ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/hist_text/archive/v01.n549

Internet Message Format | 2000-05-12 | 43KB

From: [e-mail] (hist_text-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: hist_text-digest V1 #549
Reply-To: hist_text
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


hist_text-digest        Saturday, May 13 2000        Volume 01 : Number 549



In this issue:

-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Prining horn or not
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Tracking and Time Frame
-áááááá MtMan-List: New to List
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: New to List
-áááááá MtMan-List: Women and women's clothing (was: New to list)
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: New to List...Cloth dresses..Indian
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Sacagawea (was: The New Gold Dollar Coin)

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

Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 11:34:13 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Prining horn or not

In a message dated 5/11/00 7:44:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Having just gotten a couple of flinters, now comes the question...Do you
 carry a separate priming horn, why or why not? >>

When I hunt I charge and prime from the same horn with 3 F.  But at the range
or in a battle reinactment I use a priming horn or prime from pre rolled
cartridges.  I do that to avoid a major accident if the guy next to me has a
flash that  ignites my priming.  A small cartridge or priming horn going up
in flames will do less damage then the 1 pound of powder that my horn holds
if it were to ignite.

YMOS

C.T. Oakes

- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:12:38 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Bill Cunningham)
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Tracking and Time Frame

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BFBCC3.C434C320
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Wynn, try going up either Millville or Providence canyons out of Cache =
Valley. On the Millville canyon side, just before the two come together =
up on top, there is a stock pond on the North side of the trail/road. =
About center of the pond, and a hundred yards toward the Salt Lake, =
there is a slight prominence with a very comfortable rock. From it, you =
can watch the sun set over the lake while your horse crops the green =
grass around the pond. A great place to camp for the night, with lots of =
dry deadfall wood and plenty of grouse for dinner. One of my very =
favorite secret places in the Wasatch.
Bill C
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Wynn & Gretchen Ormond <[e-mail]>
    To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
    Date: Saturday, May 13, 2000 8:12 AM
    Subject: MtMan-List: Tracking and Time Frame
   =20
   =20
    Thank you to those who responded.  My questions are in part an =
attempt to get things "back to normal".  I do want to know the stuff, =
but this provided a good time to ask. =20
   =20
    However, I want to correct a wrong impression I purposely gave.  I =
do not live in Wyo.  J Smith refered to this area as a second home or =
some such.  If I remember right four groups of RMFTs all colided here in =
about 25.  My home is very near the lake that Mr Russell rode up so high =
to over look.  He hunted sheep in the cliffs near it.  I live in Willard =
Utah.   I worked on the benches above Bountiful last year, and the lake =
can be a pretty sight from up high on a winter eve.
   =20
    And Captian I get your point but my son and I ride through these =
hills on the same tall horse so at times like that, he is not "built =
closer to the ground".  He does have "fresh eyes" and that sometimes =
makes him my superior.  I wish I could write the words that could =
descibe the pleasure it is to sit a fine horse with that boy and follow =
a track in the fresh snow on a winter day.   Life is good.
    =20
    YMOS
    WY
     =20
   =20
    4 year old has fresh =3D eyes and is built closer to the ground


- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BFBCC3.C434C320
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 HTML 4.0 =
Transitional//EN">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>

