|
Post by spence on Jan 5, 2021 12:30:50 GMT -7
Let’s talk about leather. It is an integral part of the reenacting gear of most of us, so an understanding of it’s place in the era seems important. Some random observations;
The most frequent item I see in my reading is leather beeches. The type of leather is usually not specified, but German leather breeches, shammy leather breeches, oiled leather breeches, English leather breeches, leather breeches made of Indian dressed elk, or deer skins, tanned sheepskin breeches, and thick Indian dressed leather breeches were mentioned. Since the deerskin collected by market hunters and traded from the Indians was largely sent to Europe and made into a kind of oiled leather which was then commonly used to make the gazillion pairs of leather breeches worn at the time, those type described as ‘German or English may well have been those.
Both Doddridge and Johann Schoepff mentiion that many people made their own leather. This was done by burying troughs in the ground up to the rim, putting water, shredded bark and the skins in to soak, one year for uppers, two years for sole leather. There are ads to lease or sell property described as tanyards which have bark houses and mills, as many as 20 vats for soaking, so commercial production of vegetable tanned leather was a thriving industry.
Schoepff also mentioned that some had learned to make brain-tanned leather from the Indians. Ads in the newspapers make it clear that “brained” or “Indian dressed” leather was being done commercially by whites. An item shows Indians bargaining to lower prices in trade, measured in pounds of leather, most probably brain-tanned. Mention is made of Indian dressed skins being exported.
Types of leather I’ve found in the old literature include bark tanned [modern vegetable], oiled, Indian dressed/brain tan, English dressed, and alom.
A question that frequently occurs to me is why in the reenacting community it seems to be assumed that most all leather goods in the day were brain tanned. It most certainly was not the most common type made by the whites, so why isn’t it more proper for most of our leather goods to be made of “white man’s leather”? Some of it has characteristics better suited to some projects than brain tanned.
Spence
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Jan 5, 2021 13:11:44 GMT -7
Excellent observation, Spence. I have been thinking about this quite a bit lately as well in contemplation of a shooting bag project.
I think that you are unquestionably correct that "commercial" leather, whether domestic or imported, would most likely be bark tanned. Native American tanned hides were, as you say. braintanned and sold mostly to established traders (see Kathryn Braund's Deerskins and Duffels for a detailed and well-documented account of the deerskin trade in the SE). I should think that in addition to licensed traders, Native dressed skins were perchance traded periodically to others in frontier areas in frequent contact with Natives.
Finally, frontier residents with some Native cultural contact and exposure seem (as you noted) to have learned and practiced brain tanning as well.
So, is braintanned leather over-represented in the hobby? Perhaps. That said, most of us seem to do woodsman type impressions, rather than personas from more settled areas, so perhaps this does make sense. I, for example, often use my 6th great grandfather for inspiration. As a captive of the Delaware for three years, he almost certainly would have possessed such knowledge.
In short, I think the answer hinges on the chosen impression. For something purchased either domestically or imported, bark tan seems most appropriate to me. For something self-made in a frontier area, I should thing brain tanned would be at least equally appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jan 5, 2021 14:24:09 GMT -7
Spence, Buckskin Breeches were the "working man's blue jeans" of the 18th century and highly popular with many working trades, because they lasted so long and stood up to rough usage. Though as you mentioned, the skins for these had been tanned in England and Europe. Though the following E-book was written over 40 years ago, about the time I purchased my copy, the information is still good today: www.gutenberg.org/files/58293/58293-h/58293-h.htmThere was a thriving bark/veg tanning industry in Virginia by the 1750's, though leather imported from England was still considered better by most leather working trades right up to the AWI. Some of that is mentioned in the booklet above. Gus
|
|
|
Post by spence on Jan 6, 2021 19:14:34 GMT -7
"For something purchased either domestically or imported, bark tan seems most appropriate to me. For something self-made in a frontier area, I should thing brain tanned would be at least equally appropriate." Yet Doddridge said: "Every family tanned their own leather. The tan vat was a large trough sunk to the upper edge in the ground. A quantity of bark was easily obtained every spring, in clearing and fencing the land. This, after drying, was brought in and in wet days was shaved and pounded on a block of wood, with an axe or mallet. Ashes was [sic] used in place of lime for taking off the hair. Bears' oil, hog's lard and tallow, answered the place of fish oil. The leather, to be sure, was coarse; but it was substantially good. The operation of currying was performed by a drawing knife with its edge turned, after the manner of a currying knife. The blacking for the leather was made of soot and hog's lard." This was among the first settlers on the frontier, when families still ran to forted stations in times of Indian incursions. He mentioned making shoes and shoepacks of it, but it seems highly likely that any other leather items they needed, shot pouches, for instance, would have been made of their homemade vegetable tanned leather. Spence
