ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/hist_text/archive/v01.n199

Internet Message Format | 1998-12-17 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (hist_text-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: hist_text-digest V1 #199
Reply-To: hist_text
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


hist_text-digest       Friday, December 18 1998       Volume 01 : Number 199




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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:40:00 -0700
From: "Matt Richards" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: More on early tanneries

Great comments on early tanneries, does this book point to any of the actual
tanning processes, ie bark tan, oil tan or what?

Matt Richards
www.braintan.com
2755 Sinclair Creek Rd
Eureka MT 59917
406-889-5532

Use your brains at www.braintan.com for natural tanning
and leather resources, online articles, reviews, tools, books
and class schedules.
- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: More on early tanneries


>The following citations all come from "The Fur Trade," Vol. II, written by
>Paul C. Phillips, University of Oklahoma Press, 1961.  While not as
detailed
>as one might like, these references establish that there was a lot of
>"manufacturing" of leather products in America in its early years.   I'll
keep
>looking.
>
>p. 120 - "During the early years of the republice, the fabrication of pelts
>was an important industry.  Imports from Europe were scarce, and hats,
shoes,
>and clothing were produced almost entirely within the United States.
Textile
>manufactures had not yet developed, and the chief raw material was the
pelts
>of animals.  Tanneries used deerskins for the manufacture of leather, and
>these skins came from the South as well as from the country along the
northern
>Alleghenies."
>
>p. 120 - The furriers and tanners of the day operated individually, on a
small
>scale.  But there were many of them - enough to supply the needs of the
>country - and the aggregate of their business was large.  Their names have
>mostly been forgotten, although the biographer of Astor has resurrected a
>number of them who were associated with the great fur merchant in the early
>years of his career.  These include Robert Browne, the Quaker merchant,
Hayman
>Levy, a Mr. Wilson, and Cornelius Heyer and Cornelius Heeney, who may have
>been the same person."
>
>p. 152 - "Philadelphia was second in importance to New York, in both
trading
>and manufacture of pelts.  It was the center of a long established tanning
>industry, and used many deerskins."
>
>p. - 161 - "Self-sufficiency had been forced on the country by a long
period
>of commercial restriction [due to the War of 1812].  As a result,
manufactures
>had developed, and among the important were manufactures from furs and
skins.
>Leather-tanning had expanded to a value of more than $12,000,000 a year and
>used all the deerskins available."
>
>Jim Hardee, AMM#1676
>P.O. Box 1228
>Quincy, CA  95971
>[phone] (H)
>[phone] (W)
>[phone] FAX
>[e-mail]
>
>

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:43:44 -0700
From: "Matt Richards" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: misc topics

 Capt Lahti says:
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 don't believe I or anyone in this conversation has professed an interest
in going 'willie-nillie' in creating new and individual way of dressing for
the present day historical re-enactment. That this is a current problem or
gripe, I recognize, but that isn't the direction of this conversation.


Matt Richards
www.braintan.com
2755 Sinclair Creek Rd
Eureka MT 59917
406-889-5532

Use your brains at www.braintan.com for natural tanning
and leather resources, online articles, reviews, tools, books
and class schedules.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Roger Lahti <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: misc topics


>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'
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:45:57 -0600
From: John Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: period tanning / Alans comments

Matt, Bob and Alan,

Great thread.  The link to "The Pennsylvania Gazette" is invaluable.

One receipt from 1825 calls for white vitriol (sulphate of zinc), cream of
tartar, sal ammoniac (muriate of ammonia), vitriolic acid (sulphuric), nitric
acid, spirit of salt (hydrochloric acid), oak bark, sumach, elm bark,
sassafras, lignum vitae, and water.  All in the same receipt.

Some receipts are quite simple and only include one or two materials, some are
very complex; I've always considered all of the ingredients a part of the
tanning process.  Bark tanning can produce very hard leathers which are
primarily what we see today; the old receipts include many other techniques in
combination with bark and seem to indicate supple leathers could also be
produced using bark.

From the same period I have recipes which include dog and pigeon dung used
with
water and sumach, several call for soaking in a fermented liquor of bran and
water, some with and some without oil, alum or tannin.  One oil tan receipt
makes extensive use of both quicklime and slacked lime in preparation for the
oiling which follows a long soak in fermented bran liquor.

I asked about the term "dressing" as all of the old receipts I've encountered
using this term only refer to mixtures which are applied to finished goods for
preservation or protection.

