ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/hist_text/archive/v01.n194

Internet Message Format | 1998-12-16 | 37KB

From: [e-mail] (hist_text-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: hist_text-digest V1 #194
Reply-To: hist_text
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


hist_text-digest     Wednesday, December 16 1998     Volume 01 : Number 194




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:46:51 -0500
From: Linda Holley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Period Clothing and Materials

Unfortunately I think you are wrong.  Fashion at this time period said who you
were in society.  Status was everything to men and women.   They may not have
been as modest (thanks to the Victorians) as we are today...are we???  Thank God
today we have the freedom to wear what we want.   But they were the slaves to
fashion.  Now it did take some styles 100  or so years to change, but you took
care of those clothes.  Clothing is even mentioned as part of your wealth because
it was so expensive to make or have.  They didn't have walk-in-closets back
then.  Most everything you had in clothing could be put in a bag.  Part of the
estate wills , lists how many dresses, shirts, chemise, blouses, stays,
waistcoats, etc. you may have owned.  (Any cross dressers out there???)   These
were passed down and used by the next generation.   There are several books
written at the time period which go into how your clothing looked on them and how
many times worn.  What the item was worn for and how to change that one little
scarf to make it change for the occasion.  The morals, mental attitudes toward
sex, women and men are very different today than then.   It did affect what they
wore, when and how.
    Must go....have to throw that "T-shirt" on for the formal dinner I am going
to.  Now,  do I wear the one with the Santa or the one with the blinking
lights.   And did I mention pants.

Linda Holley

[e-mail] wrote:

> I think that you have hit upon my sentiments exactly.  The people of the 19th
> century
> certainly weren't as concerned about the fashion police as we in the 20th
> century ssem to be.  I am a quillwork.  I do both hitorically accurrate and
> creative pieces.  I am guided by who commissions what and when they want to
> pay me.  I have traced my family roots back to the 1600's and am pretty sure
> they operated in the same way.
>
> Red Hawk
>
> [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:14:47 -0500
From: Linda Holley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Braintan & Buff Robes and Smoke???

From Linda Holley...a few quick remarks......


> From Matt Richards:
> ......one quick note with the 'hide smoking' tradition is that many native
> tribes did not smoke their hides, and most only smoked hides destined to get
> wet & dry frequently....like moccasins and leggings.....the idea that
> unsmoked or white hides were purely ceremonial is simply a myth, at leastfor
> the vast majority of Plains and western tribe

I would agree with you an some parts of this.  But the many leggings I have held
in my hot little hands were not smoked or after all these years had lost the
smoke color.  Hard to tell unless you pulled apart areas of an article to look
inside or at a seam to see the old smoke.  After they are cleaned and restored
for the museum display you have to look hard.  But a lot of the leggings never
got wet.  Unfortunately, we really, on the most part, only see in the museums
the good stuff.  Who kept the work a day things?  I have seen very few of
these.  Just the very decorated.  Someone who could comment on this is Allen
Chronister or Bill and Kathy Brewer, or Cathy Smith or Joe.

>

> However, people
> of that era lived a very smokey lifestyle, and from my own experience, it
> takes very little to functionally smoke a hide so that bugs stay out of it,

Has that life style been in a tipi????  I try not to smoke mine up.  And as for
hanging my leathers around the old lining of the tipi, not so.  They are kept in
their parflech containers where the fine Western powder dirt can not get into
it  and turn them gray looking.  Mt. St. Helen dust killed the lovely white
color of my parfleches to a dirty gray  and one white dress was murder to
clean.  That stuff got into everything.  Wouldn't the same thing have happened
back then????
Out West dirt is hard to get out of smoked or unsmoked hides.  That is why
Native had ways of cleaning the hide.  And not by washing too much.   Pumice
stone is great for getting out some rubbed in dirt or white clay balls that you
rub into the leather.  That just mostly hides the dirt.  There is a lot of smoke
when cooking out side, but not in your best beaded dress or shirt.  Natives had
their work clothes and their dress clothes.   And you keep your tipi neat
inside.   Nothing like having guest drop by and a dress falls on their head or
the fringe from a shirt keeps getting in the way of your mouth.

