Corsets and Other Unmentionables: Evidence of Women in the Archaeological Record
Trina C. Maples
In recent years there has been an increasing effort to examine women’s role in society through the archaeological record. This is usually confined to the examination of household goods and consumer choices in ceramics, etc. There is however one aspect of a woman’s presence in the archaeological record that is routinely overlooked. This paper will examine the archaeological evidence of women’s clothing, in particular underwear, and the role it played in identifying a woman’s socio-economic standing in society.
The identification of artifacts is only as good as the knowledge of the person doing the identification. Much of our knowledge comes from antique books, word-of-mouth, old catalogues, and things we saw as children in our grandparents’ house. Through time we have lost common knowledge of many things that had been a part of everyday life in past generations. And so identifying the fragments of these things is often impossible. Recently while cataloging a 19th century home site, I recognized a small metal object that I had in the past been unable to identify. I had regularly assigned it to unidentifiable item/part or unidentified hardware item. I even thought it might be some type of picture hanger. It was in fact a fragment of a corset busk. Having recently acquired one of these 19th century torture devices I recognized the busk fragment from my recent tussles with its modern reproduction.
The busk consists of two thin strips of metal on which small, flat hooks are attached on one side and small metal ball-like protuberances down the other side. The hook slides over the ball holding the front of the corset together. (Illustration 1- Corset busk with fragment of hook; Illustration 2- corset hook close-up) Whalebone or thin metal stays were placed closely together to provide support. The corset was then tightened using strings laced through eyelets in the back of the garment.
Long stay corsets utilizing a metal busk were first seen around 1810 (Cunnington 1990:72). This garment went over the hips to mid thigh and came under the breasts pushing them up. If necessary, the bosom was pushed up by wadding and whalebone. The stays were laced as tight as possible over the waist and hips. A correspondent, in 1811, criticized, “By the newly invented corsets we see, in eight women out of ten, the hips squeezed into a circumference little more than the waist; and the bosom shoved up to the chin, making a sort of fleshy shelf disgusting to the beholders and certainly most incommodious to the wearer” (Cunnington 1990:73). Tight lacing was, for the most part, the rule during the 19th century. “To apply the corset properly, the female should lie face down on the bed so, by applying a foot to the small of the back one can obtain the requisite purchase on the laces” (Cunnington 1990:72). Even a “pregnant stay” was produced to “compress and reduce to the shape desired the natural prominence of the female figure in the state of fruitfulness” (Cunnington 1990:73).
Keep in mind during this period (1810-1830), only “fashionable” women wore the long stay corset. This would restrict its use to a limited number of upper class women. Middle and lower class women would probably not have worn this restrictive garment. (Cunnington 1990:73) (Palmer 2000:2).
By the 1830s dress styles had changed. The most notable change was in the waistline, which dropped from the high waist of the early 1800s to a more natural one. Corset use began in earnest. With the coming of a more natural waist and flared hips, the corset itself changed. The new corset continued to support the bosom and constrict the waist, but stopped at the top of the hips. They also tended to have fewer stays than the earlier long stay corset (Ambrose 1997). However, women tended to lace their corsets even tighter. There were many reports of waists between 14 and 18 inches, even as small as 12 inches. However measuring existing corsets in museum collections indicate waist measurements starting at 20 inches. Tight lacing could, however reduce this measurement to 18 inches (Dinsen 2000:2). Lacing was sometimes linked to moral ideas of the period as lacing was thought to be a tangible way of teaching a woman moral restraint and seriousness. Those, of the lower classes, who did not wear a corset were sometimes referred to as “loose women” (Palmer 2000:2).
Early in the use of the long stay corset, people recognized that “the excessive compression of long stays and iron busk could produce diseases too frightful to name “(Cunnington 1990:72). Corsets restricted the development and functioning of internal organs and prohibited deep breathing (Palmer 2000:7) “Women who wear very tight stays complain that they cannot sit upright without them, nay, are compelled to wear night stays in bed (Cunnington 1990:127). During a conversation with Nancy Stallings, a physical anthropologist, she expressed the belief that women who regularly wore a corset did not develop the back muscles needed to give birth, and so this garment may have contributed to the high infant and maternal mortality of the time. If nothing else, it made childbirth more difficult.
The 1850s brought a change in attitude about women and their place. Women began to emerge from their quiet domestic role, acquiring certain social privileges and talking of their rights. Although most women did not go as far as Mrs. Bloomer in demanding that her sex should be allowed to wear trousers (Cunnington 1990:169), most did loosen their stays and adopted a more comfortable corset with even fewer stays than previous decades or abandoned the garment entirely (Cunnington 1990:205).
The introduction of the crinoline in 1856 freed women even more from the preponderance of heavy underskirts used until that time to give the full bell look to the skirt. At first crinolines were seen as a barrier against the Lower Orders, who were kept at arm’s length. However, by the end of the decade the fashion was adopted by even the lower orders. It was complained, “Your lady’s maid must now have her crinoline and it has even become essential to factory girls”, “in modern days the distinction in dress between the higher and the middle classes is in many respects nullified”(Cunnington 1990:170)(Dinsen 2000:1). It is at this time under drawers become a part of daily wear for all classes of women. Until the crinoline, even wealthy women often rejected the wearing of drawers, because they were seen as men’s clothing. But the flimsiness of the crinoline often unexpectedly exposed those secrets hidden beneath a ladies skirt, changing attitudes towards this masculine garment.
The 1850s also saw a change in how women’s dresses were fastened. Until this time most dresses fastened up the back with hook and eye or laced up the back through eyelets, requiring help to dress. In the 1850s dress bodices often closed in the front, making it easier for women to dress themselves. Although most bodices still used hook and eye, some began to use ornamental buttons (Cunnington 1990:171). Until this time buttons were used almost exclusively on men’s clothing.
