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 

The Raid on Bledsoe's Station - Impressions of the Middle Ground

      As we prepare for the September event at Bledsoe's Station, I get inquiring messages from folks wishing to attend and I've been giving some feedback on what we want to see at this event. I thought I might offer some thoughts to give folks an idea of what it is we are trying to achieve. 

    Unlike a lot of the events centered around the frontier forts, this event is not a market fair, or a 2 o'clock tactical with merchants and vendors. This is a semi immersive experience, and to that end it will not include many of the things folks are used to. Those who would like to attend need to follow the guidelines. Fortunately, we are more than willing to work with folks who are willing to work with us. I wanted to discuss the clothing and some of the rational behind our event standards. 

    In his History of Middle Tennessee, admittedly published long after the fact, Edward Albright writes the following about the middle ground in 1783 : 

Every kind of garment for the wear of med and boys was made of dressed skins.. We do not assert that they all wore such, and " nothing else." What we do mean, however, is, that no man was ashamed to wear leather breeches or a leather hunting-shirt or far cap. Most of them were very well contented to be thus clothed. Some were satisfied, or under necessity, of wholy dispensing with every article made of wool, cotton, or f a r . Like "the said Hood," they could say that "from tho skin out" ther were dressed in skin--moccasins, pants, shirts, cap, and gloves all of dressed or undressed skins. Almost out of the world, but "in the fashion."

In a rainy day, or an evening's recreation, the men assisted in " cutting out, in spinning the thread, and in sewing up garments." The process of making the thread or leather strings was often skilfully managed, in cutting a delicate thread or a stouter "whang." A shoemaker's awl was "the needle of that day." Men were usefal sewing-machines, and "the women loved to have it so." And thus men and women helped each other, clothed themselves comfortably and genteelly in the fashion, and were as useful and happy as happy could be. 

    I've highlighted a few key phrases. First, that he does not assert that they ALL wore leather and buckskin. But that many of them did. And the last phrase I have highlighted which is absolutely crucial to our understanding of what these garments may have looked like, "IN THE FASHION". What does this curious phrase mean? It means, that these garments weren't just crudely sewn together. It means that they tried their best to create garments based on what was fashionable at the time. A leather hunting shirt then would look not that much different from a linen hunting shirt in construction an design. Leather breeches look like their linen or wool counterpart, etc. 

    If we compare that with other information we have from actual period sources we can start to get a clearer picture. 

  The oft quoted description of a hunting shirt by Doddridge and Smythe are still the best out there: 

"There whole dress is very singular, and not very materially different from that of the Indians; being a hunting shirt, somewhat resembling a waggoner’s frock, ornamented with a great many fringes, tied around the middle with a broad belt, much decorated also…Their hunting or rifle shirts, they have also died in variety of colors, some yellow, others red, some brown, and many wear them quite white” (Smyth 179-180)

The hunting shirt was universally worn. This was a kind of loose frock, reaching halfway down the thighs, with large sleeves, open before, and so wide as to lap a foot or more when belted. The cape was large and sometimes handsomely fringed with a ravelled piece of cloth of a different color from that of the hunting shirt its self. The bosom of this dress served as a wallet to hold a chunk of bread, cakes, jerk, tow for wiping the barrel of the rifle, and any other necessary for hunter or warrior… The hunting shirt was generally made of linsey, sometimes of coarse linen, and few of dressed deerskins. These last being very cold and uncomfortable in wet weather. (doddridge 91)"

    So, here we have some great detailed descriptions and even a reference that sometimes they were made of deerskin. 

Let's now start to look at the extant record that exists, namely original garments and paintings and then we will take a lot at plausible recreations that would fit into the world of 1780s Colonial America. 

 

 

Photo by Neal Hurst 

    

    We can see common threads in all of these images and in this original. Capes, fringe...and a "fashion" begins to appear.

    As we look towards what a recreation of some of these silhouettes might look like, I think a common idea is that people preferred, generally speaking, to conform to the standards set by society. Cresswell upon returning to a more "civilized" area comments on how out of place he is in his ragged appearance and how the people are even distressed by his appearance. So, the common silhouette should be the goal of any impression, even in the backwoods. 

 Let's look at a few impressions that have opted for a leather hunting shirt since Albright has claimed that this was somewhat common in the middle ground during the year 1783. 

Micheal Agee, pictured above, is sporting a woolen waistcoat, fit correctly, a cocked hat, leather breeches and a leather hunting shirt made very much in keeping with what we see in the original images above. It's fit is that of a jacket "in the fashion". 

    Next, we see an impression from Anthony of the Deerskin Diary. He is sporting a look that is very consistent with Albright's description. Nearly head to toe in buckskins. But notice the details. We see a shirt that is cut very much "in the fashion", leggings that resemble what we see in period images of woolen leggings like this image of a Native American from the 1770s: 

   

Here we see some more impressions, three different looks that give you a variety. One has adopted some of the Indian dress, a breechclout and garters on his leggings, but is wearing a  hunting shirt and hat. The middle fellow has adopted the leggings, wears a pair of buckskins breeches, a dark colored hunting shirt and finger woven sash and moccasins. The other gentleman is still wearing his linen breeches, and aside from his hunting shirt, native strap and buck tail, wears nothing that would necessarily denote him as being on the frontier in our collective imagination of what a "frontiersman" would look like. 

