Printed Handkerchiefs, Womens silk bonnet and a small cuttoe or How do we interpret what we read into reality?

 Well, after a whirlwind of activity on the Facebook page, I'm ready to get back to something a bit more enjoyable than watching people fighting over documentation. To that end, I've been combing through the McCorkle store ledgers this week and saving a lot of interesting entries. You definitely see a common thread of items being purchased. But one thing I wanted to maybe illustrate in this post is how to arrive at an accurate look based on reading some of these written ledger accounts. It's one thing to read it, it's another thing to interpret with accuracy, or at least, as accurately as we can. Another thing to note is that McCorkle's store is on the edge of the Virginia frontier and many people heading into the backcountry stopped there for provisions. Keep that in mind as you imagine what the frontier looked like. 

    I decided I'd put together my own purchase from the store and then show how I arrive at what each item looks like and why I avoid certain other interpretations. All the items I've listed are actual items I've read in the ledgers 

    So, here is my McCorkle Store purchase - 

To 1 printed handkerchief 

To 4 Gun flints 

To 2 pints of rum 

To 1 womens silk bonnet  

To butcher knife 

To small cuttoe

    Some of these are self explanatory. Gun flints for instance allow basically zero room for variation. But what should a printed handkerchief look like? Or a woman's silk bonnet? And what is a cuttoe? 

    Let's start with the handkerchief. A common reenactorism is to simply cut a piece of plain colored linen or check linen out of a piece of fabric into a square and then tie it loosely around the neck. Can I prove that nobody ever did that? No. However, I can prove based on images and extant examples what people did do. Printed Handkerchiefs are bought by the hundreds in this ledger. It's one of single most frequent purchases. So, let's look at some images. 

Here's a store ledger saying that a John Newell, among other things, bought some printed handkerchiefs. 

 John Singleton Copley, 1778,
National Gallery of Art

 No I know what you're thinking. Well, these would have been worn by slightly upper class people. What about these poor backwoods folks. Surely they wouldn't have had something that fancy. Poor people wore them too. 

    So, what kinds of patterns do I avoid? Well, the most common ones I observe at events and such are patterns like this : 

I would avoid these as I've just never seen anything like it in a period image worn around the neck. Once again, can I prove it never happened? No. But why go with what I can't prove when I have 5 images directly above and many many more like it that show printed handkerchiefs. Now, there is mention in the ledger of check handkerchiefs. But 18th century check is very different from later versions. Here again, what does the historical record leave us. Here is a sample of some 18th century check material. 

     Now that we've got our handkerchief questions squared away, let's look at the next item. A Silk bonnet. Silk?! Awfully fancy for poor backwoods folks in western Virginia in 1774. One again, let's see what we can find out about silk bonnets. 

Here is in original silk bonnet in the collection of Colonial Williamsburg, the only extant one in existence from what I understand. 

One might look at this bonnet and think to themselves that this would be worn by some rich woman of the 18th century, but once again, these bonnets were very common among the laboring classes. 

 Once again, we've solved the this problem with combining multiple sources, from the written description from a ledger, and the painted and printed image. 

    The last mysterious item, is the cuttoe knife. And rather than rehash this topic, I'm going to link you to an article at the Of Sorts For Provincials Blog. 

Now that we've made sense of these items, I'd like to encourage you. I think the best thing we can do as reenactors and living historians is to leave behind the "could haves". Of course some weaver "could have" made a check of that style for a handkerchief. But I've never been able to find an example. Meanwhile there are literally hundreds of examples of printed handkerchiefs. So with something so common, why not just do that? 

 I hope this has been helpful in understanding some of the methods I and others use to arrive a conclusion. 

 If you'd like your own printed handkerchief, I'd recommend purchasing here : 

BURNLEY AND TROWBRIDGE 

For an affordable cuttoe, go here: 

SOUTH UNION MILLS