>
> and it can get wet and still dry soft....and this is why I believe that so
> many tribes did so little smoking------the hides got smoked anyway! Just by
> hanging out in the lodges and around fires.
>

> Matt Richards
> www.braintan.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:21:49 -0800
From: "Thomas W. Roberts" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fabrics 2

Matt & company:

(Somewhat) along the subject of braintan, I have acquired a sizeable piece of
elk hide.  It's over 2 ft wide and over 6 ft long, very dark (almost black),
very soft, suede-like fuzzy on one side and leather-like smooth on the other.
How would I go about figuring out how it was tanned?  Assume that the source of
the hide does not know any more than I do.  Since I've never seen a black elk, I
believe it is safe to presume that the hide has been dyed.  Does that fact alone
render this material unsuitable for pre-1840 re-enactment?  How can I become
confident that if I use this material, I won't get tossed out of camp?

Tom

Matt Richards wrote:

> Here are some answers to Andrea's questions on braintan....
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:30:36 -0700
From: "Sickler, Louis L" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Fabrics 2

Tom, Just my thoughts...

1) Since you have suede/grain surfaces, I would think it was commercially
tanned.

2) Black color definitely means dyed, skins are naturally whitish.

3) Cut the outer edge of the leather, look at the edge. The dye doesn't
usually penetrate all the way through. If you see a grayish-green layer in
between the black layers, this is the distinctive color of chrome tan.

4) IMHO, dyed leather (not smoked) just looks out of place, no matter what
color it is. The dyes used just don't come close, even the so-called Smoke
color leather.

5) Unsuitable, I won't judge. I wouldn't make clothing out of it (it sounds
too small anyway), maybe there's some way to make some useful, unobtrusive
accoutrement out of it. If all else fails, make something not intended to be
a part of your primitive attire. A good chunk of elk leather is ALWAYS
useful to have.

Hope this helps some,

Hyar's Luck,
Red Coyote

> ----------
> From:     Thomas W. Roberts
> Reply To:     [e-mail]
> Sent:     Wednesday, December 16, 1998 18:21
> To:     [e-mail]
> Subject:     Re: MtMan-List: Fabrics 2
>
> Matt & company:
>
> (Somewhat) along the subject of braintan, I have acquired a sizeable piece
> of
> elk hide.  It's over 2 ft wide and over 6 ft long, very dark (almost
> black),
> very soft, suede-like fuzzy on one side and leather-like smooth on the
> other.
> How would I go about figuring out how it was tanned?  Assume that the
> source of
> the hide does not know any more than I do.  Since I've never seen a black
> elk, I
> believe it is safe to presume that the hide has been dyed.  Does that fact
> alone
> render this material unsuitable for pre-1840 re-enactment?  How can I
> become
> confident that if I use this material, I won't get tossed out of camp?
>
> Tom
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:29:40 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Braintan & Buff Robes and Smoke???

Linda wrote:
> Has that life style been in a tipi????  I try not to smoke mine up.  And as
> for hanging my leathers around the old lining of the tipi, not so.

Early tipis were made from hides.  While I can't remember the reference, it
was quoted that after one year as a tipi covering, the now-smoked hides were
turned into robes, clothing, mocs and other accessories; and the process
started over again with fresh hides every year.  This would seem logical and
would kill two birds with one hide.

Dave Kanger

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:33:07 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fabrics 2

In a message dated 98-12-16 17:15:47 EST, you write:

> Since I've never seen a black elk, I
>  believe it is safe to presume that the hide has been dyed.  Does that fact
> alone render this material unsuitable for pre-1840 re-enactment?

Hides that are bark tanned with sumac added to the brew come out almost black,
a deep, buckeye chesnut brown.

Dave Kanger

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 00:35:38 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: MtMan-List: French/Indian

    Greetings to the list,

    I know the Mt. Man era doesn't cover the French/Indian war, but I
was wondering if anyone knew of a (preferably local -Dallas, TX)
historical group that did? ...& just how forgivable is someone showing
up to Rendezvous in the wrong era costume?  I've been to maybe 3 'vous &
no one said anything to me, but I've posted a few questions about the
Scottish in that time period & folks were adamant about the
French/Indian not being part of Mt. Man era.  ...Just Curious. Thanx


TURTLE

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:49:39 +0100
From: Allen Chronister <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: misc. topics

