certainly when there is no over dress being worn.

The Lower class lady would be wearing the sleeves as her work dictates. In one of your pics there is a lady with rough and dirty sleeves mining ore. This gives me the impression that the pinned on sleeves could have been similar to an apron or coveralls in that they are used to protect the 'other' pair of pinned on sleeves from dirty work, like sheering of sheep.

Since there is little representation of such pinned on sleeves, perhaps you may want to review the sources of the pics and determine what region or time period they are specifically from. You are definitely onto something here, but as I stated earlier, my first viewing of the pics does not show to me that pinned on sleeves were only used in private spaces. An example would be the lady preparing for a bath, she has come in to a private space and is removing the pinned on sleeves, not putting them on to wash.

Good luck with this and keep us posted!

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

Any more comments on this?

I'm curious if any group other than Grey's feels this information is compelling enough to ban the use of pin-on sleeves.

I began thinking the same theorie on my own way since some time. The text of Charlotte confirm several observations. It's a good work!

Too much things become really fast a "renactor tradition". Very often born too be more confortable in our modern way and with the fear to be hot in our clothing. And in this way, appear on the majority some way to wear clothes rarely seen in the period : like the pin-on sleeves and the men in doublets.

Sadly there is no evidence of any 'observations' in the text, nothing to actually make a comparison. The reader only has Charlotte's word for it that it is a problem.

What the context that the offending reenactor is in has not been set out.

Woodcrafter is correct, the idea that pin-on sleeves are private wear is somewhat blown out of the water as there are plenty of images of them being used not only out doors but in public if a street counts as public.

Were we to see evidence of the 'trend' we could comment, otherwise this panders to a belief that in itself could well be a misconception.

"And in this way, appear on the majority some way to wear clothes rarely seen in the period : like the pin-on sleeves and the men in doublets."

Not quite clear on what you mean - 'doublets', doublets (without a coat or gown) are seen quite often in certain contexts, which is the point about pinned on sleeves, they are seen in a variety of contexts that the article does not put up other than a putative context of private and public.

What 'little' evidence there is for sleeves points them in the direction of a basic workaday protective item with a wide range of perfectly understandable situations ranging from milking cows to gathering sheaves at harvest and wood in winter.

Without proof or offered evidence we are n danger of replacing one set of assumptions (commonly held beliefs) with another set.

Opinion is not fact, although we as reenactors like to think so

[ 03-12-2006: Message edited by: gregory23b ]

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
Bump

Any more comments on this?

I'm curious if any group other than Grey's feels this information is compelling enough to ban the use of pin-on sleeves.

Gwen

---

ummm i ask why do you think GREYS is the one behind the ban ? just because a member writes something for SCA and is a member of greys, it is not logical to think we will automatically accept it as fact. come one now... why the hate?

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

Somewhere in one of the posts, Charlotte said something about "us" banning pin-on sleeves.

I thought Charlotte was part of Grey's. I thought Charlotte was one of the Authenticity Officers for Grey's.

If I'm mistaken, please correct me, but don't accuse me of hating you. That crap gets blown all out of proportion at the drop of a hat. I may have made an incorrect assumption, but I certainly don't HATE anyone. If I'm wrong, PLEASE TELL ME.

For all of you who have been emailing me asking why I don't weigh in on this thread, here's your reason.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf:
ummm i ask why do you think GREYS is the one behind the ban ?.....<snip>...... why the hate?

---

Bit of an assumption and an over-reaction, don't you think, Chuck? I suggest you re-read Gwen's question. Seems pretty clear that Gwen didn't state or imply either of these.

Is anyone going to discuss this at all?

I mean whether you agree or not this document raises questions that we should actually be talking about.

saying I agree or disagree is not enough IMHO, this thesis needs discussing or otherwise it merely becomes a cause celebre to consolidate already existing views and more 'ideological' polarisation. Great, yet another reenactor 'thing' we can just ignore because we don't have any contact with 'that lot' or 'them' with us.

This thesis may only be about pin-on sleeves but in reality it is about much much more it is about how we as reenactors present information or back up our views, views when we publish them actually influence other people.

A thesis (even a little one) has very different influences over people than a mere opinion stated in a forum, they are ten a penny, theses are not. By their nature they are special. With that comes the consequences of the information or conclusions therein and the responsibility to the wider reenactment community.

I have made my views plain enough elsewhere however it was with the hope of engaging the issue not ignoring it nor discouraging the efforts more to challenge the approach.

Putting my views aside I feel she has at least the balls to post it up and we should do it justice by discussing it, agree or disagree, a thesis is there to be read and reviewed. I am guessing that the intention is to challenge and engage the reader Charlotte?

It has certainly piqued my interest even though I thoroughly disagree with it.

