From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #16 Reply-To: h-costume Sender: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Errors-To: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk H-Costume Digest Tuesday, January 16 1996 Volume 4, Number 16 Compilation copyright (C) 1995 Diane Barlow Close and Gretchen Miller Use in whole prohibited. Individual articles are the property of the author. Seek permission from that author before reprinting or quoting elsewhere. Important Addresses: Send submissions to: h-costume@lunch.engr.sgi.com (or reply to this message). Adds/drops/archives: majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com Real, live person: h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu Topics: Re: Primary and Secondary Sources Re: fabric choices Ukranian clothing Where to get feathers? Re: nit-picking Re: Where to get feathers? Re: nit-picking & fabric choices Re: Primary and Secondary Sources Re: Primary and Secondary Sources Re: Where to get feathers? Feathers Re: nit-picking & fabric choices Re: Primary and Secondary Sources Re: Primary and Secondary Sources Re[2]: Primary and Secondary Sources Re: Ukranian clothing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 15:49:44 PST From: Mirabelle Severn & Thames Subject: Re: Primary and Secondary Sources I've been agreeing with the people who define actual surviving clothing articles as primary sources, while paintings, woodcuts, written descriptions, etc., of a given garment's period are secondary sources. And a question has arisen in my mind: are writings and patterns by *tailors* of a given period primary or secondary sources? I mean, if a passage from Shakespeare is a primary source for *what a writer/actor/producer expected a certain character in a play to wear*, how far from primary *for actual garments* is a book of tailor's notes, descriptions, diagrams, plans? Musingly, Naomi Brokaw from California's central coast ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 16:28:44 -0800 (PST) From: Kimberly Smay Subject: Re: fabric choices I am a theatrical costumer rather than a reenactor, but I have created good trim from cheaper materials. Folks have been mentioning metallic braids. I have found dirt cheap ones(1.00 py) and embellished using paint, dye, ribbon and beads. lots o' fun to do too. Kimberly Smay ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 18:28:28 +0000 From: iteach@slip.net (Elizabeth Pruyn) Subject: Ukranian clothing Hi there. Can anyone recommend a few good books to look at to get an over view of Ukranian women's clothing? I am making a generic costume for a Ball and I need a few details and I have nothing on this area in my collection. Thank-you, Elizabeth Elizabeth Pruyn iteach@slip.net Oakland, CA "If I had been around when Rubens was painting, I would have been revered as a fabulous model. Kate Moss? Well, she would have been the paint brush..." - Dawn French ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 20:09:35 -0500 From: sunfire@muskoka.com (Stephen & Krista Fraser) Subject: Where to get feathers? Unto those upon this list, I send greetings. My wife, Krista, is a regular to this list and after seeing some discussion of caring for feathers, thought I would ask for some help locating feathers for fletching homemade arrows. What I'm after, in particular, is wing feathers of Canada Goose and Wild Turkey. If folks know of a source for them, or if someone on the list _is_ a source, I'd like to purchase some. Please contact me via E-mail. Thanks, Stephen Fraser ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 22:09:47 -0700 From: savaskan@electriciti.com (Julie Adams) Subject: Re: nit-picking >A couple of points relating to recent posts. My comments on coifs, as >usual, relate to 16th century England. Women's coifs are always white (ie >I have never seen an illustration or reference to another colour) and not >embroidered or decorated. All the illustrations of embroidered coifs I've >seen are described as nightcaps (Janet Arnold, again!) In 16th century Germany we see many day caps and coifs embroidered with black and/or gold work, and again, the ground fabric is always white. But they are a different style than the Tudor/Stuart style nightcaps. There are many different styles of German women's caps/coifs/headlinens, each refered to as a "haube". In 16th cent. Germany, there are also decorated snoods or cauls which are often in gold netting decorated in pearls, but would only be suitable for an upper class woman or expensive courtesan. I don't consider a snood a "cap", and one is not normally referred to as a "haube". Julie ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 22:09:54 -0700 From: savaskan@electriciti.com (Julie Adams) Subject: Re: Where to get feathers? >My wife, Krista, is a regular to this list and after seeing some discussion >of caring for feathers, thought I would ask for some help locating feathers >for fletching homemade arrows. > >What I'm after, in particular, is wing feathers of Canada Goose and Wild >Turkey. If folks know of a source for them, or if someone on the list _is_ >a source, I'd like to purchase some. I just wanted to point out to the list that there are several bird of prey, migratory bird, and songbird federal laws which make it illegal to have most wild bird feathers in your possession and even more to sell them. Additionally, some animal body parts, such as bear claws, cannot be sold legally, though there may be some leaway for antiques.. Bird of Prey feathers can be possessed by American Indians, but I believe they must have some official tribal written authorization which allow it for religious reasons, or some such like that...Anyway, please check this out. I think the Wild Turkey feathers may be ok, but I would check first. julie adams ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:03:16 -0800 From: Veda Crewe Joseph Subject: Re: nit-picking & fabric choices Teresa Shannon wrote: > If you want nice silk for your $10.00 range, order with a friend at least > 15 yards per fabric and get the wholesale price from Thai Silks. I used > to work there, it is very inexpensive, order over the phone. Great! Do you have the address and phone # for them? Inquiring minds wand to know. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:11:57 -0500 (EST) From: Annikki Weston Subject: Re: Primary and Secondary Sources On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Sarah Randles wrote: > > Tertiary sources then are those which are another step away, e.g. a photo or > line drawing based on a painting. These too can be good or bad, and again > need to be treated with care. For example Janet Arnold's books are good This is really starting to get me confused now. Why would a photograph of a painting be tertiary, vs. secondary, like the painting itself. Is it not an exact reproduction of the painting? I can see how a line drawing is tertiary, because it doesn't copy exactly. But a photograph? Geesh, and hear in my history classes at Saginaw Valley State, we're told that things like descriptions of clothing, written at the time that clothing was worn, by the people who wore it, are primary sources, not secondary. No wonder I'm confused. Nikki Weston weston@tardis.svsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 11:21:23 -0600 (CST) From: "\"Randy Shipp\"" Subject: Re: Primary and Secondary Sources On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Annikki Weston wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Sarah Randles wrote: > > > > Tertiary sources then are those which are another step away, e.g. a photo or > > line drawing based on a painting. These too can be good or bad, and again > > need to be treated with care. For example Janet Arnold's books are good > > This is really starting to get me confused now. Why would a photograph > of a painting be tertiary, vs. secondary, like the painting itself. Is > it not an exact reproduction of the painting? I can see how a line > drawing is tertiary, because it doesn't copy exactly. But a photograph? Well, I'd tend to disagree that a good, clear photograph which sacrifices no significant detail is secondary rather than primary, insofar as you can gain relevant information from the photo. For example, a photo of a Norman garment would be useful for color or shape or cut sort of things as a primary source, but not for thread counts or texture or intricate sewing techniques which the photo doesn't capture. Of course, in a situation like this, the difference between "primary source" and "secondary source" may be purely semantic. > Geesh, and hear in my history classes at Saginaw Valley State, we're told > that things like descriptions of clothing, written at the time that > clothing was worn, by the people who wore it, are primary sources, not > secondary. No wonder I'm confused. Well, I'd disagree with that. As it's been explained to me, any description of an artifact by a person who's actually examining it is a secondary source for the artifact, the artifact itself being the only primary source. Randy... rshipp@flash.net -or- rshipp@dale.hsc.unt.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 09:34:56 -0500 From: deirdre@sover.net (Deirdre) Subject: Re: Where to get feathers? At 10:09 PM 1/15/96, Julie Adams wrote: > Anyway, please check this out. I think > the Wild Turkey feathers may be ok, but I would check first. Anyone who has a hunting license for wild turkey (moi, for example) may certainly possess the feathers of the birds they have killed by hunting (two last year, but I ran them over :( ). Likewise, Canada Goose is a migratory bird that can be shot, but I believe only in one of two migration seasons (when they're leaving Canada, not vice-versa if I remember correctly). Neither bird is considered a bird of prey (e.g. falcon). _Deirdre ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 96 14:05:00 GMT From: Mrs C S Yeldham Subject: Feathers I checked with my husband and the stuff he uses is Borax (not a tradename). Otherwise he agrees freezing will kill the mites. Canada Geese are, I am told, protected in Europe (they are also a pest, but thats another story). Thanks Julie for the comments about 16th century Germany - proof of the dangers of using evidence from another country! *Sensitivity* Fran seems to me to have raised an interesting question - to what extent do we allow our sensitivity to other people's comments or actions to determine what we do? If I bothered too much about what other people think, I would end up doing nothing! As you may have gathered, my area of interest is 16th century English food and cookery. At the last Food Symposium I went to (in Leeds), involving historical foodies from all over the country, two speakers refered to the food prepared during the medieval period, prior to the 'revolution' in cookery (which, by the way, they placed a century apart) as inedible. They then went on to talk about this 'revolution' in cookery, this statement was an assumption which they did not bother to justify! Thats their opinion - they've never tasted my cooking! I shall be going to the next Symposium! I know America is a much bigger country, but in the UK we have people who travel from Edinburgh to Suffolk regularly to take part in Kentwell, which is over 370 miles (well, its a long way in the UK). Caroline ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:33:19 -0500 From: deirdre@sover.net (Deirdre) Subject: Re: nit-picking & fabric choices At 12:03 PM 1/16/96, Veda Crewe Joseph wrote: > Great! Do you have the address and phone # for them? > Inquiring minds wand to know. I just called them to order their samples (finally) yesterday. 