It is also during this period for which I found a reference to children’s corsets (Cunnington 1990:205). A description of one such corset is found in the 1897 Sears, Roebuck catalogue (Israel 1968). Recommended for girls 8-12 years, this corset was corded to give support, instead of bone stays, had shoulder straps and buttoned in the front. The 1913 Kresge’s Kataloge (Griswold 1975) shows a picture of this specialized button. I recognized it immediately. I had seen it several times in past years. Most would identify this object as a two- holed porcelain button. However the holes are unusually large, 3.28mm (.132 in) in diameter. The button itself is 15.9mm (.63 in) in diameter and is off-white or cream in color. (Insert Illustration 3- Corset button) The Kresge’s Katalog stated theirs were made of bone. During the 1850s and 60s girls wearing these training corsets would probably have been from the upper class or possibly from an upwardly mobile middle class family.
Attitudes in corseting once again changed in the 1870s. Again tight lacing became fashionable and by the mid 1870s the long corset was back in fashion to show off the long slender dress fashions of the time (Cunnington 1990:308). From the 1870s until the close of the century more and more middle class women wore these foundation garments. The 1870s also saw the addition of bust pads to the basic corset for shaping the breast. Pliant celluloid was used for shaping them.
At this time there was also a strong movement among upper and middle class women for “sensible” clothing. These women resolutely refused to wear either corset, crinoline or the new bustle, which eventually replaced the crinoline for shaping the skirt (Cunnington 1990:254). These women were, however in the minority. Fashion seemed even more important in the decades following the Civil War.
By the end of the century corsets were in decline (Cunnington 1990:424). However, the 1908 Sears, Roebuck Catalogue (Schroeder 1969) continued to offer a wide variety of corsets to their customers. They even advertised a training corset for girls as young as 4 years. By the end of the century, corset bones or stays were made from pliable non-rusting steel instead of whalebone. Although the 1916 Kresge’s Katalog (Griswold 1975) did not sell corsets or clothing, they did sell the items needed to make a corset (i.e., steel busk, lacing and corset buttons).
By 1923 (Schroeder 1973) corset style changed once again to accommodate new dress styles. This corset gave no support to the bust, but concentrated on restraining waist and hips. On many the steel busk continued to be used as the front fastening. This type of corset was probably used by women in all social classes until the introduction of the rubberized girdle.
So what can we expect? As a dating tool, the corset busk is not particularly helpful since they were in use from 1810 through the early 20th century. However, if you can date the level it came from it might give you clues into the social standing of the family in which the woman belonged. Early corset use was exclusively by the wealthy. And even then, tended to be limited to those ladies of fashion. As corset styles changed and lacing became looser in the 1830s through 50s, you begin to see more upwardly mobile middle class women wearing this foundation garment. By 1870 corset wearing was fairly common among middle class women. It’s not until the girdle-like corset of the 1920s that lower class women began to wear these foundation garments.
When examining clothing related items, one should keep in mind how women’s clothes were made during the 19th century. It’s not until the 1850s that women start to use ornamental buttons. Until then most dresses closed in the back using hook and eye or lacing. So the presence of hook & eyes and eyelets, not associated with shoe leather, may suggest a woman in residence. The presence of a corset button probably points towards the existence of a pre-pubescence girl in the household. Depending on the time period, she could be as young as 4 or 5 years. If metal bands are also recovered , especially in conjunction with corset busks, hook & eye, or multiple eyelets, then they should be examined with hooping in mind. Most hoops for crinolines were not made of whale bone. Most were made from a thin steel wire. (Insert Illustration 4- Reproduction crinoline hooping) In 1859 Sheffield was turning out enough crinoline wire a week for half a million crinolines. All women, no matter their socio-economic level wore a crinoline, even if they did not wear a corset (Cunnington 1990:205).
Hooping is about ½ inch wide and made from 2 wires, roughly 1/16 to1/8 inch wide held together by stiffened muslin. This makes a very pliable hoop. Other hoops were made of thin bands up to ½ inch wide. Corsets also used thin steel bands as boning. These bands are about ¼ inch wide. So when examining metal banding, keep in mind the bands that might have been crinoline hooping or corset boning.
The presence of women in the archaeological record often manifests itself in small things. Looking for the clues to 19th century women’s dress is no exception. However those tiny clues can give us better insight into a families socio-economic standing or pretense of wealth. As we increase our knowledge of the little things, we increase our understanding of the bigger picture.
References
Ambrose, Bonnie Holt
1997 The Little Corset Book: A Workbook on Period Underwear. Costume & Fashion Press, New York.
Cunnington, C. Willett
1990 English Women’s Clothing in the Nineteenth Century. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
Dinsen, Anders
2000 A Brief History of Corsets. www.danbbs.dk/~dinsen/corsethome/corhist.htm
Griswold, E.B.
1975 Kresge’s Katalog 5 & 10 Cent Merchandise: A Facsimile Edition of the Original 1913 Parcel Post Katalog. S.S. Kresge Co., Detroit, Michigan.
Israel, Fred L., editor
1968 1987 Sears, Roebuck Catalogue. Chelsea House Publishers, New York.
Palmer, Heather
2000 The Natural Waist and Large Sleeves: Women’s Fashions 1825-1840. www.victoriana.com/lady/palmer.html
Schroeder, Joseph J., Jr., editor
1969 Sears, Roebuck & Co. 1908 Catalogue No.117: The Great Price Maker. DBI Books, Inc. Northbrook, Illinois.
1973 1923 Sears, Roebuck Catalogue. Digest Books, Inc., Northfield, Illinois.