</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Wynn, try going up either Millville =
or=20
Providence canyons out of Cache Valley. On the Millville canyon side, =
just=20
before the two come together up on top, there is a stock pond on the =
North side=20
of the trail/road. About center of the pond, and a hundred yards toward =
the Salt=20
Lake, there is a slight prominence with a very comfortable rock. From =
it, you=20
can watch the sun set over the lake while your horse crops the green =
grass=20
around the pond. A great place to camp for the night, with lots of dry =
deadfall=20
wood and plenty of grouse for dinner. One of my very favorite secret =
places in=20
the Wasatch.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2>Bill =
C</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px">
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><B>-----Original =
Message-----</B><BR><B>From:=20
    </B>Wynn & Gretchen Ormond <<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]</A>><BR><B>T=
o:=20
    </B><A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]=
</A>=20
    <<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]=
</A>><BR><B>Date:=20
    </B>Saturday, May 13, 2000 8:12 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>MtMan-List: =
Tracking=20
    and Time Frame<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thank you to those who =
responded.  My=20
    questions are in part an attempt to get things "back to=20
    normal".  I do want to know the stuff, but this provided a =
good=20
    time to ask.  </FONT></DIV>
    <DIV> </DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>However, I want to correct a wrong =
impression I=20
    purposely gave.  I do not live in Wyo.  J Smith refered to =
this=20
    area as a second home or some such.  If I remember right four =
groups of=20
    RMFTs all colided here in about 25.  My home is very near the =
lake that=20
    Mr Russell rode up so high to over look.  He hunted sheep in =
the cliffs=20
    near it.  I live in Willard Utah.   I worked on the =
benches=20
    above Bountiful last year, and the lake can be a pretty sight from =
up high=20
    on a winter eve.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV> </DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>And Captian I get your point but my =
son and I=20
    ride through these hills on the same tall horse so at times like =
that, he is=20
    not "built closer to the ground".  He does have =
"fresh=20
    eyes" and that sometimes makes him my superior.  I wish I =
could=20
    write the words that could descibe the pleasure it is to sit a fine =
horse=20
    with that boy and follow a track in the fresh snow on a winter=20
    day.   Life is good.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>YMOS</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>WY</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>  </FONT></DIV>
    <DIV> </DIV>
    <DIV>
    <P>4 year old has fresh =3D eyes and is built closer to the=20
ground</P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BFBCC3.C434C320--


- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 09:45:37 -0700
From: "Larry Huber" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: New to List

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BFBCBF.FE1AAE00
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello, again, Helen,
    I'm glad you found my suggestions helpful.  Your suggestions on =
dress: man's shirt, simple skirt and moccasins is very typical dress =
seen on women at today's rendezvous.  It's practical and was often worn, =
I suspect, by women isolated from the company of other women.  =
Historically, in societies, women did not dress like men or wear men's =
clothing except as expediency.  Today, of course, try telling that to a =
modern woman.   We are living in a modern society, so wear what you feel =
most comfortable in if history is not your prime objective.

    A white woman of the period we represent from England, France, =
Germany or America would wear garments consisting of the following: A =
shift or chemise undergarment with a petticoat (skirt) over it.  An =
apron went over the petticoat and a bodice(vest) went over the shift =
top.  Moccasins or clogs on the feet and a bonnet atop the head made up =
the typical outfit.
    The shift is a single night gown-like garment made of linen or =
cotton that fell just below the knees .  The sleeves extended just =
beyond the elbows and were tied down with cord or ribbon.
    The petticoat, as skirts were called then, wrapped around the waist =
and was tied with a sewn in cloth belt.  Slits were left in the side =
seams for access to "pockets" which were cloth bags tied with around the =
waist with ribbon.  These handy items, one to each side, rested between =
the shift and petticoat.  The first petticoat was the oldest and worn =
under several layers of additional petticoats depending on the weather.  =
The colder the climate, the more petticoats on top with the newest and =
best on top for church.
    Often, an apron was tied over the petticoat.  Some of the woman's =
best needlework could go into her "dress" apron.  It was the one item of =
clothing she would change if guests showed up unexpected! =20
    A woman was considered improperly dressed if she wasn't wearing a =
bodice and bonnet in public.  A bodice is basically a vest.  They laced =
or buttoned up the front.  The attributes a woman was blessed with would =
determine how far up the bodice the lacing would go.  Most bonnets were =
a variation on the "mob" cap.  The "Mary Washington" cap is a local term =
for it by modern costumers.  It is simplicity itself: a circle of cloth =
gathered about the head with a ribbon.
    A cautionary note about dresses and prairie bonnets.  They are =
inappropriate at a rendezvous.  Those items came into vogue at a later =
period and properly date from the 1850s on.  Those items look as wrong =
on a woman as cowboy clothes look on a man.
    If you are planning on going as a "captive", you should dress as an =
Indian woman.  A good pattern would be a dress made of simple print =
calico(one print on a base color)or solid color cloth cut to a "skin" =
shape.  This pattern is four pieces.  A front and back joined at the =
shoulders with an opening for the head and two side pieces that sew from =
the sleeve cuff all the way beyond the dress hem.  This leaves two ends =
of cloth dangling below the hem line on the sides.  This style mimicked =
the deer legs that hung naturally down from a deerskin dress.  It is a =
old style and quickly disappeared by the Indian War period.
    I hope this clarifies some of the information a gave you on our last =
post.  The history of clothing is an interesting aspect of this =
lifestyle and transports you more than anything else back in time.  When =
you start wearing oddly cut clothing of the day you, at first, find it =
inconvenient because it's different.  You know you've really bought into =
all this when you start wearing it around the house because it feels =
comfortable.  The styles of clothing worn during the fur trade era was =
clothing that had been worn virtually unchanged for hundreds of years.  =
It didn't change because it worked for the common person.  As settlement =
brought ready made clothing and the industrial revolution made such =
items affordable, clothing changed to reflect more fashionable styles.  =
The fur trade is at the end of an era.   And it's clothing was =
disappearing, too.
    Sigh.  I've rambled on too long again, Helen.  See what a little =
education and research will do to you?  Don't get us talking about the =
virtues or vices of flint versus percussion locks!

