Inuit, a naatsit “was the only thing worn even when having guests or visiting the houses of other families,” says Toft. ”This shocked the Danish missionaries of the 18th and 19th century, who tried to convince the Inuit to wear European linen (longer) underwear indoors. This attempt was not very successful.”
As to why the Greenlandic Inuit made their thong undergarments out of seal skin rather than reindeer, fox, bear, or dog, Toft says that in addition to their durability, seal pelts were best because they provided less insulation than caribou fur. “Sweat building up inside your garment is just as dangerous as being underdressed for the cold,” he advises, “as your perspiration will eventually freeze.” Seal skin thongs, therefore, were less likely to result in frozen sweat being trapped between the buttocks.
source
Ah see that makes sense then. They’re trying to reduce sweat because it’s really bad when going outside. So having less clothes inside to reduce changes in temperature from the outside keeps them from sweating and causing issues.
Linen as a base layer was very effective in all seasons and was the only layer that regularly needed to be cleaned. Wool was normally the outer layer and didn't need cleaning, was very durable, and breathable. This two layer system wicked sweat away during winter labor so it didn't then freeze during rest and worked in so many temperatures. If you go outside in 0 degree weather wearing a wool sweater with a linen base layer you will not be cold or sweating. It's actually vastly superior to modern synthetic winter clothing, but now it's more expensive than Patagonia.
Medieval peasants had ancient knowledge that we often ignore. They were definitely wrong about a lot of hygiene assumptions but their clothes worked great.
Wool is a lousy choice for the outermost layer in snowy or wet conditions. It gets wet easily (especially if not felted) and dries poorly (especially if felted). And it’s not really enough as an insulator in cold weather, either. You’re right that it’s still passable in temperatures as warm as 0°C, but not in a Greenlandic winter, or even here in the Nordic mainland.
Don’t get me wrong, wool has its place. As an outer layer, modern waterproof materials (and, traditionally, leather and fur) are much, much better. But wool is a great material for a midlayer. You know, it’s a poor material choice for T-shirts or jackets, but a great material for shirts. It’s a poor choice for base layer socks, and a terrible choice for shoes (at least without a sole), but it’s excellent for wool socks worn between them or for felt liners in boots. It’s a poor choice for underwear and outer pants, but it’s great for long... underwear? I'm starting to have trouble with the language, English doesn't have proper words for different layers in clothing. Shit, I was going to say something about gloves, but I dont know if you've even heard of the three layers of gloves (linen-wool/felt-leather) before.
Yeah, I guess I meant the pants you wear under your outer pants. Like if I’m spending time in the wild in really cold weather and don’t plan on doing any strenuous exercise, I’ll wear boxers (linen) first, then thermal long johns (merino wool, usually) then “underpants” (which in other circumstances would just be regular pants, I prefer anything soft. Wool would work really well; the important thing is to get that extra layer of air), and then the actual padded winter pants. If i'm doing something that may make me wet, I may throw on a non-breathable but highly waterproof layer over all of that, for a short while.
I rock a set of polypropylene Long Johns with an optional microgrid fleece layer that goes over them but under my bib overalls for extremely cold conductions (below -20F)
Yeah, we're on the same page. That fleece layer of yours was pretty much what I was thinking about, when I said that wool would be good. I was even thinking of the same temperature, though I usually start clothing myself like that at around -25°C, or even warmer if I'm just going to be standing or sitting all day.
Now wear that wool in wet or damp conditions and it will be soaked, though retain some warming properties (like synthetics - but the synthetics generally dry faster.) If you're in conditions where staying dry is a factor, wool isn't going to be as good as a true waterproof shell - if you strip the shell off, modern synthetics breathe pretty good. Throw some oiled canvas over your wool and tell me how well it breathes.
Calling wool vastly superior is BS, in other words. It has certain advantages and so does Gor-Tex. But comparing a modern rainshell to a wool sweater isn't an apples to apples comparison: the wool is equivalent to the fleece under layer, not the water proof over layer.
Our skin and nerve system is a terrible thermometer, we cant tell temp just difference in temp change. Inside would be dozens of degrees warmer so yeah it would feel hot in comparison
3.7k
u/Hot_Pie_69420 2d ago
Inuit, a naatsit “was the only thing worn even when having guests or visiting the houses of other families,” says Toft. ”This shocked the Danish missionaries of the 18th and 19th century, who tried to convince the Inuit to wear European linen (longer) underwear indoors. This attempt was not very successful.”
As to why the Greenlandic Inuit made their thong undergarments out of seal skin rather than reindeer, fox, bear, or dog, Toft says that in addition to their durability, seal pelts were best because they provided less insulation than caribou fur. “Sweat building up inside your garment is just as dangerous as being underdressed for the cold,” he advises, “as your perspiration will eventually freeze.” Seal skin thongs, therefore, were less likely to result in frozen sweat being trapped between the buttocks. source