Every time I tell myself I don't need to spout off
something comes along, such as Linda Holley's
suggestion that I jump in.  So, this is 2 cents
worth on a couple of recent items:
1.  There were many, many commercial tanneries in
the US in the erly 19th century.  Enough that most
any community of any size had one relatively close
by.  Most of the tanning was for heavy leather,
but a significant part went into garment leather
which in turn was mostly used for breeches and
gloves.  I believe that as the breeches went out
of fashion in the first quarter of the 19th
century, leather pantaloons were manufactured on
the same basis.  As far as I know most of this
tanning was bark tanning.  There is an obscure
Smithsonian publication called something like the
history of tanning in America that has a lot of
info in it.
It is very difficult to know whether a pair of
"leather" or "deer skin" or "hide" (all terms
being used) pantaloons bought at the AFC retail
store in St Louis were made of native-prepared
("Braintain") hide or commercially-tanned hide.
(Same goes for leather  "hunting shirts" from same
time and place)  I believe it could have been
either.
Its too bad that someone does not turn out bark
tan garment leather today (or do they?)
2.  Yes, indeed, the "mountain man" of the 1820-30
period had and used lots of fabric clothing.
While it was leather that they tended to mentionin
their diary descriptions of their colorful friends
and that AJ Miller painted and drew, it was cloth
that they bought when they had the chance.  Cloth
shirts, vests, pantaloons and coats were very
common in the field in the West.  Please see the
piece that Clay Landry and I did in BOB VII for
more info.
3.  I believe that Plains Indian people used
smoked hides much more than "common knowledge"
would lead you to believe for all kinds of
applications, not just everyday clothes.  There
are numerous references to old lodge covers being
recycled into clothing and other uses.  Gilbert
Wilson's ethnographical material on the Hidatsa is
a good source that comes to mind.  Much of the old
bead and quillwork was done on soft, very dark
brown buffalo hide that almost certainly came from
old lodges.  35 years ago Norm Feder and Milford
Chandler tried to coin the term "old tipi top" for
this material, but it never really caught on.
In addition, very close inspection of finer,
special-occasion19the century items (such as
pipebags and heavily beaded moccasins) shows that
they were not-uncommonly made from smoked hide.
After 150 years or so the smell and usually most
of the color is gone, and all that would vary
depending on how heavily it was smoked to begin
with.   A friend of mine who gets to handle a lot
of original 19th century Plains material has
gotten me clued into the fact that smoked hide was
the original basis for much of the finer items
that many of us have always just assumed was made
with white hide because it was "dress" or
"ceremonial" stuff.
See what I mean, don't know when to stop.
Allen Chronister

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 18:38:54 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Period Clothing and Materials

Yes, you are right when speaking about the white well to do but not everyone
was wealthy nor necessarily caucasians.  Some of us seems to have been on
reservations and in lumber camps.

Red Hawk

[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:15:57 -0800
From: Roger Lahti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Period Clothing and Materials

Matt,

Thanks for the compliment on my OPINIONS.

Matt Richards wrote:

> Capt. Lahti,
>
> Good to hear your thoughts. The items I've seen in museums that I was
> referring to, are not reproductions, but originals. One example is Kit
> Carson's original buckskin pants and jacket in Taos NM (in a gallery across
> the street from the Kit Carson Museum). It is stylistically very different
> from 'typical' Mtn Man stuff......

What year was this jacket collected from? If it was from mid to late in the
1800's then it may not be representative of what Kit and others wore in the
field. If you mean different from what many wear today that is not surprising.
If you mean different from what the historical record (such as it is ) shows,
see first two lines above.

> The Jacket had 'cut-outs' which means
> cuts are made in the solid buckskin to form a pattern. This isn't done on
> the edge, but within the main body of the buckskin. His were done in the
> area next to the buttons on one side and the button holes on the other. His
> buckskins were fairly dark golden smoked, and behind the cut-outs was white
> buckskin, that showed through quite dramatically. It was really cool, but
> unlike anything else I'd ever seen. I wish I had a picture I could post for
> you.

I think I have seen jackets like this in pictures or other museums but cool or
not is it what was worn on the frontier in the early 1800's? I personally
suspect not.

> Cut-outs were fairly common on Native American shirts from the Plains, but
> not with any kind of backing besides their own bare skin. To get a basic
> idea of what I mean by cut-outs, check out the collar area of Michelle's
> dress at www.braintan.com/buckskindesigns/dress.html . Its not meant to be
> period, but she incorporated this traditional motif.