800/722-SILK. _Deirdre ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:48:39 EST From: "laura yungblut" Subject: Re: Primary and Secondary Sources > (I would possibly draw the boundaries between primary, secondary, > and what I would call tertiary sources rather differently.) The > only real, primary source for historic costumes in my opinion, is > the actually garment itself. And we don't always have them. A > contemporary depiction, be it written or visual is always one > step away from the actual garments, and this can cause problems, > since the depictor may not know much about what he or she is > depicting, so there may be errors or 'artistic license'. I would > call these secondary sources, albeit very good ones, but they need to be > treated with some care. Speaking as a professional historian, we consider contemporary materials as primary, regardless of whether there are "errors" or not. It is the job of the researcher to analyze the primary source and dtermine whether or not it is valid for their purpose, flawed or biassed in some way, etc. It is still, however, a primary source. > Tertiary sources then are those which are another step away, e.g. a photo or > line drawing based on a painting. These too can be good or bad, and again > need to be treated with care. For example Janet Arnold's books are good > tertiary sources, because she has worked closely with the primary and > secondary sources; Holkeboer's "Historical Costume" is a bad tertiary > source, because she has not. A pictorial representation is a secondary source, not tertiary. Secondary sources are defined as those which have been written or produced in some other way from primary materials by someone removed chronologically from the original period. Photographs certainly fit that rule. The same caveat about determining the value of the source stills applies at this level. Tertiary sources are those compiled by yet another individual (or individuals) from secondary sources; textbooks are the most familiar examples. > My advice is to work from the primary source if you can, (easier > for some periods than others), and use secondary sources with > some caution, and tertiary sources with a lot more. To reduce > the risks of making mistakes, cross referencing between sources, > with an understanding of their relative accuracies, is essential. > > Sarah I agree wholeheartedly with this sound advice. Laura Hunt Yungblut, Ph.D. Dept. of History, Univ. of Dayton yungblut@checkov.hm.udayton.edu ********************************************************************** The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. Nemo me impune lacessit. Veni, vidi, visa. Get a room. Barney is the Antichrist. Miao. ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:13:09 -0600 (CST) From: Teresa Shannon Subject: Re: Primary and Secondary Sources > > Geesh, and hear in my history classes at Saginaw Valley State, we're told > > that things like descriptions of clothing, written at the time that > > clothing was worn, by the people who wore it, are primary sources, not > > secondary. No wonder I'm confused. > > Well, I'd disagree with that. As it's been explained to me, any > description of an artifact by a person who's actually examining it is a > secondary source for the artifact, the artifact itself being the only > primary source. As far as I know, and someone can correct me with references, but, period description of clothing ARE primary sources, but ONLY for literary clothing descriptions themselves, and not for an actual garment. If I was doing a paper on "The romantic symbolism of the spanish surcote" then a description of clothing in a heralds chronicle, or a period romance would constitute primary source material for that paper--that is literary descriptions. They do not count as primary source for an actual garment, but are generally used as corollary sources to determine styles, when they changed, favorite colors, what a wardrobe might consist of, help in matching garments with names, etc. Likewise, a manuscript which portrays a woman in clothing is a primary source for manuscript portrayls of women and not, clothing of the time. So you see, anything manufactured in the correct time period is a primary source material, but of a much more specific and narrower range than may have been imagined. Teresa ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 11:08:53 PST From: Loren_Dearborn@casmail.calacademy.org (Loren Dearborn) Subject: Re[2]: Primary and Secondary Sources Secondary sources are defined as those which have been written or produced in some other way from primary materials by someone removed chronologically from the original period. Photographs certainly fit that rule. The same caveat about determining the value of the source So would an 1871 photograph of an 1871 costume constitute a primary source then? Just trying to straighten it all out... Loren Dearborn ldearborn@calacademy.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 14:17:16 -0500 From: eliz@world.std.com (Elizabeth Lear) Subject: Re: Ukranian clothing < Can anyone recommend a few good books to look at to get an over