Upvote:-1
Well not really. As you yourself say direct original sources from the era are a bit lacking. There are however a few things we can consider.
It's a common misconception that Islam is averted to nudity. This isn't strictly true. The covering is more a legal prescript like we have in our own societies applicable to Muslim women. It is not applicable to non-Muslims especially if they are slaves.
An uncommon fact is that the trans Saharan slave trade involved a lot of slaves being sold to Muslim Arabs. While the majority were Africans there were also a substantial number of captured European women. Depictions from the era show white and black women paraded naked at the market to be sold. It isn't a stretch that slaves who traditionally were bare chested would continue to be. Some of the depictions also suggest that it was preferred by some for white women slaves to always be fully naked.
I'm sorry I know you're looking for some authoritative sources on the subject but there doesn't appear to be any as detailed history on such things from the era are lacking. Think about it like this, if it's something that was common to era it's unlikely to be widely reported on during the era. I do think however that there's enough literature on the subject to conclude it's true even if some people today would object to such assertions.
Upvote:-1
Sura noor verse 31 mentioned that the minimum requirement is to cover the genitalia and breasts. Where there are no chances of sin, then coverings are not required. The Quran gives everything in detail and if the detail is not there then the details should not be invented, for example that it is possible that women who are not wives or girls of prominent figure may wear minimalist clothes or even be topless.