Good luck.
    Larry Huber

- ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BFBCBF.FE1AAE00
Content-Type: text/html;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hello, again, Helen,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    I'm glad you found =
my=20
suggestions helpful.  Your suggestions on dress: man's shirt, =
simple skirt=20
and moccasins is very typical dress seen on women at today's =
rendezvous. =20
It's practical and was often worn, I suspect, by women isolated from the =
company=20
of other women.  Historically, in societies, women did not dress =
like men=20
or wear men's clothing except as expediency.  Today, of course, try =
telling=20
that to a modern woman.   We <U>are </U>living in a =
modern=20
society, so wear what you feel most comfortable in if history is not =
your prime=20
objective.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    A white woman of the =
period we=20
represent from England, France, Germany or America would wear garments=20
consisting of the following: A shift or chemise undergarment with a =
petticoat=20
(skirt) over it.  An apron went over the petticoat and a =
bodice(vest) went=20
over the shift top.  Moccasins or clogs on the feet and a bonnet =
atop the=20
head made up the typical outfit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    The shift is a =
single night=20
gown-like garment made of linen or cotton that fell just below the knees =
. =20
The sleeves extended just beyond the elbows and were tied down with cord =
or=20
ribbon.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    The petticoat, as =
skirts were=20
called then, wrapped around the waist and was tied with a sewn in cloth=20
belt.  Slits were left in the side seams for access to "pockets" =
which were=20
cloth bags tied with around the waist with ribbon.  These handy =
items, one=20
to each side, rested between the shift and petticoat.  The first =
petticoat=20
was the oldest and worn under several layers of additional petticoats =
depending=20
on the weather.  The colder the climate, the more petticoats on top =
with=20
the newest and best on top for church.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    Often, an apron =
was tied=20
over the petticoat.  Some of the woman's best needlework could go =
into her=20
"dress" apron.  It was the one item of clothing she would change if =
guests=20
showed up unexpected!  </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    A woman was =
considered=20
improperly dressed if she wasn't wearing a bodice and bonnet in =
public.  A=20
bodice is basically a vest.  They laced or buttoned up the=20
front.  The attributes a woman was blessed with would =
determine how=20
far up the bodice the lacing would go.  Most bonnets were a =
variation on=20
the "mob" cap.  The "Mary Washington" cap is a local term for it by =
modern=20
costumers.  It is simplicity itself: a circle of cloth =
gathered about=20
the head with a ribbon.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    A cautionary note =
about dresses=20
and prairie bonnets.  They are inappropriate at a rendezvous.  =
Those=20
items came into vogue at a later period and properly date from the 1850s =

on.  Those items look as wrong on a woman as cowboy clothes look on =
a=20
man.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    If you are planning =
on going as=20
a "captive", you should dress as an Indian woman.  A good pattern =
would be=20
a dress made of simple print calico(one print on a base color)or solid =
color=20
cloth cut to a "skin" shape.  This pattern is four pieces.  A =
front=20
and back joined at the shoulders with an opening for the head and two =
side=20
pieces that sew from the sleeve cuff all the way beyond the dress =
hem. =20
This leaves two ends of cloth dangling below the hem line on the =
sides. =20
This style mimicked the deer legs that hung naturally down from a =
deerskin=20
dress.  It is a old style and quickly disappeared by the Indian War =

