From: owner-hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com (hist_text-digest) To: hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: hist_text-digest V1 #1179 Reply-To: hist_text Sender: owner-hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk hist_text-digest Sunday, March 30 2003 Volume 01 : Number 1179 In this issue: -       Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 -       Re: MtMan-List:womens dress -       Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 -       Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 -       Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 -       Re: MtMan-List: women's dresses -       Re: MtMan-List: women's dresses -       Re: MtMan-List:womens dress -       Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 -       Re: MtMan-List:womens dress -       Re: MtMan-List: women's dresses -       Re: MtMan-List: women's dresses -       Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 -       Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 -       Re: MtMan-List: women's dresses ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:34:38 -0600 From: "James MacKannai" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 Dear List, It doesn't look like many messages are being posted. At least I'm not getting them if there are so I'll post a question. Does anyone else wish the 1840 limit (AMM used to state 1850) was extended to at least 1860? Think of the history and technology that could then be explored collectively. I understand the original intent was to preserve "rendezvous" as it was in its prime. Wouldn't it be nice, however, to expand the fur trade guidelines represented at modern rendezvous to at least 1860. Bridger, Carson, robe traders, and a host of other personalities that grew from the green trappers of the rockies could be studied and represented. It appears to me that many who attend rendezvous would be more at home in a slightly later period portrayal (judging by the fashions and gear many people adopt). I have not attended very many rendezvous but it seems that not much would change except the information sought (and corrected in a lot of cases). Just a thought. I haven't thought it out very well and wonder if there are reasons the NMLRA, and other organizations would not want to expand their time period that encompasses study and preservation of knowledge. Maybe it is just a rendezvous guideline and has nothing to do with the organizations. It strikes me that western rendezvous are different from the east in this particular way; the east celebrates American frontier of their particular landscape for a period ranging from the early 1700's and sometimes earlier, up to the 19th century. The west is restricted to about a fifty year period of history associated with our particular landscape). The wider range of interests welcome would invite new blood, bodies, ideas, gear, and knowledge. I can't help but feel the western rendezvous are stagnating to some small degree and I try to think of ways to inspire new interest. I love the landscape of the west and the people who were here were most interesting. In fact I love it so much that I become nostalgic; missing even the heyday of modern rendezvous in the 70's and 80's. I miss the excitement and passion rendezvous used to convey as it grew and grew. Then modern rendezvous seemed to stop growing even though population levels, roads, and developement seemed to continue. Jim _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:36:27 EST From: GazeingCyot@cs.com Subject: Re: MtMan-List:womens dress - --part1_196.1817f582.2bb8cb6b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim. Actually, leather dresses were the norm for women of this time period unless they were a trapper's or trader's wife. Wool was the cloth of choice at the time, especially saved list cloth with the white edge, which was used as part of the decoration. To have wool was a status symbol because it had to be obtained from traders and was a spendy item in comparison to buckskin, which was readily obtained from nature. Trappers were proud of their women and seemed to take pride in how much they could spend on them, and how lavishly they could be dressed. Read Joe Meek's account of Mountain Lamb. He tells just how much he spent on her horse, its trappings, and on her clothes. He said her skirt was blue and her bodice was red, with red leggings and a red scarf on her head. She was Shoshone, too. Denig said that wool dresses were cut much like the buckskin ones when they first started making them. There are, however no existing wool dresses from the fur trade. Kurz was barely past the fur trade and he shows "Crow woman at Fort Berthold" of a woman wearing a cloth dress with the open sleeves, buckskin fringe on the bottom of the skirt and what looks like elk teeth on the bodice. One large picture of this that I saw looked like her bodice was a different color that the skirt of the dress, but I couldn't be sure. Ewers in his book on Blackfeet shows a circa 1850 wool Blackfoot dress of blue stroud, with buckskin gussets up the sides and with the arches cut out at the bottom, and with plenty of fringe at the bottom and on the open sleeves. This one had the blue and white pound beads for decoration. All trappers wives did not have wool, though. Miller shows Walker's wife on horseback following behind him and she has a buckskin dress on. In Cody museum there is a two hide dress which is remarkable for its absence of decoration, though it does have fringe on the sleeves and bottom. This is Shoshone, and is the oldest dress on display in their collection, so we were told. It also has some hair left along the turned down edge where the tail is. We also can't forget the Miller paintings of the Shoshone women wearing only a skirt and no top at all. Leggings go over the moccasins, come to just below the knee and were tubes tied on with a string of buckskin. Some tribes had a fold down section at the top that was fringed. They were either decorated or plain depending on whether they were for work or for a fancy outfit. The best book for leggings and dresses is Cathy Smith's article in The Book of Buckskinning Vol. 6. Primitive Indian Dresses by Susan Fecteau is another good one but is out of print. You may find it through Amazon. com as a used book. If you want to read about saved list cloth, look at our web site. http://members.tripod.com/gazingcyot/index.htm Read the article Wool in the Fur Trade. We are also starting a group for women that has requirements somewhat smilier to AMM but adapted for women, called Women of the Fur Trade. If anyone is interested, I will post the requirements. Also if you would like me to send you pictures of any of the dresses I talked about, I can Email them to you. Jill - --part1_196.1817f582.2bb8cb6b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  Jim.
