Re: MtMan-List: misc topics

[Roger Lahti <lahtirog@gte.net>]

Matt,

Matt Richards wrote:

> 1. You're right in that I have always assumed that at least some of the mtn
> men made their own clothes and accoutrements.....and that this lead me to
> assume that they would improvise a bit to suit their own needs. Do others on
> this list agree with this assertion that nearly all of their clothing (aside
> from mocs) was purchased?

Thanks for the opportunity to vote on something. I agree in principle with
Allen's assertion that most if not all their clothing was purchased and I would
add, or made for them by indian or white seamstress' on the scene. There were a
lot more divers peoples (other than our heroes) on the scene than most realize.
many of the engage's or hired help had families with them and many of these
people came from the original fur trade activities in the Old North West.
French, Half breeds, eastern indians, etc. Considering the evidence put forth on
the amount of dry goods and sewing supplies sent west, one can extrapolate a
thriving "cottage' industry going on for anyone able to sew garments in the
"white" fashion.

2. I very clearly did not hear any real evidence or sources for leather garments
of the period being made out of bark tan.....only inferences from the fact that
there were a lot of tanneries and garment makers. I would still love to know of
some...not to challenge what you are saying (though I do doubt it somewhat) but
for my own knowledge.

Can't add anything on this other than the volume of such organized business and
home oriented tanning activity that was going on.

> 3. Have read several times the resource you mention. Not a primary source by
> any means, but some interesting stuff. (Welsh, Peter.  "Tanning in the
> United States to 1850").
>
> 4. The quotes regarding 'leather' breeches are highly open to
> interpretation. While there was often some clear distinctions between
> 'buckskin' being what we call brain or smoke tan, and 'leather' meaning
> bark-tan, this distinction doesn't seem to be any where near universal, or
> even necessarily predominant.

If that is the case then we will just have to live with the knowledge that
Breeches made of leather are proper and can be made of indian dressed hides or
other period correct leathers until a primary source comes along that says one
or the other was the way it was done.

> 6. I think your comment comparing period guns and clothing is relevant in
> some ways, but not completely. With the guns you are comparing pieces of
> technology, and a knowledge of the technology. With clothing, at least the
> context I've been writing and reading about on this list, the question is
> more along the lines of the assumption that one could personalize one's own
> clothing within the existing technology and knowledge of the day. I don't
> know practically anything about muzzleloading guns, but I'll try to make an
> analogy: Its more like some-one deciding to shorten the stock so that it fit
> their body better, or devised a different way of attaching the strap than
> was the 'norm' for such and such a reason.

If we compare the guns of the time and how they were thought of and use that as
an analogy of how these people may have dealt with the subject of personal
clothing then we would see very little "personalizing" of clothing. I don't
recall seeing any period guns that were markedly altered other than some
decorative things like brass tacks (which is probably by indians) and trying to
add a rear sight to a smooth gun which was done quit a bit. There were many
field repairs with wire and raw hide and damaged muzzles were cut down to allow
continued use of the gun. there are some rare examples of trade guns being cut
down at both ends to facilitate use on horse back or for concealment but this
was not wide spread either. So how does that allow us to go Willie Nillie in
creating new and individual ways of dressing for the present day historical
reenactment? The bottom line is that if you can't place it in the time and
locality of the event you are reenacting it really isn't the proper thing to do.
That people do it don't make it right!

> I kind of compare it to food. When you cook food at a re-enactment, do you
> only use recipes that you can document? Or do you think that it is somewhat
> reasonable to take some of the fixings that were available and used at the
> time and place, and cook them up without a documentable recipe? (with the
> obvious exception of it not being appropriate to take period fixings and
> deliberately make some favorite dish of a later time.....that not
> acceptable).

There are many that try very hard to eat as the historical record says they ate.
There are also many modern reasons why this is not always done. I and I'm sure
many others try very hard, within the bounds of what is known, to walk the
straight and narrow but when I can't, I try to be honest about it and say this
is probably not right but for now it is the best I can do. I also try hard not
to do things that are easily visible and are not period correct because many new
folks will look at me walking down the trail in my "Pendlton Wool Chief Joseph
Blanket Capote" and think, "gee that's a beautiful coat and Old Uncle Rog, who's
been in this for 30 years, always does things right so that must be ok".

> As far as 'fashion police' go, I'm sure they existed. They've existed in
> every time and place, including our own. But like the guys on the
> yellowstone who grew their hair long and wore indian clothes, ...there have
> always been people who didn't follow the rules of the fashion police. And
> there is a huge leap from altering period style so that they fit the mtn man
> of the time's needs, to wholesale adopting a different style. My argument is
> that people would have altered stuff when it made practical utilitarian
> sense (and occasionally just because).

I just loved Allens observations on "fashion police" and the fact that you don't
hear about the "accouterment police" or the "gun police" or the "camp gear
police" just says that people think they should be able to wear what ever they
have spent their money on without critique. And my argument is that they didn't
alter stuff when it made practical utilitarian sense in our modern context. Are
your attitudes the same as your grandfathers or will they be shared by your
great grand children? Hardly. Well the attitudes of people in the 18th and 19th
Century were a lot different than those we harbor and live our modern lives by
now. If we want to pretend to be living in those bygone eras' we are obligated
to try to think like they did. What innovative ways would you portray some
persona from the 13th or 14th Century if you were a member of the Honorable
"Society for Creative Anachronism" 'It sure is impractical to were these cloths
so I think I will be innovative and change the style and fabric to a more
practical cut, etc. that I am aware of from the hundreds of years of history
that followed those early Centuries'. Silly isn't it?

This ain't the sixties and I ain't no free spirit "flower child" no more. I'm
trying to recreate the American life style of the 18th and 19th Century and
their "free spirit" is just romanticism on our part. I  remain....

YMOS
Capt. Lahti'

>