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

but if you read the begining of the post no where is greys mentioned it was written for an sca thing so when it was brought up i asked. so i ask you not to jump all over me also

FOR ALL READING, GWEN DOESNT HATE US, WE DONT HATE HER. we likezes her hehe sorry again.

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

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

(...)
Not quite clear on what you mean -"

I thinks that my english is not engough good to explain what I think about the Charlotte text.

I think I use French expressions and syntaxe and it's not good to be understanding! I don't have enough word and facility to explain me! It's what I understand with your understanding of my message. For example, I think the expression "same observations" have not the same meaning in French! Oups!

So forget my message! It's too hard for me to explain my idea clearly and with all the subtility I want.

But I will continue to read, it's so nice to read you all!

Sorry I didn't get back to this any sooner. We were out of town for the weekend, and I've been spending most of the past week catching up on household stuff that I wasn't doing while getting ready for the competition. I had five entries, so I was pretty busy.

I'd first like to say that I'm not calling for a ban on anything! I was looking at a bunch of art one day, looking for sleeves on somebody other than MM, and realized that it was a difficult task. I decided to compare relative occurrences of certain fashions, and came to the conclusion that the pin-on sleeve just isn't that common in art, comparatively speaking. Nothing more complicated than that. Ironically, I probably have now published the most complete set of pin-on sleeve references out there...

This sums up what I'm trying to say:

quote:

---

I know that most of us are going for the norm - we want to wear what was most common, with maybe one or two people in camp representing the exceptional fashion. If that's the case, a survey of the art shows that we are overrepresenting the pin-on sleeve in our impressions.

---

No banning, nothing like that. I'll be happy if just one more person looks at a bunch of sources before making their outfit, instead of just doing what everybody else does, because that's the "way it's done." Based on other recent discussions (on the AA, specifically) I think that's a goal we can all get behind!

As far as speaking for Grey's, I am not, and I don't think I ever tried to give that impression. I'm not our women's clothing officer, that job belongs to Kim Barker. I actually stepped down from being an officer of any sort when we discovered baby 2 was on the way. I'm sorry if I ever gave that impression, but it was most certainly done unwittingly.

Chuck, no worries on my end. Everybody else, Chuck is a *really* nice guy who would never intentionally say anything to hurt anybody or to intentionally stir up drama.

Thank you for your feedback. I've been wanting to get back to this for the last several days, but I hope you can understand why I didn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Woodcrafter:

However I cautiously disagree. I am seeing the pin on sleeves used not just in private spaces. They are used at public wells, receiving male visitors, and doing various public work/chores. I also see the long attached sleeve being worn while in private spaces, like making the bed.

---

As I said in the article, there are a few sleeves without any apparent problems. One shepherdess, one woman drawing water, one woman mining (probably allegorical somehow? Were women actually miners?) and one woman standing by a lake. Out of 178 women in a non-v-neck gown, there are 4 images of pin on sleeves without a problem. While it certainly existed as a fashion to some extent, my point is that it was shown relatively rarely in art.

Even if you don't accept my arguments that Mary Magdalene and women dressing are potentially flawed sources for "normal" women wearing the fashion, 19 out of 178 women still makes for a somewhat rare distribution. I haven't seen any terribly wonderful arguments explaining why these few images are somehow more valid than the rest.

It was the nature of the article that I showed the exceptions. If I'd published a resource with every image that I looked at, there would be an overwhelming majority of long sleeves shown. It would give a very different impression.

quote:

---

Since there is little representation of such pinned on sleeves, perhaps you may want to review the sources of the pics and determine what region or time period they are specifically from. You are definitely onto something here, but as I stated earlier, my first viewing of the pics does not show to me that pinned on sleeves were only used in private spaces. An example would be the lady preparing for a bath, she has come in to a private space and is removing the pinned on sleeves, not putting them on to wash.

Good luck with this and keep us posted!

---

Let me put something in a different way. Rather than saying "they were only used in private spaces" (which I didn't state in the paper) I would say "a pin-on sleeve worn in private space is a flawed example to prove what was worn in public." I did write:

quote:

---

While this figure may be used as evidence that pin-on sleeves existed, this scene may not constitute evidence that it is appropriate to wear pin-on sleeves in the public domain.

---

Seeing the sleeves on a woman in the process of dressing or undressing doesn't tell us whether or not she ever left her chamber attired thusly.

Your suggestion of reviewing time and place is an interesting one. Perhaps I could include a timeline and pinpoint where the sleeves fall, and maybe break it out by country. What do you think that would clear up? Unfortunately, I don't have exact dates on all of the images, and there will be a high proportion of French and Flemish women, as that's where most of the artistic sources originate.

Thanks again for your feedback,
Charlotte

[ 03-12-2006: Message edited by: Charlotte ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evelyne Bouchard:
(...)
"Sadly there is no evidence of any 'observations' in the text, nothing to actually make a comparison.