period.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    I hope this =
clarifies some of=20
the information a gave you on our last post.  The history of =
clothing is an=20
interesting aspect of this lifestyle and transports you more than =
anything else=20
back in time.  When you start wearing oddly cut clothing of the day =
you, at=20
first, find it inconvenient because it's different.  You know =
you've really=20
bought into all this when you start wearing it around the house because =
it feels=20
comfortable.  The styles of clothing worn during the fur trade era =
was=20
clothing that had been worn virtually unchanged for hundreds of =
years.  It=20
didn't change because it worked for the common person.  As =
settlement=20
brought ready made clothing and the industrial revolution made such =
items=20
affordable, clothing changed to reflect more fashionable styles.  =
The fur=20
trade is at the end of an era.   And it's clothing was =
disappearing,=20
too.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    Sigh.  I've =
rambled on too=20
long again, Helen.  See what a little education and research will =
do to=20
you?  Don't get us talking about the virtues or vices of flint =
versus=20
percussion locks!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Good luck.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    Larry=20
Huber</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BFBCBF.FE1AAE00--

- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:53:03 -0600
From: "elenyte" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: New to List

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Huber <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2000 10:45 AM
Subject: MtMan-List: New to List


>Hello, again, Helen,
    I'm glad you found my suggestions helpful.  Your suggestions on dress:
man's shirt, simple skirt and moccasins is very typical dress seen on women
at today's rendezvous.  It's practical and was often worn, I suspect, by
women isolated from the company of other women.  Historically, in societies,
women did not dress like men or wear men's clothing except as expediency.
Today, of course, try telling that to a modern woman.   We are living in a
modern society, so wear what you feel most comfortable in if history is not
your prime >objective


Thanks again, Larry! Another posting for me to print out.  I'm sorry for not
being clear enough in my previous posts. I definitiely won't be wearing
britches. I do want to create my outfit with the skirt or dress.  But I was
hoping that I could use the same shirt pattern for myself and for my
huusband (Dick).  Drop sleeve type shirts are so easy to make. But not as
easy as the four piece Indian dress that you mentioned.  That might be the
best project for me to start with. The way I figure it, if I keep it simple
to start, then it's more likely the clothing will be authentic for the
times. And that's my goal. Sewing time is not the major issue. But less time
with the needle leaves more time for reading.  :)

- -Helen


- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Tue, 13 May 1980 10:32:24 -0600
From: Angela Gottfred <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: Women and women's clothing (was: New to list)

Welcome to the list, Helen! Larry Huber has given you some excellent advice
for getting started, but I thought I'd add some info that may be helpful.

Larry mentioned Native and European/American portrayals; historically,
though, there were very few white women in the area of the Mountain Men.
Here are three white women you can look into, if you're interested--perhaps
list members can suggest some others:

Narcissa Whitman--wife of the Rev. Whitman, came west overland to establish
a mission. Killed by Natives along with many others at the mission. From
1836-1847, they were at Ft. Vancouver, and Walla Walla.

Jane Barnes--a barmaid from Plymouth, England, she came to the fur post
formerly known as Astoria (at the mouth of the Columbia River) on a North
West Company (NWC) ship as the room-mate of a NWC wintering partner, Donald
MacTavish, in 1814. She stayed for a year, before leaving again on another
NWC ship.

Jane Beaver--wife of the Rev. Herbert Beaver, who was posted to Fort
Vancouver from England 1836-1838. They arrived there by ship. He and his
wife made themselves thoroughly disliked, and they were forced to leave.