Oil, alum and other leather receipts are included with the tannin based
receipts and all are called "tanning" even though the only early 1800's
definition I've encountered states that tanning is to saturate a skin with
tannin to promote the slow combination with the gelatine, albumen and fibrine
contained in the hide.  Pretty much what you said only not as technical.

If I get some extra time I'll dig out some references to some of the other
materials.  Time has recently been in short supply, for quite a while.

More old receipts I've found include alum than even bark, the acids and
arsenics are more unusual.  The best "tan" oak was taken from the Live Oak
tree
which is in short supply today, most common now in Texas and I think
protected.  As you said many trees were used for tanning in the past.

RE: urine tan;  have you ever smelled cheap modern Mexican garment or
upholstery leather after a rain storm?  They couldn't be using anything else.
I'll keep an eye out for the old reference buried somewhere in my piles of
stuff.

Many of the old methods we will never know as they were amongst the "secrets"
of a trade: and protected by the Masters of the guilds.  A very common problem
when working with old ways.

John...

At 02:45 PM 12/17/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Johns reply to my comment of not knowing of any other period tanning methods
>besides bark, brain, oil and alum was:
>
>Except for oil tanning, egg tanning, urine tanning, buttermilk tanning, sour
>>milk tanning, arsenic tanning and acid tanning.
>>
>
>I guess a lot has to do with how we define our terms. The term 'brain
>tanning' did not exist to my knowledge before modern times. The accepted way
>(among the leather industry) of defining tanning terms is based on how the
>actual chemical change is affected on the leather. If something actually
>changes the collagen proteins of the skin, permanently, it is a 'tanning'
>agent.
>
>I am well aware that there was an incredibly wide variety of substances used
>and substituted in various tanning recipes throughout the ancient
>world....but often it is still considered the same method of tanning. From
>the example above 'sour milk tanning, buttermilk tanning, and egg tanning'
>are generally considered the same thing as 'brain tanning' as they affect
>the leather in the same way. Soap tanning does too. Oil tanning is a
>different process because the fish oils (usually cod) oxidize extremely
>easily, and in this oxidation they create polymers which change the collagen
>fibers of the skin. You can not wash out the effects of true 'oil tans'
>There is actually reasonable speculation that this type of tanning was being
>done by many native tribes in the northwest, and was clearly done by
>Europeans of this era on many of the deerskins that were exported to that
>continent. Oil tanning is a term that is commonly thrown around by people
>any time an oil is added to the tanning mix, not really knowing what it
>means.
>
>As far as urine tanning goes, I'd love to see some evidence of this. I've
>met one man so far, who claims to have actually seen someone 'urine tan' and
>he has described it to me in detail....so I'm gonna try it. But for the most
>part, it seems to be a term that is thrown around, with little real basis.
>Urine was commonly used by NW Coast and Arctic people to strip the oils out
>of skins that were otherwise just too dang oily to do anything with, but not
>as a 'tanning' agent.
>
>And while there were many, many sources of tannins for bark tanning, its
>still just considered bark tanning. The hides you are referring too that
>were sent from San Franciso to Boston, were destined for bark tanneries (and
>soon a huge bark tanning industry developed in California based on Tan Oak).
>
>Lime and saltpeter were both used in many traditional tanning methods, but
>neither is a 'tanning' agent, and wouldn't be known as 'lime tan' or
>anything like that. Lime was used in the first recorded account of Comanche
>brain tanning, and is standard in chrome tanning and bark tanning.
>
>As far as arsenic and acid (besides tannic) tans go, these are modern
>methods as far as I know. Do you know of any references to these being done
>during or before the period we are talking about?
>
>
>You asked what I thought of the comments about brain tanning being a
>dressing rather than a true tanning.....
>
>I do not know what the accepted definition of tanning was back in the early
>1800's, but in modern times, 'tanning' occurs when the protein fibers
>(collagen) are permanently changed in their composition, so that the skin
>can never go back to rawhide. Brains do not do this, unless they do a very,
>very, weak oil tan (by oxidizing).....and I think it is more accurate to
>call it a dressing (experimenting with, I have successfully completely
>removed all of the effects of the braining by putting a brained and softened
>hide in a running creek for three days....all of the tactilely discernable
>effects of the brains were gone, it was rawhide again)....however smoke does
>tan a hide.
>
>Smoke contains a gaseous form of formaldehyde which is why it preserves
>stuff (and one reason that it is carcinogenic). It causes the collagen
>proteins to form new links to one another at different points on the protein
>chain (this is all in leather chemistry books if anyone is real interested I
>could give you some good titles). In graphic terms, it causes the fibers to
>form little bridges between one another that are permanent. You can not wash
>out the effects of the smoke....the color will wash out, but not the
>'tanning'. It'd be more accurate if we all referred to it as 'smoke tanning'
>and 'brain dressing' like some folks do....but the term 'brain tanning' is
>popular and here to stay.
>
>As a side note, 'Alum Tanning' is not generally accepted as a 'true' tanning
>method, because the affects can be easily washed out. That is one reason it
>is generally referred to as 'Tawing' rather than tanning.
>
>A great book on ancient tanning methods and recipes from throughout the
>world, with excellent yet understandable explanations of the chemistry and
>related processes is 'Ancient Skins, Parchments, and Leathers' by Ronald
>Reed. It also talks about the conversion of parchments to leathers that you
>were referring too.
>
>Matt Richards
><http://www.braintan.com/>www.braintan.com
>
Use it up, wear it out, make do, or do without.
John Kramer  <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:05:34 -0700
From: "Matt Richards" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: period clothing