(...)
Not quite clear on what you mean -"

I thinks that my english is not engough good to explain what I think about the Charlotte text.

I think I use French expressions and syntaxe and it's not good to be understanding! I don't have enough word and facility to explain me! It's what I understand with your understanding of my message. For example, I think the expression "same observations" have not the same meaning in French! Oups!

So forget my message! It's too hard for me to explain my idea clearly and with all the subtility I want.

But I will continue to read, it's so nice to read you all!

Have a nice evening!
Evelyne

---

While it is evident that the paper was written for an SCA event, the original post states "it was written for a wider audience. "

The first paragraph cites "reenacting and SCA circles", separating them into 2 groups. Farther down, "Modern-day reenactors and medieval recreationists" are being specifically separated by terminology, so referring back to the first reference, I have to assume Charlotte is referring to Living History (reenactors) and the SCA (recreationists).

Because this forum is specifically targeted to a Living History audience as stated on the first page ("...this is not an SCA site and we do not discuss SCA specific heraldry, peerage, combat, armour, or events...") and not the SCA, I can only assume by Charlotte's choice in putting it here that the paper is intended to be used and/or considered by living history practitioners.

As for my opinion, I thoroughly disagree with the paper. I believe the hypothesis presented is confused, and the several points that can be extrapolated from the confused hypothesis are flawed. From the unfootnoted ‘statement of fact’ which opens the paper (“In reenacting and SCA circles, the ubiquitous 15th century women’s casual outfit consists of a short-sleeved fitted kirtle, with long sleeves pinned on at the shoulders.”) through the conclusions that the German woman beating her husband is dressing (why is it assumed she’s dressing? She looks completely dressed to me) through the assertion that the pinned on sleeve appears only in private space (even though the majority of the examples shown are clearly public spaces such as fields and marketplaces) the paper rambles around but misses the mark on all counts.

I think it unfortunate that the paper spends time supporting several untenable hypothesis, rather than exploring other valid hypothesis which would be of tremendous importance to the LH community. Hypothesis such as:

- When did the trend for working women to wear pin-on sleeves begin?
- How long did it persist?
- Was the practice of wearing pinned on sleeves confined to the Lowlands, or was it a 'universal' practice?
-Examine the demographics- If pinned on sleeves were worn elsewhere, were they worn by the same class of woman? Were they made of the same fabrics? Were they the same shape? Were they attached the same way?
-What class of woman wore pin on sleeves in the 15th C.?
-Are they the same class as women from the 13-17th C. who wore them?
-A survey of the types of pin ons- brocade, plain cloth, button cuff, pull-ons, straight top or pointed?
-Which portrayals should wear pin ons, and which shouldn't?
-Support or disprove the ratio depicted in art by showing that most reenactors portray working or common women, and that's why there are more pin ons in reenactment than in art.

If this paper set out to prove that pin on sleeves are not “common wear” and are therefore overused in reenactment/recreation, it has failed its mission by failing to provide adequate information on when pin on sleeves *should* be worn, and *by whom*. Only when those points are clearly defined can a case be made for overuse.

looks like ya got some good red marks on your paper char, oh how i loved red marks in college hehehehe it always makes you think in, out and around the box

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

Indeed you are correct, the paper was written for anybody with an interest in 15th century women's clothing. It was presented first at an SCA competition, but is not in any sense SCA specific. I actually find the topic to be more important for reenactors, as we generally are trying to portray the norm rather than the exception, and as we know, there's no groupthink like that in the SCA.

To answer your questions about pin-on sleeve trends... I just don't think there's enough data to really say. Who should wear them in 15th c. LH? Honestly? Mary Magdalene impressions. Over half of the sleeves I found were worn by her. I couldn't pick out reliable trends in the nine remaining images.

On a personal note, after I wrote this paper, and before I posted, I thought about you a lot. I was fairly certain you would disagree with me. To be totally honest with you, I think this would be a great opportunity for you to offer a long-sleeved 15th c. dress. If you want to link to my stats, I'd be happy to oblige, and I think it would be a big selling point. I mean this seriously, and I *want* you to do well. I'm NOT trying to ruin one of your product lines with this research.

As to your comments about your paper impacting sales of my short sleeved gown, I'm not in the least concerned. I tell women it's not appropriate for their station all the time and it is still a strong seller. Besides, sometimes it’s rather pointless for me to say “Excuse me your Grace, but a Duchess really shouldn’t be wearing a common woman’s gown. Besides which, it doesn’t really go with your sunglasses and Birkenstocks”. OK, so I’m being cynical, but the fact is I’m always trying to guide people to make the best choices for their portrayals. Some care, some don’t and it’s not up to me to make that decision for them. Everybody draws their line in the sand in a different place. It’s up to me to provide the best research I can, and let my customers decide for themselves.