Aside from the women Larry mentioned, there is another possibility--a Metis
(half-breed) woman. (BTW, Metis is pronounced "matey"). They were the
daughters of Native women and white fur traders and voyageurs. Sometimes
they were raised in their mother's culture, sometimes in their father's
culture, and usually (I believe) they had ties to both groups. By the time
the Mountain Men were in full swing, there was a substantial population of
Metis women, and many of them became involved in the Oregon fur trade--for
example, Dr. John McLoughlin's wife, Marguerite McKay, was the daughter of
a fur trader and his Native wife. Generally these women grew up at a fur
post, dressing mostly in a combination of working-class European fashion
and Native dress: a man's shirt,  a cloth petticoat (skirt), and sometimes
a short gown (a sort of woman's jacket) was worn on top; a wool trade
blanket was worn instead of a capot; on the legs & feet, cloth or leather
leggings and leather moccasins were worn on the feet. Toward the end of the
period (c. 1840-1850), a wool checked or plaid shawl may  have also been
worn. There is no evidence to suggest that Metis women wore corsets (also
called stays), but European women definitely did. Metis and Native women
were not overly fond of hats or caps either. If you're interested in more
information on Metis women, there are books I can recommend; just ask.

If you feel interested in authenticity, do NOT make or buy an"English
bodice" or "French bodice". I have four of these useless garments hanging
in my closet; I wish I'd invested my time & money in short gowns instead.
Many serious researchers & reenactors have looked in vain for evidence that
these garments were worn in England or North America in the 18th or 19th
century. Ditto, I'm afraid, for the circular "mob cap". Although Jas.
Townsend & Co (www.jastown.com) sells both of them, and Beth Gilgun gave
patterns for both of these garments in _Book of Buckskinning 2_, you won't
find them in her _Tidings of the 18th Century_ or her article "A Wardrobe
for the Frontier Woman 1740-1840" in _Book of Buckskinning 7_. If you're
interested in wearing European clothing, I'd highly recommend you start by
reading the latter article--it has patterns for a better cap, c.1830, and
short gown & bed jacket (aka short gown). If you're making clothes from
Beth's patterns, make a trial garment out of cheap fabric first; the
patterns are all in Beth's size, and she's fairly petite--at least,
compared to me! If you want to buy a pattern already in your size, the
patterns published by Mill Farms and Kannik's Korner are said to be very
well researched.

If you decide to go with European dress, you may want to have skirts made
from wool or linen rather than cotton, because cotton can be highly
flammable, and you're going to be spending a lot of time around campfires.
Wool is somewhat fire-resistant, linen less so. In any case, remember those
three helpful words, "stop, drop, & roll."

Your humble & obedient servant,
Angela Gottfred





- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 12:43:59 -0400
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: New to List...Cloth dresses..Indian

- --------------C4BDC584CA8769AC5F88E088
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

You know, we always talk about men's outfits, but very little on the
women's cloth (Indian) dresses.
Now here is something  that has bothered me for a long time.  The "T"
dress or cloth dress  can be 4 or 6 pieces of material.  Most of the
ones I have been able to study from museums to later photos, show one
piece of cloth that is long enough to go from front to back with a hole
cut for the head with a small slit in the back for a tie to close the
head opening.  The sleeves are added.  Some cloth was of a width you
might get the sleeves in the main body of the cloth with the body, but
not always.  These sleeves were meant to go almost to the wrists.
Two somewhat triangular insets to the main body of the dress going from
under the arm area to two to three or so inches beyond the main body of
the dress.  And there are variations of this pattern.  But who wants to
sew two big pieces of cloth together at the neck when a hole will do.
There can be some ribbon  or cloth for a little decoration on the bottom
of the dress and sleeves.  I see way too much ribbon on Indian dress at
events and pointed like sleeves that are somewhat medieval in design
that traders and some pattern companies are putting out.  These dresses
are meant to be very comfortable  and not to fit the figure except for a
belt.  And you wore them in layers.  Most women might have at least two
on at a time.  The under dress kept dirt from getting on your better
dress or to keep you warm, other than wearing a blanket or "shawl"
around your waist.

I do have patterns I can scan for anyone interested.  Hansan and I use
to have a go around because he had one of his dresses on backwards.  The
slit of the neck was in the front instead of the back.