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jan 6, 2021 20:19:34 GMT -7
Both Doddridge and Johann Schoepff mentiion that many people made their own leather. This was done by burying troughs in the ground up to the rim, putting water, shredded bark and the skins in to soak, one year for uppers, two years for sole leather. There are ads to lease or sell property described as tanyards which have bark houses and mills, as many as 20 vats for soaking, so commercial production of vegetable tanned leather was a thriving industry. Spence Spence, Thought you may be interested the time periods required to soak the leather in the tan vat are very close to, if not mirror the times mentioned in the Colonial Williamsburg booklet from period documentation. I really think you are onto something with your thinking in the earliest periods on the frontier and the documented tan bark troughs, that for that general period, bark/veg tanned leather would have been more common on the frontier to make a home made shot pouch. This makes me wonder, as I don't think I have ever seen or felt Bark/Veg tanned buckskin, if that made buckskin firmer in the leather's temper to make a shot pouch that didn't fold in on itself? Gus
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Jan 7, 2021 5:40:47 GMT -7
This is great, I personally haven't spent much time with bark tanning and definitely this is an area that will need addressed. Excellent content as usual, thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Jan 7, 2021 8:53:25 GMT -7
"For something purchased either domestically or imported, bark tan seems most appropriate to me. For something self-made in a frontier area, I should thing brain tanned would be at least equally appropriate." Yet Doddridge said: "Every family tanned their own leather. The tan vat was a large trough sunk to the upper edge in the ground. A quantity of bark was easily obtained every spring, in clearing and fencing the land. This, after drying, was brought in and in wet days was shaved and pounded on a block of wood, with an axe or mallet. Ashes was [sic] used in place of lime for taking off the hair. Bears' oil, hog's lard and tallow, answered the place of fish oil. The leather, to be sure, was coarse; but it was substantially good. The operation of currying was performed by a drawing knife with its edge turned, after the manner of a currying knife. The blacking for the leather was made of soot and hog's lard." This was among the first settlers on the frontier, when families still ran to forted stations in times of Indian incursions. He mentioned making shoes and shoepacks of it, but it seems highly likely that any other leather items they needed, shot pouches, for instance, would have been made of their homemade vegetable tanned leather. Spence So, to review the bidding, you have to date cited some excellent primary source documentation for both bark and brain-tanned leather by European colonists in our period of interest. It seems to me that we once again find ourselves in that place in which only a quantitative analysis can truly advance our understanding of this issue (period probate inventories, merchant day books, etc.). With your exceptional database, Spence, I can think of few people better positioned for such an undertaking. Short of some meaningful quantitative study, we are once again reduced to speculation, unfulfilling as that can be.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Jan 7, 2021 9:27:52 GMT -7
"For something purchased either domestically or imported, bark tan seems most appropriate to me. For something self-made in a frontier area, I should thing brain tanned would be at least equally appropriate." Yet Doddridge said: "Every family tanned their own leather. The tan vat was a large trough sunk to the upper edge in the ground. A quantity of bark was easily obtained every spring, in clearing and fencing the land. This, after drying, was brought in and in wet days was shaved and pounded on a block of wood, with an axe or mallet. Ashes was [sic] used in place of lime for taking off the hair. Bears' oil, hog's lard and tallow, answered the place of fish oil. The leather, to be sure, was coarse; but it was substantially good. The operation of currying was performed by a drawing knife with its edge turned, after the manner of a currying knife. The blacking for the leather was made of soot and hog's lard." This was among the first settlers on the frontier, when families still ran to forted stations in times of Indian incursions. He mentioned making shoes and shoepacks of it, but it seems highly likely that any other leather items they needed, shot pouches, for instance, would have been made of their homemade vegetable tanned leather. Spence So, to review the bidding, you have to date cited some excellent primary source documentation for both bark and brain-tanned leather by European colonists in our period of interest. It seems to me that we once again find ourselves in that place in which only a quantitative analysis can truly advance our understanding of this issue (period probate inventories, merchant day books, etc.). With your exceptional database, Spence, I can think of few people better positioned for such an undertaking. Short of some meaningful quantitative study, we are once again reduced to speculation, unfulfilling as that can be. Very valid thoughts. Much of my own investigation always comes full circle back to an educated decision on speculation, based on good primary documentation.