Whats interesting to me in this discussion, is that I see many of the folks
who I'm assuming have been doing this for a long time, easily coming to the
conclusion that any ideas of altering period clothing as equalling the
wholesale bastardization of what was worn. My guess is that this is a hot
issue because so many folks do wholesale bastardizations, and that this is a
long standing issue.

The original context of this conversation was not the idea that one has the
right to run 'willie-nillie' over period styles, but that perhaps mtn men of
this era did alter some of their stuff to make it more practical for their
immediate survival situations, within the context of period materials,
technology and styles. This is a far jump from the defensive stances that I
read several of you taking. If you could not lump this with the countless
previous discussions you've perhaps had with folks who've wanted to just
make what'ever the hell they want, and look at the actual context of the
conversation, I think we would get farther with it.

In all due respect,

Matt Richards
www.braintan.com

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:16:28 -0800
From: "Gail Carbiener" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: period clothing

Waugh:
    I have read with interest the discussions on clothing and now on
tanning. Great infomation............ but it seems that after a day or two
we begin to start using the "you" and "I" and the discussion goes to hell in
a hurry. Maybe that is an indication that we have said all there is to say!
    Gail Carbiener
===================================================
- -----Original Message-----
From: Matt Richards <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, December 17, 1998 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: period clothing


>Whats interesting to me in this discussion, is that I see many of the folks
>who I'm assuming have been doing this for a long time, easily coming to the
>conclusion that any ideas of altering period clothing as equalling the
>wholesale bastardization of what was worn. My guess is that this is a hot
>issue because so many folks do wholesale bastardizations, and that this is
a
>long standing issue.
>
>The original context of this conversation was not the idea that one has the
>right to run 'willie-nillie' over period styles, but that perhaps mtn men
of
>this era did alter some of their stuff to make it more practical for their
>immediate survival situations, within the context of period materials,
>technology and styles. This is a far jump from the defensive stances that I
>read several of you taking. If you could not lump this with the countless
>previous discussions you've perhaps had with folks who've wanted to just
>make what'ever the hell they want, and look at the actual context of the
>conversation, I think we would get farther with it.
>
>In all due respect,
>
>Matt Richards
>www.braintan.com
>
>
>

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:45:11 -0800
From: Roger Lahti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: period clothing

Matt,

So I'm listening. Whether  needed or not I am taking a deep breath and waiting
to clearly see  the actual content of the conversation. In all due respect. I
remain.....

YMOS
Capt. Lahti'

Matt Richards wrote:

> Whats interesting to me in this discussion, is that I see many of the folks
> who I'm assuming have been doing this for a long time, easily coming to the
> conclusion that any ideas of altering period clothing as equalling the
> wholesale bastardization of what was worn. My guess is that this is a hot
> issue because so many folks do wholesale bastardizations, and that this is a
> long standing issue.
>
> The original context of this conversation was not the idea that one has the
> right to run 'willie-nillie' over period styles, but that perhaps mtn men of
> this era did alter some of their stuff to make it more practical for their
> immediate survival situations, within the context of period materials,
> technology and styles. This is a far jump from the defensive stances that I
> read several of you taking. If you could not lump this with the countless
> previous discussions you've perhaps had with folks who've wanted to just
> make what'ever the hell they want, and look at the actual context of the
> conversation, I think we would get farther with it.
>
> In all due respect,
>
> Matt Richards
> www.braintan.com

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:50:35 -0700
From: "Matt Richards" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: period tanning / Matt's reply to John's comments

From John Kramer,

>From the same period I have recipes which include dog and pigeon dung used
>with
>water and sumach, several call for soaking in a fermented liquor of bran
and
>water, some with and some without oil, alum or tannin.