But how many of you guys go around in ladies cloths?????    ;-)

Linda Holley

Larry Huber wrote:

> Hello, again, Helen,    I'm glad you found my suggestions helpful.
> Your suggestions on dress: man's shirt, simple skirt and moccasins is
> very typical dress seen on women at today's rendezvous.  It's
> practical and was often worn, I suspect, by women isolated from the
> company of other women.  Historically, in societies, women did not
> dress like men or wear men's clothing except as expediency.  Today, of
> course, try telling that to a modern woman.   We are living in a
> modern society, so wear what you feel most comfortable in if history
> is not your prime objective.     A white woman of the period we
> represent from England, France, Germany or America would wear garments
> consisting of the following: A shift or chemise undergarment with a
> petticoat (skirt) over it.  An apron went over the petticoat and a
> bodice(vest) went over the shift top.  Moccasins or clogs on the feet
> and a bonnet atop the head made up the typical outfit.    The shift is
> a single night gown-like garment made of linen or cotton that fell
> just below the knees .  The sleeves extended just beyond the elbows
> and were tied down with cord or ribbon.    The petticoat, as skirts
> were called then, wrapped around the waist and was tied with a sewn in
> cloth belt.  Slits were left in the side seams for access to "pockets"
> which were cloth bags tied with around the waist with ribbon.  These
> handy items, one to each side, rested between the shift and
> petticoat.  The first petticoat was the oldest and worn under several
> layers of additional petticoats depending on the weather.  The colder
> the climate, the more petticoats on top with the newest and best on
> top for church.    Often, an apron was tied over the petticoat.  Some
> of the woman's best needlework could go into her "dress" apron.  It
> was the one item of clothing she would change if guests showed up
> unexpected!    A woman was considered improperly dressed if she wasn't
> wearing a bodice and bonnet in public.  A bodice is basically a vest.
> They laced or buttoned up the front.  The attributes a woman was
> blessed with would determine how far up the bodice the lacing would
> go.  Most bonnets were a variation on the "mob" cap.  The "Mary
> Washington" cap is a local term for it by modern costumers.  It is
> simplicity itself: a circle of cloth gathered about the head with a
> ribbon.    A cautionary note about dresses and prairie bonnets.  They
> are inappropriate at a rendezvous.  Those items came into vogue at a
> later period and properly date from the 1850s on.  Those items look as
> wrong on a woman as cowboy clothes look on a man.    If you are
> planning on going as a "captive", you should dress as an Indian
> woman.  A good pattern would be a dress made of simple print
> calico(one print on a base color)or solid color cloth cut to a "skin"
> shape.  This pattern is four pieces.  A front and back joined at the
> shoulders with an opening for the head and two side pieces that sew
> from the sleeve cuff all the way beyond the dress hem.  This leaves
> two ends of cloth dangling below the hem line on the sides.  This
> style mimicked the deer legs that hung naturally down from a deerskin
> dress.  It is a old style and quickly disappeared by the Indian War
> period.    I hope this clarifies some of the information a gave you on
> our last post.  The history of clothing is an interesting aspect of
> this lifestyle and transports you more than anything else back in
> time.  When you start wearing oddly cut clothing of the day you, at
> first, find it inconvenient because it's different.  You know you've
> really bought into all this when you start wearing it around the house
> because it feels comfortable.  The styles of clothing worn during the
> fur trade era was clothing that had been worn virtually unchanged for
> hundreds of years.  It didn't change because it worked for the common
> person.  As settlement brought ready made clothing and the industrial
> revolution made such items affordable, clothing changed to reflect
> more fashionable styles.  The fur trade is at the end of an era.   And
> it's clothing was disappearing, too.    Sigh.  I've rambled on too
> long again, Helen.  See what a little education and research will do
> to you?  Don't get us talking about the virtues or vices of flint
> versus percussion locks! Good luck.    Larry Huber