I didn't get to where I am by lying to people about what I sell, or by misrepresenting it. Presentations like yours just make me go back to the books. Sometimes, papers like yours are a boot to the head that make me rethink the track I'm on and change what I'm doing. Tim Finkas' persistent questioning of where I put the holes in my doublets made me reexamine my research, and I found I was way off base. I've improved the pattern, and the doublets are better for it. Same with coifs with 15th C. outfits- bad research, and I became one of the most vocal in the "don't do it camp". I don't have a problem admitting to or fixing my bad research. My sales are based on good research, and only my own bad research can hurt me.

Although I thank you for the offer, I won't link to your stats because I'm convinced they're flawed, and your conclusion off base. Your images give the impression that this is common attire in working women's clothing because it *is* common working women's attire. Pin on sleeves are a ridiculously commonplace feature of working women's attire right up through the Victorian period. What I'd like to know is when the started to be worn, because "if" is not an issue.

Something I’ve been reminded of time and time again is that fashion is an evolutionary process. Sometimes things seem to pop up out of nowhere, but if one goes back, one can usually identify the evolutionary process that turned into a trend. You’ve produced a collection of examples of pin-on sleeves in the 15th C., we see them in the early 16th C. (Bening) and later on in the 16th C. (Aertsen, Beuckelaer). I know they existed in the 17th & 18th C, but I’m sketchiest in these centuries and can’t pull an example off the top of my head. They certainly form a standard part of a maid’s outfit in the 19th C., as part of their morning “work” clothing; maids were expected to remove their work sleeves and soiled apron and put a new apron on about midday, before they began their afternoon chores. I believe this is covered in the Pitkin book “Upstairs & Downstairs- Life in an English Country House”, but I would have to go check that again.

I’d like to know when pinned on sleeves for working women became commonplace; the earliest example I can pull out of my head is in the Tres Riches Heures, but that’s still 15th C., albeit early 15th C. I bet I can find them earlier than that if I look and plan to do a bit more research in that department.

check out the Ore Washers - approx 1515. Hans Hesse

But it is exactly this line of Questioning that needs to be followed and exhausted primarily, you have started from some way down the line, visual representation is one form of recording but quite unreliable for wider information.

You needed to have established what jobs women did that might have necessitated their use. Also there will jobs in there that are not shown, I almost guranteee it.

Now when that kind of thing (let alone numbers) gets measured against reenactors then you have a stronger benchmark to test whether they are right or wrong.

I have just found a picture of a woman wearing a short sleeved garment over a longer sleeved garment.

Master of the Scots Altar, Christ before Kaiphas' cica 1470.

Also the woman painting the sculpture of the madonna and baby MS fr.12420, fol 92v 1402 shows a shorter sleevd over garment to a longer sleeved undergarment.

The three pics are in the Ulrika Uitz Women in the Medieval Town. A good resource for general information of European women, jobs, rights etc.

Also in the same book is the famous woman fighting a harnessed man frm the 1485 Schilling, she has short sleeves.

Have you also looked at other forms of art inc Sculpture and woodblock?

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

Please tell me, are you "Grimstone Bar"? If I am discussing this with you in two places, I would appreciate knowing that.

In other words, short sleeved undergowns indicate a working garment that can be modified to bear sleeves as required, through the mode of having them pin on, and that when we take into account all the short sleeved undergowns seen, in addition to the undergowns we see with pinned on sleeves, we are seeing a large catagory of gowns, and not a small one.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by chef de chambre:
I am pretty sure, given the various discussions here, and on the armour archive, is what we are seeing is that there is a strong case for pin on sleeves being an article of dress for working women, and that short sleeved undergowns, shown in working situations, are entirely possibly undergowns that can carry pin-on sleeves.

In other words, short sleeved undergowns indicate a working garment that can be modified to bear sleeves as required, through the mode of having them pin on, and that when we take into account all the short sleeved undergowns seen, in addition to the undergowns we see with pinned on sleeves, we are seeing a large catagory of gowns, and not a small one.

---

How many examples do you need to show a "strong case"? Four? Three?

If I can show you many more examples of women wearing plain dresses while they are working, would you accept that the pin-on sleeve is not the "norm"?

A friend of mine recently trigged a memory regarding the woman wearing the sleeves drawing water from the well. I think it likely that she may be representing the Samaritan woman at the well, who had 5 husbands, and is currently sleeping with a man who is not her husband. Like MM, she is often referred to as a prostitute, or fallen woman. That leaves us with a shepherdess, a woman mining, and a woman standing by a lake. The women in the birth chamber are indeed working, but it is a realm of only women, and I don't know of any groups reenacting birth scenarios.
(Though this year at Paston we're going to try for a baptism scenario!)