    All of these approaches show you the variety of ways you can follow the historical record and create a correct silhouette while also expressing individual taste. I hope this gives everyone a good direction. 

 I would also like to direct you to an article Kobuck did over on his blog about common fashion. It has some excellent primary source material and will help fill in some blanks. You can read that HERE

 Here are some other excellent resources all collected in one place so you can read at your leisure filled with quotes and images from the period along with interpretations of them. 

GARTERS 

AN ARTICLE ON WHAT TO CARRY AT AN IMMERSION EVENT 

SOME THOUGHTS ON BREECHCLOUTS AND INDIAN DRESS 

COLORFUL CLOTHING 

QUOTES ON LEGGINGS 

KNAPSACKS 

HUNTING SHIRTS 

BEDROLLS AND WALLETS 

CLOTHING IN KENTUCKY 

MORE THOUGHTS ON CLOTHING IN THE BACKCOUNTRY 

Colorful Clothing in the Backcountry

 Putting yourself out on the internet comes with its drawbacks, but also gives you a sense of where people are and what they value, and largely the videos and blog posts are very well received. But for some, it's an opportunity to sort of politely and sometimes not so politely criticize and dismiss the notions of authenticity this blog promotes in favor of a more "common sense" approach suggesting that documentation is all well and good, but is found wanting once you get out and start doing stuff in the woods. Realizing that this sort of stuff just comes with the territory of being on the internet, I try to use these opportunities to simply let the historical record speak for itself and try to prove on some practical level that the things our forefathers wrote down and described actually work. 

    The "common sense" approach suggests that in the backcountry, ie Indian country, nobody would have been caught dead wearing anything bright or colorful because that would have made you stick out like a sore thumb and would have instantly gotten you killed. And to be sure, we have many references to dark colored clothing. Daniel Boone is described by a George Christian as having a black hunting shirt made of deerskin. Another description from McWorter described someone whose clothing was colored in the ooze made from the bark of the chestnut tree. So we have plenty of documentation for dark clothing, albeit where many of those folks who embrace that image of the frontier and adopt that manner of dress go wrong today is in the style and patterning. But we'll put a pin in that for now. 

    Our concern today is brightly colored clothing existing in the backcountry in the 18th century. 

    The first reference that comes to mind for me is Col Lewis, killed at the Battle of Point Pleasant in 1774. He was killed wearing a scarlet waistcoat and in one account is said to have made a very "visible target." Now, the common sense crowd reading this want to celebrate and send up a cheer and say "See, that is what we're talking about. That would get you killed." But, what this proves is that someone in the 18th century did in fact wear a bright colored coat in the woods against Native Americans in battle. I would suggest that what got him killed was that he was clearly important, not that he was sporting a bright color. But, let's find other examples that don't end in the person getting killed. 

"There whole dress is very singular, and not very materially different from that of the Indians; being a hunting shirt, somewhat resembling a waggoner’s frock, ornamented with a great many fringes, tied around the middle with a broad belt, much decorated also…Their hunting or rifle shirts, they have also died in variety of colors, some YELLOW, others RED, some brown, and many wear them quite WHITE." (Smyth 179-180)

    In the late 1770s, Benjamin Allen is captured by Natives and describes being given some clothing during his captivity. 

“They then brought me two calico hunting shirts, sort of RED…”

When he returned from captivity he describes clothing he received from a Col Baker.

"He gave me a BLUE hunting shirt and a new hat." 

Another description describes the "eccentric dress" of a "BLUE hunting shirt, trimmed with RED"

At the battle of Blue Licks, the entire company from Lexington were clad in red leggings. 

"...on the top of the hill, I fell in with a man who had RED leggings on, and I was told only the company from Lexington had on such leggings.” -Jacob Stevens

So here are just a handful of many examples of color on the frontier. But let's throw another element in here that might make us rethink the idea that staying hidden and not standing out was foremost on the mind of anyone living or working in the woods. Native Americans are described over and over as painting themselves RED. Yes, the very one that would supposedly kill you instantly for wearing bright colors were also brightly colored. 

"The party appeared next day painted RED and black, their heads covered all over with swan-down, and a tuft of long WHITE feathers fixt to the crown of their heads." -James Adair

The head, neck and breast, are painted with VERMILLION" - William Bartram 

“They were naked and painted RED and black, making a very frightful appearance” - John Rutherford “a journal of an Indian captivity during Pontiac’s rebellion in the year 1763

“The figure of the combatants all besmeared with RED and black paint, and covered with the blood of the slain, . . . “ -Jonathan Carver “travels 

This shows a variety of colors, RED leggings and breechclout as well as yellow face paint and  RED plumes. 

On a practical note, it has been pointed out to me that in color science as explained in art school we're taught that red and green are very similar on the light spectrum. And I can tell you, having done immersion events where I have faced natives in full red paint in the woods, they blend in surprisingly well and disappear in heavy foliage very quickly. 

Dark colors are great in the woods and can help you blend in. There is no doubt of that. Nobody would ever try to suggest differently. But, when we are trying to recreate the past, the important thing to do is what THEY did.  Certainly, if your personal preference is dark colors, by all means, we have documentation for that. But don't look at the guy in his blue hunting shirt and red leggings and say "they would have NEVER worn something that bright in the woods cause that would have gotten you killed," because we have documentation for that too. 

I want to thank Matthew Fennewald and Will Manire for helping me with the native quotations.