- --------------C4BDC584CA8769AC5F88E088
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
You know, we always talk about men's outfits, but very little on the women's
cloth (Indian) dresses.
<br>Now here is something  that has bothered me for a long time.
The "T" dress or cloth dress  can be 4 or 6 pieces of material.
Most of the ones I have been able to study from museums to later photos,
show one piece of cloth that is long enough to go from front to back with
a hole cut for the head with a small slit in the back for a tie to close
the head opening.  The sleeves are added.  Some cloth was of
a width you might get the sleeves in the main body of the cloth with the
body, but not always.  These sleeves were meant to go almost to the
wrists.
<br>Two somewhat triangular insets to the main body of the dress going
from under the arm area to two to three or so inches beyond the main body
of the dress.  And there are variations of this pattern.  But
who wants to sew two big pieces of cloth together at the neck when a hole
will do.
<br>There can be some ribbon  or cloth for a little decoration on
the bottom of the dress and sleeves.  I see way too much ribbon on
Indian dress at events and pointed like sleeves that are somewhat medieval
in design that traders and some pattern companies are putting out.
These dresses are meant to be very comfortable  and not to fit the
figure except for a belt.  And you wore them in layers.  Most
women might have at least two on at a time.  The under dress kept
dirt from getting on your better dress or to keep you warm, other than
wearing a blanket or "shawl" around your waist.
<p>I do have patterns I can scan for anyone interested.  Hansan and
I use to have a go around because he had one of his dresses on backwards.
The slit of the neck was in the front instead of the back.
<p>But how many of you guys go around in ladies cloths?????
;-)
<p>Linda Holley
<p>Larry Huber wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
<font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Hello,
again, Helen,</font></font><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>
I'm glad you found my suggestions helpful.  Your suggestions on dress:
man's shirt, simple skirt and moccasins is very typical dress seen on women
at today's rendezvous.  It's practical and was often worn, I suspect,
by women isolated from the company of other women.  Historically,
in societies, women did not dress like men or wear men's clothing except
as expediency.  Today, of course, try telling that to a modern woman.
We <u>are </u>living in a modern society, so wear what you feel most comfortable
in if history is not your prime objective.</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>
A white woman of the period we represent from England, France, Germany
or America would wear garments consisting of the following: A shift or
chemise undergarment with a petticoat (skirt) over it.  An apron went
over the petticoat and a bodice(vest) went over the shift top.  Moccasins
or clogs on the feet and a bonnet atop the head made up the typical outfit.</font></font><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>
The shift is a single night gown-like garment made of linen or cotton that
fell just below the knees .  The sleeves extended just beyond the
elbows and were tied down with cord or ribbon.</font></font><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>
The petticoat, as skirts were called then, wrapped around the waist and
was tied with a sewn in cloth belt.  Slits were left in the side seams
for access to "pockets" which were cloth bags tied with around the waist
with ribbon.  These handy items, one to each side, rested between
the shift and petticoat.  The first petticoat was the oldest and worn
under several layers of additional petticoats depending on the weather.
The colder the climate, the more petticoats on top with the newest and
best on top for church.</font></font><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>
Often, an apron was tied over the petticoat.  Some of the woman's
best needlework could go into her "dress" apron.  It was the one item
of clothing she would change if guests showed up unexpected!</font></font><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>
A woman was considered improperly dressed if she wasn't wearing a bodice
and bonnet in public.  A bodice is basically a vest.  They laced
or buttoned up the front.  The attributes a woman was blessed with
would determine how far up the bodice the lacing would go.  Most bonnets
were a variation on the "mob" cap.  The "Mary Washington" cap is a
local term for it by modern costumers.  It is simplicity itself: a
circle of cloth gathered about the head with a ribbon.</font></font><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>
A cautionary note about dresses and prairie bonnets.  They are inappropriate
at a rendezvous.  Those items came into vogue at a later period and
properly date from the 1850s on.  Those items look as wrong on a woman
as cowboy clothes look on a man.</font></font><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>
If you are planning on going as a "captive", you should dress as an Indian
woman.  A good pattern would be a dress made of simple print calico(one
print on a base color)or solid color cloth cut to a "skin" shape.
This pattern is four pieces.  A front and back joined at the shoulders
with an opening for the head and two side pieces that sew from the sleeve
cuff all the way beyond the dress hem.  This leaves two ends of cloth
dangling below the hem line on the sides.  This style mimicked the
deer legs that hung naturally down from a deerskin dress.  It is a
old style and quickly disappeared by the Indian War period.</font></font><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>
I hope this clarifies some of the information a gave you on our last post.
The history of clothing is an interesting aspect of this lifestyle and
transports you more than anything else back in time.  When you start
wearing oddly cut clothing of the day you, at first, find it inconvenient
because it's different.  You know you've really bought into all this
when you start wearing it around the house because it feels comfortable.
The styles of clothing worn during the fur trade era was clothing that
had been worn virtually unchanged for hundreds of years.  It didn't
change because it worked for the common person.  As settlement brought
ready made clothing and the industrial revolution made such items affordable,
clothing changed to reflect more fashionable styles.  The fur trade
is at the end of an era.   And it's clothing was disappearing,
too.</font></font><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>    Sigh.
I've rambled on too long again, Helen.  See what a little education
and research will do to you?  Don't get us talking about the virtues
or vices of flint versus percussion locks!</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Good
luck.</font></font><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>
Larry Huber</font></font></blockquote>