      Actually, leather dresses were the=20= norm for women of this time period unless they were a trapper's or trader's=20= wife. Wool was the cloth of choice at the time, especially saved list cloth=20= with the white edge, which was used as part of the decoration. To have wool=20= was a status symbol because it had to be obtained from traders and was a spe= ndy item in comparison to buckskin, which was readily obtained from nature.=20= Trappers were proud of their women and seemed to take pride in how much they= could spend on them, and how lavishly they could be dressed.  Read Joe= Meek's account of Mountain Lamb. He tells just how much he spent on her hor= se, its trappings, and on her clothes. He said her skirt was blue and her bo= dice was red, with red leggings and a red scarf on her head. She was Shoshon= e, too. Denig said that wool dresses were cut much like the buckskin ones wh= en they first started making them. There are, however no existing wool dress= es from the fur trade. Kurz was barely past the fur trade and he shows "Crow= woman at Fort Berthold" of a woman wearing a cloth dress with the open slee= ves, buckskin fringe on the bottom of the skirt and what looks like elk teet= h on the bodice. One large picture of this that I saw looked like her bodice= was a different color that the skirt of the dress, but I couldn't be sure.=20= Ewers in his book on Blackfeet shows a circa 1850 wool Blackfoot dress of bl= ue stroud, with buckskin gussets up the sides and with the arches cut out at= the bottom, and with plenty of fringe at the bottom and on the open sleeves= . This one had the blue and white pound beads for decoration.
      All trappers wives did not have woo= l, though. Miller shows Walker's wife on horseback following behind him and=20= she has a buckskin dress on. In Cody museum there is a two hide dress which=20= is remarkable for its absence of decoration, though it does have fringe on t= he sleeves and bottom. This is Shoshone, and is the oldest dress on display=20= in their collection, so we were told. It also has some hair left along the t= urned down edge where the tail is. We also can't forget the Miller paintings= of the Shoshone women wearing only a skirt and no top at all.
      Leggings go over the moccasins, com= e to just below the knee and were tubes tied on with a string of buckskin. S= ome tribes had a fold down section at the top that was fringed. They were ei= ther decorated or plain depending on whether they were for work or for a fan= cy outfit. The best book for leggings and dresses is Cathy Smith's article i= n The Book of Buckskinning Vol. 6. Primitive Indian Dresses by Susan Fecteau= is another good one but is out of print. You may find it through Amazon. co= m as a used book. If you want to read about saved list cloth, look at our we= b site.
http://membe= rs.tripod.com/gazingcyot/index.htm
Read the article Wool in the Fur Trade.
We are also starting a group for women that has requirements somewhat sm= ilier to AMM but adapted for women, called Women of the Fur Trade. If anyone= is interested, I will post the requirements. Also if you would like me to s= end you pictures of any of the dresses I talked about, I can Email them to y= ou.             =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;     
            = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            Jil= l             &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =      - --part1_196.1817f582.2bb8cb6b_boundary-- - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:38:04 -0500 From: "Tom Roberts" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 Why stop there? Why not extend to the1900's, then all kinds of stuff would be ok. (sorry - just couldn't help it) Tom - ----- Original Message ----- From: "James MacKannai" To: Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 4:34 PM Subject: Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 > > > Dear List, > Does anyone else wish the 1840 limit was extended to at least 1860? - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:39:54 -0500 From: "Double Edge Forge" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 " Why not extend to the1900's, then all kinds of stuff would > be ok. (sorry - just couldn't help it)" ' Tom Yes you could, you just dinnit wanna... D - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:48:19 -0600 From: "James MacKannai" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 Do you think it is just a bad idea then? >From: "Double Edge Forge" >Reply-To: hist_text@lists.xmission.com >To: >Subject: Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 >Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:39:54 -0500 > >" Why not extend to the1900's, then all kinds of stuff would > > be ok. (sorry - just couldn't help it)" >' > Tom > Yes you could, you just dinnit wanna... >D > > > >---------------------- >hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:08:32 -0600 From: "James MacKannai" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: women's dresses Jill, Thanks for the post. You have a nice web page. I'll be looking it over better over the next few days and following up on your directions for more information. Have