This is really cool to hear of in an American context (are these recipes in
an early American context?). These methods were very common in europe and
were generally known as 'bating' (for the dog and pigeon dung) or
'drenching' for the fermented bran.

They are not 'tanning' agents, but were used after the liming process to
further remove the mucus that inhibits the penetration of the tanning
agents.  A very typical process is: 1. flesh,
2. soak the hides in lime,
3. scrape (in modern times, split),
4. de-lime (in plain water or weak acids such as vinegar)
5. bate or drench.
6. soak in tannins for bark tan or cod oil for an oil tan
7. if a bark tan, then apply an oil 'dressing' of dubbin or tallow.

The mucus I am referring to is found in all fresh skin, and has the function
of allowing small molecules (like water and nutrients) to pass through,
while inhibiting large molecules (such as bacteria and unfortunately for the
tanner----oils or tannins).

To remove this mucus is a basic step in any tanning process.

Any kind of alkaline soak of the proper strength will remove most of it
(such as a wood-ash lye, lime (either slaked or hydrated), or commercial lye
(sodium hydroxide).

Wood-ash lyes were very commonly used by native american tribes when brain
tanning, and I would argue that for brain tanning, the purpose was not to
slip the hair so much as to improve brain penetration (the two earliest
sources that describe native tanning in detail both emphasize the use of
wood-ash soaks------George Catlin, and John D. Hunter). Understanding this,
and the resulting experiments that Michelle and I did are what resulted in
our book 'Deerskins into Buckskins'. It makes the brains penetrate far
better and easier, and greatly simplified our tanning.

After the hide is soaked in alkali, and that alkali is rinsed out in plain
water, hides can be soaked in biologically active acids ---- which is where
the dog and pigeon dung, or fermented brans come into play (no evidence of
this in Indian tanning and not something that we do, though I would like to
play with it). The bacteria feed on the sugars that are in any remaining
mucus (this mucus is a 'muco-polysaccharide', the saccharide being the
sugar), and consume it, further opening up the hide structure and making it
easier for your tanning agents to reach the fibers themselves.

These substances were particularly used for soft leathers as it supposedly
really loosens things up. In modern tanning this is still practiced, but the
active enzymes have been isolated and can be applied in very controlled
chemical situations (no need for anymore dog shit). Another material
commonly used for this was beer dregs (another enzymatically active acid
that digests sugar).

>One oil tan receipt
>makes extensive use of both quicklime and slacked lime in preparation for
the
>oiling which follows a long soak in fermented bran liquor.

This is and was a common practice in most tanning methods for the reasons
stated above.

>I asked about the term "dressing" as all of the old receipts I've
encountered
>using this term only refer to mixtures which are applied to finished goods
for
>preservation or protection.

Dressing commonly refers to the oiling of a hide to improve its
pliability.....which is what tallows and dubbins applied after a bark tan
do. The hide is already tanned, by the bark, but the oils make it far more
pliable and soft.

One of the weird things about 'brain' tanning is that this is generally done
before the actually  tanning (by the smoke). This is partly the concept
behind the 'pre-smoking' that the Dinsmore's do. In their method (also used
by various Canadian tribes on their Moose skins), the tanning comes first
and then the dressing...as in most commercial tanning methods.

The challenge with understanding references to oils and tanning is that oils
are used for two purposes.......for both tanning and 'dressing'. Different
oils are generally used for each. Cod oil is, and was, the oil preferred for
oil tanning (changing the actual structure of the fibers)-----it is
reasonably safe (though not completely, because it can be used as a
dressing) to assume that where-ever cod oil is mentioned in association with
tanning that an oil tan is being practiced-----, while dubbins and tallows
were used for 'dressing'. In reading the historical record this can be quite
confusing for folks who don't understand this distinction.

The properties of 'oil-tans' are very similar to that of 'brain tans', in
look, feel and use.
They can be reasonably inexpensive as it does lend itself to a modern
industrial tanning process---- I think it is an excellent choice for folks
who don't want to spend the money or time on brain tan, a far better choice
than chrome-tan. Crazy Crow currently has a great deal on German oil-tans.