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Jan 7, 2021 18:57:46 GMT -7
Hmmmm? No naugahide listed?
|
|
|
Post by spence on Jan 7, 2021 21:16:45 GMT -7
Naugas are an invasive species which came along after our period.
Spence
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jan 7, 2021 22:57:46 GMT -7
OK, so what else may this information do for us when considering making or having a "home made" Shot Pouch made?
Prior to the AWI when there was such a huge market in England for deer skins, would they have home bark tanned such a hide and used it for a shot pouch OR because of the high value of the deer skin, would they have used another skin to make their Shot Pouch? Hogs were quite common on farms and even to the frontier and regularly butchered in the fall, so would a pig skin Shot Pouch have been more likely than a deerskin in the 18th century - at least as long as there was a vast market for deerskins?
Or perhaps a deer skin taken in the spring or summer, that was not worth as much as a winter hide, may have been home tanned and used for a Shot Pouch?
Something I've wondered about was how quickly did the deerskin market come back after the AWI and did the hides hold "Pre- AWI War" prices? Buckskin Breeches were still very common for Tradesmen through the end of the 18th century and fine quality deerskin was still fashionable for riding breeches w/the upper classes in England through about the 1820's.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Jan 8, 2021 4:39:01 GMT -7
OK, so what else may this information do for us when considering making or having a "home made" Shot Pouch made? Prior to the AWI when there was such a huge market in England for deer skins, would they have home bark tanned such a hide and used it for a shot pouch OR because of the high value of the deer skin, would they have used another skin to make their Shot Pouch? Hogs were quite common on farms and even to the frontier and regularly butchered in the fall, so would a pig skin Shot Pouch have been more likely than a deerskin in the 18th century - at least as long as there was a vast market for deerskins? Or perhaps a deer skin taken in the spring or summer, that was not worth as much as a winter hide, may have been home tanned and used for a Shot Pouch? Something I've wondered about was how quickly did the deerskin market come back after the AWI and did the hides hold "Pre- AWI War" prices? Buckskin Breeches were still very common for Tradesmen through the end of the 18th century and fine quality deerskin was still fashionable for riding breeches w/the upper classes in England through about the 1820's. Gus I see at least 2 issues here comparing markets for deer hides with using hides for oneself. 1st, not everyone on the frontier was marketing hides. If I'm not looking to create bales of hides to bring back for market, I'm probably not going to save hides for that purpose. Even if I were to save deer hides for that trip to the settlements there are going to be hides that get damaged or for some reason aren't worth bringing. Which brings me to my second issue. "perhaps a deer skin taken in the spring or summer, that was not worth as much as a winter hide, may have been home tanned and used for a Shot Pouch?" My impression of the deer skin trade, especially those bound for Europe, has been that it was those summer hides that they wanted. That for clothing use the summer hide was more soft and supple,,,, the opposite of what we want for our pouch. I just want to interject a comment about bark tan shot pouches here, to get it off my chest as it has been bugging me for a while. I see these bark tan bags for sale, especially at the ALR site, overall pretty nice bags quite often, sometimes too sloppy for my taste. I absolutely love the color the bark tan deer takes on, I would be thrilled to get one or two to work with. But, why, why does every single one gave random clumps of hair left on them? It looks like the bag has mange, or someone was shaving in the dark and never wiped their hand across their face. It's horrible. (This would never happen with brain tan Nauga)
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Jan 8, 2021 5:52:47 GMT -7
According to Kathryn Braund, the deerskin trade in NA peaks in the 1760s or early 1770s (precise estimates are difficult based on surviving records).
Natives were the only significant producers of deerskin for export market. Total deerskin production from the Southeastern tribes combined in the 1760s is estimated at 1.5 million pounds (representing an average of 1 million animals). [Braund, 71]. A (somewhat lower) contemporary estimate by Southern Indian Superintendent John Stuart has the Southeastern trade peaking in 1764 at 800,000 lbs per year. [Braund, 98].