you made a willow backrest? I would like to know how the old ones were strung together. I haven't seen an original up close. Thanks again. Jim _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:09:58 -0600 From: "James MacKannai" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: women's dresses Jill, Looking through the backlog I found this post. Would this pattern apply to the 1825-50 period? I wonder how far back the shell or elk teeth or (dentalion?)cone like shells go. Is there a place saved list cloth can be bought these days? Jim From: tipis@mediaone.net Subject: Re: MtMan-List: New to List...Cloth dresses..Indian Date: 13 May 2000 12:43:59 -0400 - --------------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 _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:30:06 -0600 From: "larry pendleton" Subject: Re: MtMan-List:womens dress The women on the Texas Frontier often ony had one cloth dress. Their everyday work dresses were of buckskin. Pendleton - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:27:57 -0800 From: "roger lahti" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 - ----- Original Message ----- From: "James MacKannai" To: Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:48 PM Subject: Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 > Do you think it is just a bad idea then? Jim, In the context of today's rendezvous yes. They are set in a fairly narrow historical time frame and to go outside that time frame takes a lot away from the efforts of those who are trying to recreate the atmosphere of those evens, (as poorly as it is done in any case). It was bad enough a few years back to see someone walk through camp looking like an extra for an Eastwood "B" grade western with his brace of Colt Patterson's and etc. (let's not argue about whether those guns being 1836 models fit the time frame and venue, they don't). I understand your desire to expand horizons and create new energy. Why not put that enthusiasm to work and start a new form of encampment that covers the period of American History your interested in? You could dress up like "49'ers" or re-enact the Civil War, or have Cowboy Action Shoots! Take it a step further and have Teddy's Rough Riders charge through camp along with the Charge of the Light Brigade. Maybe some WWI guys and Maxim Machine Guns along side the Gattling Guns. Well you get the idea. YMOS Capt. Lahti' - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:43:12 -0500 From: Linda Holley Subject: Re: MtMan-List:womens dress - --------------000309040806000505070203 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would love to see this list. Linda Holley GazeingCyot@cs.com wrote: > Jim. > Actually, leather dresses were the norm for women of this time > period unless they were a trapper's or trader's wife. Wool was the > cloth of choice at the time, especially saved list cloth with the > white edge, which was used as part of the decoration. To have wool was > a status symbol because it had to be obtained from traders and was a > spendy item in comparison to buckskin, which was readily obtained from > nature. Trappers were proud of their women and seemed to take pride in > how much they could spend on them, and how lavishly they could be > dressed. Read Joe Meek's account of Mountain Lamb. He tells just how > much he spent on her horse, its trappings, and on her clothes. He said > her skirt was blue and her bodice was red, with red leggings and a red > scarf on her head. She was Shoshone, too. Denig said that wool dresses > were cut much like the buckskin ones when they first started making > them. There are, however no existing wool dresses from the fur trade. > Kurz was barely past the fur trade and he shows "Crow woman at Fort > Berthold" of a woman wearing a cloth dress with the open sleeves, > buckskin fringe on the bottom of the skirt and what looks like elk > teeth on the bodice. One large picture of this that I saw looked like > her bodice was a different color that the skirt of the dress, but I > couldn't be sure. Ewers in his book on Blackfeet shows a circa 1850 > wool Blackfoot dress of blue stroud, with buckskin gussets up the > sides and with the arches cut out at the bottom, and with plenty of > fringe at the bottom and on the open sleeves. This one had the blue > and white pound beads for decoration. > All trappers wives did not have wool, though. Miller shows > Walker's wife on horseback following behind him and she has a buckskin > dress on. In Cody museum there is a two hide dress which is remarkable > for its absence of decoration, though it does have fringe on the > sleeves and bottom. This is Shoshone, and is the oldest dress on > display in their collection, so we were told. It also has some hair > left along the turned down edge where the tail is. We also can't > forget the Miller paintings of the Shoshone women wearing only a skirt > and no top at all. > Leggings go over the moccasins, come to just below the knee and > were tubes tied on with a string of buckskin. Some tribes had a fold > down section at the top that was fringed. They were either decorated > or plain depending on whether they were for work or for a fancy > outfit. The best book for leggings and dresses is Cathy Smith's > article in The Book of Buckskinning Vol. 6. Primitive Indian Dresses > by Susan Fecteau is another good one but is out of print. You may find > it through Amazon. com as a used book. If you want to read about saved > list cloth, look at our web site. > http://members.tripod.com/gazingcyot/index.htm > Read the article Wool in the Fur Trade. > We are also starting a group for women that has requirements somewhat > smilier to AMM but adapted for women, called Women of the Fur Trade. > If anyone is interested, I will post the requirements. Also if you > would like me to send you pictures of any of the dresses I talked > about, I can Email them to you. > > > Jill > - --------------000309040806000505070203 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would love to see this list.