</body>
</html>

- --------------C4BDC584CA8769AC5F88E088--


- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Tue, 13 May 1980 11:49:29 -0600
From: Angela Gottfred <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Sacagawea (was: The New Gold Dollar Coin)

"John C. Funk, Jr." <[e-mail]> forwarded the following info on
Sacagawea, which I thought I'd comment on. Even though I'm a Canadian, I
can't sit by and see Lewis & Clark criticized unfairly, no matter how
mildly ;-)

> Sacagawea had been kidnapped and enslaved by the Mandan Sioux who were
> living in Fort Mandan, North Dakota.  The Mandan gambled her away to
> Charbonneau, a White fur trader who had lived among them for many years.

Sacagawea is consistently described as having been captured by "the
Minnetares"--either Gros Ventres or Blackfoot ("Minnetaree of the Plains").
And I've never heard that she was "gambled away"--I always assumed she had
been sold.

> These women [Charbonneau's wives]
> were called "Squaws" which is the Algonquin word for "prostitutes".

In American English, then and now, "squaw" means "Indian woman". Today it
is often a derogatory term. We do not know what Native word, if any,
Charbonneau or the Mandans used to describe his wives, but it seems very
unlikely that the Mandans had any concept of prostitution--I've just been
reading Alexander Henry the Younger's Mandan journals, which gives many
details of Mandan sexual practices in 1806, right after the Lewis & Clark
Expedition.  The meaning of "squaw" in Native languages is unclear, but in
Cree, an Algonkian language, "iskwao" means "woman/wife", similar to the
German "frau" or the French "femme".

>She had experienced a difficult delivery
> under primitive, unsanitary conditions when Jean-Baptiste (called Pomp by
> Sacagawea) was born.

Pompey was likely a nickname given to the baby by one of the Captains,
after the Roman general Pompey the Great. (Parents of newborns will
understand this joke!)

The author of this article makes much of the apparently casual way
Sacagawea is mentioned in early journal entries by Lewis & Clark, and
suggests that this shows that she was not a very highly valued member of
the expedition. I think this is unfair to the Captains. Today, we keep
journals primarily to express our emotions: then, a journal was primarily
meant to record events, and journals of the period often treat all but the
most distressing events in a very matter-of-fact way; "emoting" was simply
not done in a report to one's government, which was the purpose of the
journals kept by members of the L&C expedition.


>Sacagawea was very ill.
> Clark further recorded on the evening of June 16, 1805 that she was "out
> of her senses...If she dies it will be the fault of her husband as I am
> now convinced."
> Clark's medical knowledge and these recorded symptoms indicate that the
> explorers believed that Sacagawea had a venereal disease.

I don't think it's easy to say whether they thought Sacagawea had a
venereal disease. It's entirely possible Charbonneau was blamed  for making
her sick through over-work or abuse or not following the prescribed
treatment. "Obstruction of the mensis" is not necessarily venereal disease;
in Dr. Elliott Coues' edition of the L&C journals, published in the 1893,
he notes that "the tender age of her infant" should have called into
question a diagnosis of "obstruction of the menses", suggesting that this
was a different ailment. Other journals of the period call venereal disease
by name.

Toussaint Charbonneau deserves all the harsh treatment he gets in this
article; Sacagawea's bravery, justly praised by the author, was not
uncommon amongst Native women.

Your humble & obedient servant,
Angela Gottfred

- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

End of hist_text-digest V1 #549
*******************************

-
 To unsubscribe to hist_text-digest, send an email to
"[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe hist_text-digest" in the body of the message.