Haven't gone to see the dress yet but I bet it is beautiful. The problem is that
if you take such a garment that isn't period by your own observation to a
rendezvous, others that don't know will think that this is what was worn and
will copy the mistake. That is why we are where we are today on many things.

> I'm also curious about the basis of your comment "the Mt. Man did not always
> where
> leather. Cloth was much more popular and widely worn than popularly thought"
> While it is clear that cloth was used and not uncommon; in any paintings,
> drawings or writings of this era in the Rocky Mtn. that I have seen,
> buckskin does predominate. Are you talking about in the settlements....or do
> some people believe cloth wasn't used at all?

The accounts and ledgers of goods that went west with the traders are full of a
large assortment of cloth yardage's and garments for sale to the trapper,
engage', factor, and indian. It makes a much more romantic picture to dress you
hero's in buckskin but does that jive with the reality of the historical record?
The use of leather as a total covering was not as widely used as is thought. For
leggings and foot coverings and when something of cloth wore out, yes. But I
don't believe they all wore buckskin from head to toe but rather  wore cloth
when they could. I'm also pretty sure they didn't throw away their cloth
clothing as they crossed the Wide Missouri.

> My last question for ya, is what other leathers do you know were used by Mtn
> Men of this era. I know bark tan was common for certain articles, and have
> seen clear references to alum tan....anything else?

Oil tan for one. There is a good article on period leather in one of the last
volumes of "The Book of Buckskinning" series. The manufacture of leather by
europeans on this continent goes way back and the "Mt. Man" didn't reject the
goods of the east, but far from it hungered for many such things. Many pairs of
manufactured shoes went west to the gatherings  and surely not to sell or trade
to the indians. They weren't made of brain tan either. Not an expert on any
thing and surely not on types of leather. I do love brain tan and wear as much
of it as I can stand. I assume you tan?

Well hope this didn't come over as condescending or dismissive of your thoughts.
That is not the intent. These are my considered opinions and I'm sure there are
large holes in my understanding of the era. You too have an obvious interest in
historically correct re-enacting and much knowledge too. Hope this has been of
help. I remain.......

YMOS
Capt. Lahti'

>
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:28:25 -0500
From: Linda Holley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Braintan & Buff Robes and Smoke???

You are right on the tipis for the covers.  It seems many a moc. was made from
the cover.  But it did take time to smoke it up.  Some lodges lasted a little
longer.   Thanks for reminding me of the usage of Smoky old tipi covers.

Linda Holley

[e-mail] wrote:

> Linda wrote:
> > Has that life style been in a tipi????  I try not to smoke mine up.  And as
> > for hanging my leathers around the old lining of the tipi, not so.
>
> Early tipis were made from hides.  While I can't remember the reference, it
> was quoted that after one year as a tipi covering, the now-smoked hides were
> turned into robes, clothing, mocs and other accessories; and the process
> started over again with fresh hides every year.  This would seem logical and
> would kill two birds with one hide.
>
> Dave Kanger

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:26:56 -0800
From: Roger Lahti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: misc. topics

Allen,

You rascal. Here I spend most of my available brain power  trying to say
what you just said in my feeble way and you are setting there typing out
what all wanted to hear said in the first place! At least we agree. And
now I know which Allen Chronister you are. I know there are not two of
you. Well I enjoyed your BOB VII article and wish such had been done
decades ago. Thanks for the excellent clarification of this topic. I
remain.......

YMOS
Capt. Lahti'

Allen Chronister wrote:

> Every time I tell myself I don't need to spout off
> something comes along, such as Linda Holley's
> suggestion that I jump in.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:30:16 -0500
From: "John L. Allen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Mileage

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01BE292A.82AE9F80
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Gail,

Yeah, ain't it so. One of the things that first got me interested in =
distance perception was reading migrant journals and comparing distance =
estimates with my "known" environment of the High Plains / Rocky =
Mountain front region. A story: Part of my growing-up was in Laramie, =
Wyoming: high basin country with a major mountain range to the west, =
about 30 miles away. My grandpa used to tell of an Eastern tourist who =
started out early one morning to walk from Laramie to the mountains. =
About noon, a rancher west of town found the dude, stripped to his =
skivvies and about to dive into an irrigation ditch in the rancher's hay =
meadow. Since the ditch was only a couple of feet wide, the rancher =
asked the greenhorn what in the world was he doing. The dude's reply: =
"Well, I've been walking all morning to get to those mountains that are =
so near I can practically reach out and touch them. I'm no closer to =
them now than when I started six hours ago--and I'm not about to try to =
jump over this ditch."