Linda Holley

GazeingCyot@cs.com wrote:
 Jim.
      Actually, leather dresses were the norm for women of this time period unless they were a trapper's or trader's wife. Wool was the cloth of choice at the time, especially saved list cloth with the white edge, which was used as part of the decoration. To have wool was a status symbol because it had to be obtained from traders and was a spendy item in comparison to buckskin, which was readily obtained from nature. Trappers were proud of their women and seemed to take pride in how much they could spend on them, and how lavishly they could be dressed.  Read Joe Meek's account of Mountain Lamb. He tells just how much he spent on her horse, its trappings, and on her clothes. He said her skirt was blue and her bodice was red, with red leggings and a red scarf on her head. She was Shoshone, too. Denig said that wool dresses were cut much like the buckskin ones when they first started making them. There are, however no existing wool dresses from the fur trade. Kurz was barely past the fur trade and he shows "Crow woman at Fort Berthold" of a woman wearing a cloth dress with the open sleeves, buckskin fringe on the bottom of the skirt and what looks like elk teeth on the bodice. One large picture of this that I saw looked like her bodice was a different color that the skirt of the dress, but I couldn't be sure. Ewers in his book on Blackfeet shows a circa 1850 wool Blackfoot dress of blue stroud, with buckskin gussets up the sides and with the arches cut out at the bottom, and with plenty of fringe at the bottom and on the open sleeves. This one had the blue and white pound beads for decoration.
      All trappers wives did not have wool, though. Miller shows Walker's wife on horseback following behind him and she has a buckskin dress on. In Cody museum there is a two hide dress which is remarkable for its absence of decoration, though it does have fringe on the sleeves and bottom. This is Shoshone, and is the oldest dress on display in their collection, so we were told. It also has some hair left along the turned down edge where the tail is. We also can't forget the Miller paintings of the Shoshone women wearing only a skirt and no top at all.
      Leggings go over the moccasins, come to just below the knee and were tubes tied on with a string of buckskin. Some tribes had a fold down section at the top that was fringed. They were either decorated or plain depending on whether they were for work or for a fancy outfit. The best book for leggings and dresses is Cathy Smith's article in The Book of Buckskinning Vol. 6. Primitive Indian Dresses by Susan Fecteau is another good one but is out of print. You may find it through Amazon. com as a used book. If you want to read about saved list cloth, look at our web site.
http://members.tripod.com/gazingcyot/index.htm
Read the article Wool in the Fur Trade.
We are also starting a group for women that has requirements somewhat smilier to AMM but adapted for women, called Women of the Fur Trade. If anyone is interested, I will post the requirements. Also if you would like me to send you pictures of any of the dresses I talked about, I can Email them to you.                                                                                  
                                                              Jill                                                                    