White hunters market hunting deer was discouraged by natives, who viewed it as an encroachment on their livelihoods as well as their lands. [Braund, 145]
Significant changes in the trade occurred after the Proclamation of 1763, when the crown stripped the colonies of the authority to regulate the Indian trade (until it became too much of a headache for the Board of Trade, after which colonies were given the authority to license traders again). About this time the demand from English leather producers also drove preference from traditional dressed skins (Native brain-tanned) to "undressed." While this saved a lot of Native (female) labor, the price of skins paid per animal decreased as well. [Braund, 69]
I think it is significant to note that up until peak productionin the 1760s, commercial English leatherworkers who were the principal customers of American deerskins were buying already tanned (BRAIN-TANNED) leather for production and export of gloves, breeches, book binding, etc., which was in turn exported back to America as well as continental Europe.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Jan 8, 2021 6:34:41 GMT -7
See this is another area one can go all in or not. For me I try my best in utilizing my own hides.
For the common individual within this hobby the availability of such hides may be limited or out of a financial reach for many, me included. Absolutely no way in hell would I spend upwards of $300+ for a completely authentic hide to make garments that without a doubt will be worn out within a season or less given environmental conditions.
There just has to be a line of reason, there is for me atleast. While I'm lucky to have the skills and knowledge for tanning there are times when I'll need to purchase leather for things. When I do its always split elk or moose. Is there a problem with that? I think not but some may differ on that opinion. However being responsible in my decisions allows me to continue doing what I love when I'm not able to tan.
I'm all in for authenticity, but there are allot of times we must make do best we can and keep the ball in the park atleast.
|
|
|
Post by spence on Jan 8, 2021 9:00:12 GMT -7
One thing which I would like to understand is the terminology used for the skins/leather. I don't think all skins traded from the Indians were brain tanned. The term 'dressed' may mean tanned or processed, but I don't think we can assume that just because skins came from Indians they were automatically brain tanned. I know that in the ledger book from Fort Pitt's trading post 1760 most all of the many hundreds of entries detailing what the Indians traded, they simply denoted the animal the skin was from, or the stage of preservation the skin was in. These terms were from the ledger:
summer fall shaved elk skin, shaved elk in the hair scraped parchment short hair fall skin [deer], half grained fawn skin ordinary beaver ordinary raccoon
I don't think any of those skins had been brain tanned.
On the other hand, In South Carolina in 1753, the talk is simply of leather, which may very well mean brain tanned or Indian dressed.
The Pennsylvania Gazette August 30, 1753 The further Conference between his Excellency JAMES GLEN, Esq; Governor of South Carolina, and Malatchi and other Headmen of the Creek Indians.... “I am now to say something to your Excellency, which I hope you will assent to; the King has spoke what was necessary upon other Heads, and what I am to speak is without Direction of any Head men; it flows chiefly from myself, being a Head Warrior, and the rest of the Head Warriors here present, that is, that the Trade should be lower; we want a Match Coat for 6 lb. Leather, a Gun for 14 lb. which is now 16. 50 Bullets for 1 lb. 2 double Handfuls of Powder for one Skin, 20 Flints for 1 lb. a Check Shirt for 3 lb. now it is 4 Callicoes at the same Rate; a Blanket 6 lb. for two Yards, a Man’s Flap 1 lb. a Hoe 3 lb. a Pair Silver Bobs 1 lb. a Belt 1 lb. 2 Knives for 1 lb. a Pair of Shoes at 3 lb. which used to be 4 lb. a Pair of Scissars 1 lb. a Keg of Rum 25 lb. Leather.”
In the beaver trade it was the hair which was valuable, not the skin. The most valuable pelts were called "coat beaver" because those skins had been made into garments by the Indians and worn for a season. That removed a lot of the unwanted guard hairs and softened the skin by absorbing oils from the person's body, making them easier to process. No brain tanning there. Or is there? Can hair be left on brain tanned skins?
Whites were certainly doing brain tanning. In Philadelphia in 1767, stolen from a skinner's shop, "22 drest buckskins of brained leather, ready smoaked", and in 1778, again stolen, "seven skins of brained leather".
Johann Schoepff speaks in 1784 of both bark and brain tanning: "Most of the country-people in America know how to tan and themselves prepare, in little pits, the greatest part of the leather they need. They have even learned from the Indians an easy and rapid method of making leather from the skins of both wild and domestic animals. They call it Hirn-garmachen, i. e. brain-tanning."
In 1784, describing the dress of Carolina backwoodsmen, J.F.D. Smyth said: "Sometimes they wear leather breeches, made of Indian dressed elk, or deer skins, but more frequently thin trowsers.
Dressed, English dressed, Indian dressed, brained, oiled, leather...As I said, I'd like to understand.
Spence
|
|