Easterners and mid-Westerners often had (and have) trouble judging =
Western distances. They were and are fooled by the clarity of the =
atmosphere at higher elevations, an effect that often makes distant =
objects appear closer to eyes accustomed to looking through "more air" =
(the atmosphere is noticeably more dense at sea level than it is at a =
mile above sea level). My guess is that the Oregon-bound Missouri farmer =
in 1846 could estimate distances in his native Missouri just fine. But =
put him in the High Plains of eastern Nebraska, in the clear air of 5000 =
feet of elevation and a dry climate, and asking him to judge the =
distance from, say,  the Platte River to Chimney Rock would have yielded =
pretty inaccurate results. The mountain men, on the other hand, =
operating in their known environment of high altitudes, dry air, and =
"large" landscapes, would have judged distances much more accurately.

John

Dr. John L. Allen
21 Thomas Drive
Storrs, CT 06268
860/487-1346
[e-mail]


  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Gail Carbiener=20
  To: [e-mail]=20
  Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 12:28 PM
  Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Mileage


  John, et al.
      At a later date, it is interesting to read how many emigrants on =
the Oregon, California, Morman Trails misjudged the distance to major =
landmarks such as mountain tops or even Chimney Rock in Wyoming. Almost =
all diaries record that it "looks so close" but ends up being miles =
farther than estimated.=20
  Gail
  =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D

- ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01BE292A.82AE9F80
Content-Type: text/html;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 =
HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<STYLE></STYLE>

<META content=3D'"MSHTML 5.00.0910.1309"' name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Gail,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Yeah, ain't it so. One of the things that first got =
me=20
interested in distance perception was reading migrant journals and =
comparing=20
distance estimates with my "known" environment of the High =
Plains /=20
Rocky Mountain front region. A story: Part of my growing-up was in =
Laramie,=20
Wyoming: high basin country with a major mountain range to the west, =
about 30=20
miles away. My grandpa used to tell of an Eastern tourist who started =
out early=20
one morning to walk from Laramie to the mountains. About noon, a rancher =
west of=20
town found the dude, stripped to his skivvies and about to dive into an=20
irrigation ditch in the rancher's hay meadow. Since the ditch was only a =
couple=20
of feet wide, the rancher asked the greenhorn what in the world was he =
doing.=20
The dude's reply: "Well, I've been walking all morning to get to =
those=20
mountains that are so near I can practically reach out and touch them. =
I'm no=20
closer to them now than when I started six hours ago--and I'm not about =
to try=20
to jump over this ditch."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Easterners and mid-Westerners often had (and have) =
trouble=20
judging Western distances. They were and are fooled by the clarity of =
the=20
atmosphere at higher elevations, an effect that often makes distant =
objects=20
appear closer to eyes accustomed to looking through "more air" =
(the=20
atmosphere is noticeably more dense at sea level than it is at a mile =
above sea=20
level). My guess is that the Oregon-bound Missouri farmer in 1846 could =
estimate=20
distances in his native Missouri just fine. But put him in the High =
Plains of=20
eastern Nebraska, in the clear air of 5000 feet of elevation and a dry =
climate,=20
and asking him to judge the distance from, say,  the Platte River to =
Chimney=20
Rock would have yielded pretty inaccurate results. The mountain men, on =
the=20
other hand, operating in their known environment of high altitudes, dry =
air, and=20
"large" landscapes, would have judged distances much more=20
accurately.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>John</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Dr. John L. Allen<BR>21 Thomas Drive<BR>Storrs, CT=20
06268<BR>860/487-1346<BR>[e-mail]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----=20
  <DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A=20
  href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]" title=[e-mail]>Gail Carbiener</A> =
</DIV>
  <DIV><B>To:</B> <A href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]"=20
  title=[e-mail]>[e-mail]</A> =
</DIV>
  <DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, December 16, 1998 12:28 PM</DIV>
  <DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: MtMan-List: Mileage</DIV></DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>John, et al.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>    At a later =
date, it is=20
  interesting to read how many emigrants on the Oregon, California, =
Morman=20
  Trails misjudged the distance to major landmarks such as mountain tops =
or even=20
  Chimney Rock in Wyoming. Almost all diaries record that it "looks =
so=20
  close" but ends up being miles farther than estimated. =
</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT><FONT =
size=3D2>Gail</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT=20
size=3D2>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01BE292A.82AE9F80--