- --------------000309040806000505070203-- - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:44:36 -0500 From: Linda Holley Subject: Re: MtMan-List: women's dresses You can see some on my web site. There are two or three ways for putting them together. Linda holley James MacKannai wrote: > Jill, > > Thanks for the post. You have a nice web page. I'll be looking it over > better over the next few days and following up on your directions for > more information. > > Have you made a willow backrest? I would like to know how the old ones > were strung together. I haven't seen an original up close. > > Thanks again. > Jim > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > ---------------------- > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html > - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:48:13 -0500 From: Linda Holley Subject: Re: MtMan-List: women's dresses Yes it would as it is the cloth pattern for wool or cotton. Stay away form the patterns sold by the traders. Way too much ribbon and tailored sleeves. Linda hOlley alias tipis@mediaone.com which is now....tipis@attbi.com http://www.tipis-tepees-teepees.com James MacKannai wrote: > > Jill, > > Looking through the backlog I found this post. Would this pattern > apply to the 1825-50 period? I wonder how far back the shell or elk > teeth or (dentalion?)cone like shells go. Is there a place saved list > cloth can be bought these days? > > > > > Jim > > > > > From: tipis@mediaone.net > Subject: Re: MtMan-List: New to List...Cloth dresses..Indian > Date: 13 May 2000 12:43:59 -0400 > > > --------------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 > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > ---------------------- > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html > - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:52:39 -0500 From: Linda Holley Subject: Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 - --------------090804040402030402080907 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I know the point of trying to stay in one or so time period. Right now you can go to many an event and see Civil War, contemporary western and Saloon girls? mixed into the event and no says anything. Still have not figured out the Santa Fe look. Love some of the girls going around in breech clout and honour shirts. Wonder where that came from? So much for the Dog Soldiers. Linda Holley roger lahti wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "James MacKannai" >To: >Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:48 PM >Subject: Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 > > > > >>Do you think it is just a bad idea then? >> >> > >Jim, > >In the context of today's rendezvous yes. They are set in a fairly narrow >historical time frame and to go outside that time frame takes a lot away >from the efforts of those who are trying to recreate the atmosphere of those >evens, (as poorly as it is done in any case). It was bad enough a few years > - --------------090804040402030402080907 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I know the point of trying to stay in one or so time period.  Right now you can go to many an event and see Civil War, contemporary western and Saloon girls? mixed into the event and no says anything. Still have not figured out the Santa Fe look.  Love some of the girls going around in breech clout and honour shirts.  Wonder where that came from?  So much for the Dog Soldiers.

Linda Holley

roger lahti wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "James MacKannai" <mackannai@hotmail.com>
To: <hist_text@lists.xmission.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: post 1840


  
Do you think it is just a bad idea then?
    

Jim,

In the context of today's rendezvous yes. They are set in a fairly narrow
historical time frame and to go outside that time frame takes a lot away
from the efforts of those who are trying to recreate the atmosphere of those
evens, (as poorly as it is done in any case). It was bad enough a few years

- --------------090804040402030402080907-- - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:48:00 -0800 From: "roger lahti" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: post 1840 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C2F6E4.819B2500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I remember a young "lady" at the first rendezvous we went to back in, = well I can't remember when but it was up on the Boulder River from Big = Timber. She was dressed in leggings, breech clout and a fairly short = shirt.=20 I been' comin' back every since! YMOS Capt. Lahti' - ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C2F6E4.819B2500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<Love some of the girls going around in breech clout and honour=20 shirts.>
 
I remember a young "lady" at the first = rendezvous=20 we went to back in, well I can't remember when but it was up on the = Boulder=20 River from Big Timber. She was dressed in leggings, breech clout and a = fairly=20 short shirt.
 
I been' comin' back every = since!
 
YMOS
Capt. Lahti'
 
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C2F6E4.819B2500-- - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 21:07:17 EST From: GazeingCyot@cs.com Subject: Re: MtMan-List: women's dresses - --part1_197.180b68c0.2bb8fcd5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim. Actually, leather dresses were the norm for women of this time period unless they were a trapper's or trader's wife. Wool was the cloth of choice at the time, especially saved list cloth with the white edge, which was used as part of the decoration. To have wool was a status symbol because it had to be obtained from traders and was a spendy item in comparison to buckskin, which was readily obtained from nature. Trappers were proud of their women and seemed to take pride in how much they could spend on them, and how lavishly they could be dressed. Read Joe Meek's account of Mountain Lamb. He tells just how much he spent on her horse, its trappings, and on her clothes. He said her skirt was blue and her bodice was red, with red leggings and a red scarf on her head. She was Shoshone, too. Denig said that wool dresses were cut much like the buckskin ones when they first started making them. There are, however no existing wool dresses from the fur trade. Kurz was barely past the fur trade and he shows "Crow woman at Fort Berthold" of a woman wearing a cloth dress with the open sleeves, buckskin fringe on the bottom of the skirt and what looks like elk teeth on the bodice. One large picture of this that I saw looked like her bodice was a different color that the skirt of the dress, but I couldn't be sure. Ewers in his book on Blackfeet shows a circa 1850 wool Blackfoot dress of blue stroud, with buckskin gussets up the sides and with the arches cut out at the bottom, and with plenty of fringe at the bottom and on the open sleeves. This one had the blue and white pound beads for decoration. All trappers wives did not have wool, though. Miller shows Walker's wife on horseback following behind him and she has a buckskin dress on. In Cody museum there is a two hide dress which is remarkable for its absence of decoration, though it does have fringe on the sleeves and bottom. This is Shoshone, and is the oldest dress on display in their collection, so we were told. It also has some hair left along the turned down edge where the tail is. We also can't forget the Miller paintings of the Shoshone women wearing only a skirt and no top at all. Leggings go over the moccasins, come to just below the knee and were tubes tied on with a string of buckskin. Some tribes had a fold down section at the top that was fringed. They were either decorated or plain depending on whether they were for work or for a fancy outfit. The best book for leggings and dresses is Cathy Smith's article in The Book of Buckskinning Vol. 6. Primitive Indian Dresses by Susan Fecteau is another good one but is out of print. You may find it through Amazon. com as a used book. If you want to read about saved list cloth, look at our web site. http://members.tripod.com/gazingcyot/index.htm Read the article Wool in the Fur Trade. We are also starting a group for women that has requirements somewhat smilier to AMM but adapted for women, called Women of the Fur Trade. If anyone is interested, I will post the requirements. Also if you would like me to send you pictures of any of the dresses I talked about, I can Email them to you. Jill - --part1_197.180b68c0.2bb8fcd5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20
=20


