Tweet
A little peer review is generally a good thing...
RJ,
Thank you posting the definitions to add to the discussion. However, I must disagree with your opinion that "common sense" should be sufficient. Aside from the fact that it really isn't all that common, there is that old problem that a great deal of reenactor "common sense" has proven to be a slippery slope too often leading to such things as flat fly porches on wall tents, wrought iron campfire implements, rendezvous chairs, canvas covered coolers, surplus army cots hidden in personal wedge tents, and sundry other reenactorisms and suppositions that have become far too rarely questioned "facts" by not being carefully examined.
While I appreciate that there may well be basis for making the assumptions that Nick put forth, I think we are still a long ways from regarding them as accurate and correct. I questioned not the possibility that Nick's information might be accurate, but rather its assertion as fact. (As I also do a California miner impression I'm particularly interested in information regarding their practices and sincerly would like to know the source regarding them.) While your definitions may prove helpful I think you are jumping ahead and connecting dots that may not result in an accurate picture in the end.
A couple thoughts to consider regarding these specific assertions. What were most shirts made from in the 1850s? How common was cotton print fabric used for shirting as compared to linen, wool flannel, or hickory cloth? Its fine to say fellows knew how to use knife or scissors but still quite a leap to say that 49ers actually actually did to cut up shirts into bandannas. How much easier and less expensive would it be to purchase kerchiefs or bandannas printed and made for that express purpose already or to make them directly from raw cotton shirting rather than from material that had already been turned into a garment. Before making the leap that "any square piece of period fabric would be correct" (would not that group also include canvas, wool, jean cloth, huck toweling, carpet, cotton blankets, draperies and even domet flannel?) I think it important to dig a little deeper and find some examples of what actually was used to make kerchiefs and bandannas.
My issue is not with kerchiefs or bandannas. They were certainly much more common and necessary items in an era before Kleenex and paper towels. The utility of these everyday items is well established and I have and still do utilize them in the field. (My favorite is even constructed from printed cotton shirting material although I also like to carry a silk one on ocaision.) In the dust, sun, and heat of the southwest a good kerchief is an invaluable and even necessary item. From the history of their manufacture and production that has been shared in this thread alone, it would seem that printed hand kerchiefs were some of the earliest manufactured textile goods in America. Considering their commonness and utility how likely was it to make them from old clothing compared to being constructed for an express purpose.
My question wasn't whether a square piece of cloth is a handy item, even as apparel and head wear on occasion, but what the basis for the assertions stated as fact were. Before folks go out cutting up shirts to wear on their heads because they read on the AC that it is the new kewl thing to do, I think a little more research and investigation is worthwhile, don't you?
RJ,
Thank you posting the definitions to add to the discussion. However, I must disagree with your opinion that "common sense" should be sufficient. Aside from the fact that it really isn't all that common, there is that old problem that a great deal of reenactor "common sense" has proven to be a slippery slope too often leading to such things as flat fly porches on wall tents, wrought iron campfire implements, rendezvous chairs, canvas covered coolers, surplus army cots hidden in personal wedge tents, and sundry other reenactorisms and suppositions that have become far too rarely questioned "facts" by not being carefully examined.
While I appreciate that there may well be basis for making the assumptions that Nick put forth, I think we are still a long ways from regarding them as accurate and correct. I questioned not the possibility that Nick's information might be accurate, but rather its assertion as fact. (As I also do a California miner impression I'm particularly interested in information regarding their practices and sincerly would like to know the source regarding them.) While your definitions may prove helpful I think you are jumping ahead and connecting dots that may not result in an accurate picture in the end.
A couple thoughts to consider regarding these specific assertions. What were most shirts made from in the 1850s? How common was cotton print fabric used for shirting as compared to linen, wool flannel, or hickory cloth? Its fine to say fellows knew how to use knife or scissors but still quite a leap to say that 49ers actually actually did to cut up shirts into bandannas. How much easier and less expensive would it be to purchase kerchiefs or bandannas printed and made for that express purpose already or to make them directly from raw cotton shirting rather than from material that had already been turned into a garment. Before making the leap that "any square piece of period fabric would be correct" (would not that group also include canvas, wool, jean cloth, huck toweling, carpet, cotton blankets, draperies and even domet flannel?) I think it important to dig a little deeper and find some examples of what actually was used to make kerchiefs and bandannas.
My issue is not with kerchiefs or bandannas. They were certainly much more common and necessary items in an era before Kleenex and paper towels. The utility of these everyday items is well established and I have and still do utilize them in the field. (My favorite is even constructed from printed cotton shirting material although I also like to carry a silk one on ocaision.) In the dust, sun, and heat of the southwest a good kerchief is an invaluable and even necessary item. From the history of their manufacture and production that has been shared in this thread alone, it would seem that printed hand kerchiefs were some of the earliest manufactured textile goods in America. Considering their commonness and utility how likely was it to make them from old clothing compared to being constructed for an express purpose.
My question wasn't whether a square piece of cloth is a handy item, even as apparel and head wear on occasion, but what the basis for the assertions stated as fact were. Before folks go out cutting up shirts to wear on their heads because they read on the AC that it is the new kewl thing to do, I think a little more research and investigation is worthwhile, don't you?
Comment