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:34:00 -0800
From: Roger Lahti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: French/Indian

Turtle,

Let them be adamant. The Scotts were very prominent in the fur trade as
leaders, owners, workers and trappers. As to being welcome, there are many
who have gone before you so don't feel like you are breaking new ground by
coming to rendezvous dressed and outfitted more like someone from the F and
I or longhunter era. My philosophy with the fellas I have influence with is:
re-create whom ever you want in the pre 1840 time frame, just do it right! I
remain....

YMOS
Capt. Lahti'

[e-mail] wrote:

>     Greetings to the list,
>
>     I know the Mt. Man era doesn't cover the French/Indian war, but I
> was wondering

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:35:34 -0600
From: "Glenn Darilek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: References to Traps

Why do I get the impression that I am being set up on this one?

<Opinion starts here> "Firearms, Traps, & Tools of the Mountain Men" by Carl
P. Russell.  <Opinion stops here> I have the Seventh Printing, University of
New Mexico Press that has 60+ pages on beaver traps and trapping.  That is
more than I would ever want to know about beaver traps.

Iron Burner


- -----Original Message-----
From: Marion D. Watts <[e-mail]>
To: MtMan-List <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 2:33 PM
Subject: MtMan-List: References to Traps


>In the reader's opinion, what is the single best reference to traps used
>during the Fur Trade era?
>
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:39:13 -0600
From: "Glenn Darilek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Period Clothing and Materials

Indeed, the whims of fashion produced the livelihood of the mountain men.

Iron Burner

- -----Original Message-----
From: Linda Holley

> Fashion at this time period said who you
>were in society.  Status was everything to men and women.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 98 19:31:17 -0700
From: Phyllis and Don Keas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Period Clothing and Materials

I sort of agree and disagree with both of you.  I don't think being in
fashion was that big a deal to the mountain men.  What I figure is this.
When your pants wore out in the mountains you would luse them for a pattern
to make buckskin pants.  If your old ones were drop fronts(prevalent at
that time) your new buckskins would be in fashion whether you intended for
them to be or not.

DON AND PHYLLIS KEAS ---LIving History Consultants

Linda Holley wrote:
>Unfortunately I think you are wrong.  Fashion at this time period said
who you
>were in society.  Status was everything to men and women.   They may not
have
>been as modest (thanks to the Victorians) as we are today...are we???
Thank God
>today we have the freedom to wear what we want.   But they were the
slaves to
>fashion.  Now it did take some styles 100  or so years to change, but
you took
>care of those clothes.  Clothing is even mentioned as part of your
wealth
>because
>it was so expensive to make or have.  They didn't have walk-in-closets
back
>then.  Most everything you had in clothing could be put in a bag.  Part
of the
>estate wills , lists how many dresses, shirts, chemise, blouses, stays,
>waistcoats, etc. you may have owned.  (Any cross dressers out there???)
 These
>were passed down and used by the next generation.   There are several
books
>written at the time period which go into how your clothing looked on
them
>and how
>many times worn.  What the item was worn for and how to change that one
little
>scarf to make it change for the occasion.  The morals, mental attitudes
toward
>sex, women and men are very different today than then.   It did affect
what they
>wore, when and how.
>    Must go....have to throw that "T-shirt" on for the formal dinner I
am going
>to.  Now,  do I wear the one with the Santa or the one with the blinking
>lights.   And did I mention pants.
>
>Linda Holley
>
>[e-mail] wrote:
>
>> I think that you have hit upon my sentiments exactly.  The people of
the 19th
>> century
>> certainly weren't as concerned about the fashion police as we in the
20th
>> century ssem to be.  I am a quillwork.  I do both hitorically
accurrate and
>> creative pieces.  I am guided by who commissions what and when they
want to
>> pay me.  I have traced my family roots back to the 1600's and am
pretty sure
>> they operated in the same way.
>>
>> Red Hawk
>>
>> [e-mail]
>
>
>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Received: from lists.xmission.com [198.60.22.7] by mail.market1.com with
ESMTP
>  (SMTPD32-4.03) id A891B013E; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:39:29 MDT
>Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 2.05 #1)
>    id 0zqOe7-0006gX-00
>    for [e-mail]; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:38:15 -0700
>Received: from [24.129.0.53] (helo=escambia.se.mediaone.net)
>    by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
>    id 0zqOe5-0006gS-00
>    for [e-mail]; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:38:13 -0700
>Received: from mediaone.net (surf4636.jacksonville.net [24.129.50.236])
>    by escambia.se.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA23529
>    for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:38:10 -0500
(EST)
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:46:51 -0500
>From: Linda Holley <[e-mail]>
>Organization: Holley Arts
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-DIAL  (Win98; U)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Period Clothing and Materials
>References: <[e-mail]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>X-UIDL: 909625004
>Status: U
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:46:29 -0500
From: Linda Holley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: misc. topics

