Clothes: they protect human body of rain, heat, cold, wounds in combat and injuries at work. They have been changing together with the climate; also, they have been changing as new professions, new weapons and new technologies emerged - such as hunting, agriculture, weaving or plastics. Clothes have always played a practical role but it remains their least important aspect - it was only relevant during the early prehistorical period.

Probably, it was also the time when clothes became a symbol. A shaman performing some magical ceremonies used to either paint his face, put on animal skin over his shoulders or stick a feather into his hair - not to protect himself, but to symbolize his uniqueness and be distinguished. He was not just wearing the clothes: he was dressing himself up. A dress soon became what distinguished an individual among the human mass. However, on a battlefield where hundreds of warriors clashed an indication of who was the ally and who had to be killed was crucial. Every single fighter had to see that sign and be himself seen clearly enough, even in battle turmoil. Clothes became what enabled the identification of an individual within their group then. When different casts of power and wealth emerged - and the master-servant relationship along with them - dress became the symbol of status and prestige. Members of lower casts aspired to an advancement in hierarchy and when they succeeded, they would proudly put the costume which symbolized it on. Those for whom such advancement was out of reach would at least add higher cast’s elements to their own costume.

However, changes dress underwent would always reflect the hierarchy and the process of climbing up its ladder at one’s own initiative. Apart from the influence new materials and technologies have on clothes, it has always been prestige the main propeller of change. Apparently, it has actually been the only one.

The violent change of models being aspired to before, seen as an outcome of a military, economic or cultural conquest is an exception that proves the rule. It was the case of European dress dominated by Spanish court’s influence. However, the conquest itself does not have to imply the imposition of new models; after Alexander the Great militarily dominated the world of Greek culture (which impressed him), he himself became its advocate and therefore contributed to the Hellenization of a huge part of the world of his time.

The scheme outlined here assumes there are two extremes: a prestigious center which creates models, and peripheries whose aspirations are oriented towards that center. However, it does not explain two phenomena: invariable national or regional dresses, and changeable fashion. Traditional dress has never yielded to fashion’s influence for its essence was to preserve the tradition and not to chase novelties. As designers and most of the consumers declare, contemporary fashion is what brings some color to the prose of everyday life. Certainly, sometimes it does. Nevertheless, it is as well an element of a subconsciously perceived code which identifies members of hermetic and hierarchical casts among a seemingly egalitarian society. Understanding of this fact is more difficult because of the fact that fashion is a gigantic industry as well, which creates the demand and stimulates the economic situation. It is also an element of social engineering: desirable attitudes and behaviors are advertised when everybody is just having a good time.

In this chapter none of these phenomena is explained well enough; the history of dress is however quite well set in order and illustrated. Therefore it works well as a basis for one’s own assumptions and interpretations.

The pictures on this site have been published in The New Student’s Reference Work for Teachers, Students and Families, Chicago: F.E. Compton and Company, 1914. Thus the last dress shown belongs to fin de siecleperiod. Based on the material assembled in this part of the site, further research should complete this set of pictures.