I highly recommend 'Ancient Skins, Parchments, and Leathers' by Ronald Reed.
It describes all of this in terms that you don't need a leather chemistry
degree to understand. This book is available at most major University
libraries.

Matt Richards
www.braintan.com

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 03:12:33 -0800
From: "Jerry H. Wheeler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: period tanning / Alans comments

bark tan  was extensive in California a mans rigging hors gear was of a color
that if he road into strange camp you could tell by the color of the leather if
he was from California or the general area there of iv never heard of bark tan
being used for garments. to much tannic acid. bark tan a derivative of tan oak i
flourishes in this area. the wild cattle in this area and southern california
were used extensively for leather. they were killed just for the hides and left
to rot. the indians were used in the manufacture. i think texas was another area
that had this industry. some skins were shipped out all over the world and
indeed to Mexico. there were tanneries all over the southern ca area in late
1700 hud and early 1800hds. enough of my babble.    iron tongue.

Matt Richards wrote:

> Allen
> I appreciate your spoutin off! Makes for good conversation and learning. I
> disagree with you on a number of points....here goes.
>
> 1) You are right that there were 'commercial' tanneries throughout the
> colonies and states...and that they predominantly bark tanned. In the
> moderate amount of research I've done on this, I have found no evidence of
> any other type of tanning being done in a tannery of the day.
>
> Bark tan is not a material that has, or was, commonly used as a garment
> leather in any period of time. Bark tanned leather just doesn't lend itself
> well to garments (doesn't breath, is thicker and stiffer). Of course it's
> excellent for shoes (in town), bags, water bottles, belts and countless
> other uses. But garments ain't one of them (with the exception of armor in
> the middle ages). Do you have any evidence of it being used for shirts,
> jackets, breeches or the like during this era?
>
> Bark tanneries were in fact one of the very earliest forms of
> industrialization in the US, in the late 1700's. It lends itself to being
> industrialized because it requires an immense quantity of bark to be
> pounded, and that's the part of the process that was industrialized. Huge
> toothed wheels were pulled around in a circle by horses and mules to crush
> the bark.
>
> I have never heard of any other type of tannery in the early US, if anyone
> has, lets hear about it.
>
> 2.) Alan, you stated that "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."
>
> I am very curious to know of any primary sources for this information.
>
> My understanding from primary source research is that hundreds of thousands
> of hides were sent to England.....many of them already brain and smoke
> tanned by Natives (such as the Creeks). As the 1700's went on, an increasing
> amount of these exported deerskins were sent untanned. They were then tanned
> in Europe, using an oil tanning process, and many of these were then shipped
> back to the US for use in garments. Many more hides were tanned on people's
> homesteads and in their backyards for use as garment leathers (this is
> generally presumed to be brain tanning, though there isn't any specific
> evidence I know of.....the only other real option was alum tanning).
>
> I have never read of tanneries in the US making garment leathers in the
> 1700's or early 1800's, if you know of any sources for this information, I'd
> love to know about it for my own studies.
>
> 3) As far as hides being smoked or unsmoked on the plains. My previous
> statement was that smoking was not nearly as common of a practice amongst
> Native peoples as most people presume (the common line is that white hides
> were just for ceremonial use). You are right that there are many references
> of tipi tops being cut up into moccasins, and that you can certainly find
> pieces in museums that were smoked. You're also right that smoked buckskin
> washed a great deal starts to look like it may have never been smoked.
>
> My comments on smoking is not based on 'common knowlege' as you termed it,
> its based on studying ethnographies.....the earliest accounts of brain and
> smoke tanning that seem to exist. I have a bibliography of well over 100
> accounts of Native tanning processes that I'm planning to put up on
> braintan.com tomorrow. Admittedly, very few are pre-1840, but unfortunately
> there are very few detailed accounts of Plains Indian tanning pre-1840
> (exceptions being John D. Hunter's and George Catlin's).
>
> In all due respect, lets get down to the nitty gritty of what we really
> know, and what is supposition!
>
> Matt Richards
> www.braintan.com

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 20:23:00 -0500
From: "Barry Powell" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: Unsubscribe

Unsubscribe

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:09:20 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail] (Henry B. Crawford)
Subject: MtMan-List: Southwestern styles (aka Carson's jacket)

>One question for you all (as I am trying to learn your approach to this), if
>this coat can be reasonably placed as being used by Kit prior to 1840 in the
>Rocky Mtns, would its replica be considered period for what you folks do? Or
>is anything of Mexican or southwestern influence considered somehow off
>limits, or not a part of the same scene? Honest question...