  Jim.
     Actually, leather dresses were the norm f= or women of this time period unless they were a trapper's or trader's wife.=20= Wool was the cloth of choice at the time, especially saved list cloth with t= he white edge, which was used as part of the decoration. To have wool was a=20= status symbol because it had to be obtained from traders and was a spendy it= em in comparison to buckskin, which was readily obtained from nature. Trappe= rs were proud of their women and seemed to take pride in how much they could= spend on them, and how lavishly they could be dressed.  Read Joe Meek'= s account of Mountain Lamb. He tells just how much he spent on her horse, it= s trappings, and on her clothes. He said her skirt was blue and her bodice w= as red, with red leggings and a red scarf on her head. She was Shoshone, too= . Denig said that wool dresses were cut much like the buckskin ones when the= y first started making them. There are, however no existing wool dresses fro= m the fur trade. Kurz was barely past the fur trade and he shows "Crow woman= at Fort Berthold" of a woman wearing a cloth dress with the open sleeves, b= uckskin fringe on the bottom of the skirt and what looks like elk teeth on t= he bodice. One large picture of this that I saw looked like her bodice was a= different color that the skirt of the dress, but I couldn't be sure. Ewers=20= in his book on Blackfeet shows a circa 1850 wool Blackfoot dress of blue str= oud, with buckskin gussets up the sides and with the arches cut out at the b= ottom, and with plenty of fringe at the bottom and on the open sleeves. This= one had the blue and white pound beads for decoration.
     All trappers wives did not have wool, tho= ugh. Miller shows Walker's wife on horseback following behind him and she ha= s a buckskin dress on. In Cody museum there is a two hide dress which is rem= arkable for its absence of decoration, though it does have fringe on the sle= eves and bottom. This is Shoshone, and is the oldest dress on display in the= ir collection, so we were told. It also has some hair left along the turned=20= down edge where the tail is. We also can't forget the Miller paintings of th= e Shoshone women wearing only a skirt and no top at all.
     Leggings go over the moccasins, come to j= ust below the knee and were tubes tied on with a string of buckskin. Some tr= ibes had a fold down section at the top that was fringed. They were either d= ecorated or plain depending on whether they were for work or for a fancy out= fit. The best book for leggings and dresses is Cathy Smith's article in The=20= Book of Buckskinning Vol. 6. Primitive Indian Dresses by Susan Fecteau is an= other good one but is out of print. You may find it through Amazon. com as a= used book. If you want to read about saved list cloth, look at our web site= .
http://member= s.tripod.com/gazingcyot/index.htm
Read the article Wool in the Fur Trade.
We are also starting a group for women that has requirements somewhat sm= ilier to AMM but adapted for women, called Women of the Fur Trade. If anyone= is interested, I will post the requirements. Also if you would like me to s= end you pictures of any of the dresses I talked about, I can Email them to y= ou.=20
            = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;           Jill - --part1_197.180b68c0.2bb8fcd5_boundary-- - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ End of hist_text-digest V1 #1179 ******************************** - To unsubscribe to hist_text-digest, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe hist_text-digest" in the body of the message.