Thanks Allen, I knew you couldn't resist to fill in the giant gaps I
left out.  Your knowledge is greatly appreciated.  I learn a lot from
you.

Linda Holley

Allen Chronister wrote:

> Every time I tell myself I don't need to spout off
> something comes along, such as Linda Holley's
> suggestion that I jump in.  So, this is 2 cents
> worth on a couple of recent items:
> 1.  There were many, many commercial tanneries in
> the US in the erly 19th century.  Enough that most
> any community of any size had one relatively close
> by.  Most of the tanning was for heavy leather,
> but a significant part went into garment leather
> which in turn was mostly used for breeches and
> gloves.  I believe that as the breeches went out
> of fashion in the first quarter of the 19th
> century, leather pantaloons were manufactured on
> the same basis.  As far as I know most of this
> tanning was bark tanning.  There is an obscure
> Smithsonian publication called something like the
> history of tanning in America that has a lot of
> info in it.
> It is very difficult to know whether a pair of
> "leather" or "deer skin" or "hide" (all terms
> being used) pantaloons bought at the AFC retail
> store in St Louis were made of native-prepared
> ("Braintain") hide or commercially-tanned hide.
> (Same goes for leather  "hunting shirts" from same
> time and place)  I believe it could have been
> either.
> Its too bad that someone does not turn out bark
> tan garment leather today (or do they?)
> 2.  Yes, indeed, the "mountain man" of the 1820-30
> period had and used lots of fabric clothing.
> While it was leather that they tended to mentionin
> their diary descriptions of their colorful friends
> and that AJ Miller painted and drew, it was cloth
> that they bought when they had the chance.  Cloth
> shirts, vests, pantaloons and coats were very
> common in the field in the West.  Please see the
> piece that Clay Landry and I did in BOB VII for
> more info.
> 3.  I believe that Plains Indian people used
> smoked hides much more than "common knowledge"
> would lead you to believe for all kinds of
> applications, not just everyday clothes.  There
> are numerous references to old lodge covers being
> recycled into clothing and other uses.  Gilbert
> Wilson's ethnographical material on the Hidatsa is
> a good source that comes to mind.  Much of the old
> bead and quillwork was done on soft, very dark
> brown buffalo hide that almost certainly came from
> old lodges.  35 years ago Norm Feder and Milford
> Chandler tried to coin the term "old tipi top" for
> this material, but it never really caught on.
> In addition, very close inspection of finer,
> special-occasion19the century items (such as
> pipebags and heavily beaded moccasins) shows that
> they were not-uncommonly made from smoked hide.
> After 150 years or so the smell and usually most
> of the color is gone, and all that would vary
> depending on how heavily it was smoked to begin
> with.   A friend of mine who gets to handle a lot
> of original 19th century Plains material has
> gotten me clued into the fact that smoked hide was
> the original basis for much of the finer items
> that many of us have always just assumed was made
> with white hide because it was "dress" or
> "ceremonial" stuff.
> See what I mean, don't know when to stop.
> Allen Chronister

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 21:20:09 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Some questions

Broom straw is grown.  I have seen craftsmen making brooms at Silver Dollar
City in Branson, MO during their craft festivile during the entire month of
Oct.

------------------------------

End of hist_text-digest V1 #194
*******************************

-
 To unsubscribe to hist_text-digest, send an email to
"[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe hist_text-digest" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.