First of all, you need not document that Carson wore it unless you're doing
Carson.  All you need to do is to document that the style was available and
used during the fur trade era in the west, and I think we've pretty much
established that.  Then you'd be alright to use it at a Rendezvous.
Listen, just because you're in Montana, doesn't mean you can't dress
SW'ern.  The name of your state is Spanish, btw.  There was already some
Spanish influence there.  Trappers roamed all over from the Missouri to the
Gila.  They didn't necessarily change their clothes from Northern to
Southern when they moved, unless climate dictated.  Traders came from all
over to attend a Rendezvous.  If they were more oriented to the SW like
Carson and Young, then they might have dressed more Southwestern.  Comfort
and protection from the elements were more important than conforming to
regional style.

I think you'd be alright wearing a period Southwestern style outfit at a
Montana rendezvous.  Listen pal, if they can have Eastern longhunters and
French Marines at a Rocky Mtn. do, and tipis at a Florida event, then I
think you are in good shape.  Whether you do the multi-decade Western fur
trade or more narrowly, just the 15 year Rendezvous period, any way you cut
it, Southwestern fur trade styles are more than appropriate at a Rondy.

Get yourself a copy of Book of Buckskinning Vol. IV.  It has an excellent
chapter on Southwestern clothing styles written by our friend Cathy Bauman.

Write me off line to talk about Montana.  I have many good friends there,
and I've done some research there as well.

Buena Suerte
HBC

*****************************************
Henry B. Crawford        Curator of History
[e-mail]     Museum of Texas Tech University
806/742-2442           Box 43191
FAX [phone]             Lubbock, TX  79409-3191
               WEBSITE: http://www.ttu.edu/~museum
******  Living History . . . Because it's there!  *******

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 08:42:06 -0700
From: "WILLIAM P. GARRISON" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [none]

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE2A62.62A38DC0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




unsubscribe


- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE2A62.62A38DC0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE2A62.62A38DC0--

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 10:46:08 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Angela Gottfred)
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: period tanning / Alans comments

Aaargh!! I thought I could rely on a nice, quiet Christmas season of Mtn Man
postings so that I would be able to get my packing finished for my January
move. But no, you guys just got real interesting all of a sudden...

*Leather breeches:* There is documentation for at least one pair of breeches
or trousers made from brain tanned leather for a fur trader. It was, if I
recall correctly, made by a voyageur for North West Company wintering
partner Archibald Norman McLeod c. 1803, when he was at Fort Alexandria (in
SW Manitoba). The reference is in Charles Gates' _Five Fur Traders of the
Northwest_. There are two pairs of English buckskin breeches from c. 1815
shown in _Revolution in Fashion_ (Jean Starobinski, ed; pp. 94, 150). In the
photographs, the leather looks to me like a heavy suede; it appears to be
heavier than the brain-tan I've seen. One pair is gold-coloured, the other
is white. The breeches are in the collection of the Kyoto Costume Institute,
who could settle this issue once & for all, if someone wants to write them.

*Who made the clothes?:* Here's a response from the perspective of the
Canadian fur trade, 1774-1821. The voyageurs of the North West Company had
most of their clothing supplied by their employers (See Alexander
Mackenzie's introduction to his _Voyages_.) By the early 1820's, the HBC was
also supplying their employees' clothing (George Simpson's _Athabasca
Journals_). Both companies also brought in a lot of clothing as trade goods.
However, the men also made their own winter clothing at least some of the
time--I have a few references to voyageurs and their wives making capots,
mittens, & socks as the winter begins. One of these is to David Thompson's
men & women making these items of clothing before crossing the Athabasca
Pass through the Rockies in 1810 (in Barbara Belyea's _Columbia Journals_).
Moccasins were made by the country wives or traded from local Native women.
Also, some fur posts had tailors. The HBC's Edmonton House (Edmonton,
Alberta), c. 1795-1798, was one; Fort William (Thunder Bay, Ontario), the
NWC headquarters, was another.

Can you tell that my library is half-packed already? "Dave, my mind is
going... I can feel it..." I can supply more details after we get unpacked
in mid-January ; just drop me a line if you need the full references. (My
e-mail address will stay the same.)

Your humble & obedient servant,
Angela Gottfred
[e-mail]

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

End of hist_text-digest V1 #199
*******************************

-
 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.