From: "Philip Edward Cutone, III" Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 19:01:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: H-Costume Digest, Volume 295, 5/8/95 The Historic Costume List Digest, Volume 295, May 8, 1995 Send items for the list to h-costume@andrew.cmu.edu (or reply to this message). Send subscription/deletion requests and inquiries to h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu Please note that I am not the usual maintainer. If there is a problem with the digest please let me know (and forgive a few blunders.... :) this digest covers all undigestified messages through May 3 Enjoy! Filip ------------------------------ Topics: Hair Dye? Hello again joseys Highlander Re:Mutant cotton Re: H-Costume Digest, Volume 292, 5/3/95 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 10:25:32 -0500 (EST) From: dbrowne Subject: Hair Dye? No, I haven't dropped off the face of the earth. Just been very busy, to all of you that are awaiting the lucet stuff I haven't forgotten I just can't locate the stuff right now (My house is being condemmed to make room for a new gym for the local Boys' and Girls' Club and everything is in boxes. ) I am currentlly directing a production of "A Midsummers Nights Dream" for our first Shakespeare in the park production of the year. I am going about it in a slightly different way than is usually seen. My Fairies are slightly "time-traveling cyber-punk" style. What I need to know is how to get their hair into bizarre styles and colors on a microscopic budget. I really need stuff that has a chance of washing out after a day or two, as on of them is on the city council and another is an ER nurse. Can anyone help? Our production opens the 16th of June so we still have some time. --Kathy B. --Katrinn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 May 95 16:04:53 EDT From: (David W. Rickman) Subject: Hello again Hello again, I am still on hiatus, with an exhibit, a magazine cover and a publication proposal hanging over me. I have struggled to reconstruct from the digest the flow of messages on the mailing list, but it does lose something in the translation...not to mention the delay. >From what I can see, the question of the meaning of "cotton" has evolved into a general discussion of etymology and linguistics. Bryan came up with a great example of the sort of confusion that can come from reading old sources with a modern viewpoint. On April 20, he showed us how the word "linen" at one point meant something other than a textile made from flax. It seems that, by 1755, "linen" could mean textiles with a linen-like "texture," though composed of flax, hemp or cotton. This is an interesting development and does demonstrate how valuable period dictionaries can be. They are our windows into the meanings of words in other eras. The fact is, words do change in meaning. Linen at some point also took on the meaning of bedclothes, tablecloths, napkins (serviettes for our British friends), bath towels and even underwear, in addition to its other meaning as a textile. That is what you find in the _Workwoman's Guide_ of 1838 when you look up "linen." Today, only a few of these meanings still apply. I suppose that the reason I bring this up is that I am concerned that the members of this list may not all agree on the rules for examining history. By this, I do not mean we should all think alike or even reach the same conclusions from the same evidence, rather that, if we are going to discuss historical sources as we do, we should agree on how we rate those sources, and what is and is not possible to prove with history. History is not bunk, despite what Henry Ford said, though it is an _inexact_ science. Other inexact sciences that we trust, or at least depend on are Economics, Psychology, Law and even Meteorology. Historical method is far from perfect but it is the best tool we have for understanding the past. So folks, if we are going to play this game, maybe we should all say what we think the rules are. Since I brought this issue up, I'll go first. It has been twenty years since I was last at the university, but I don't imagine the rules have changed that much. Rule #1. Nothing is proven without evidence. My historiography professor taught me that the rules of practicing History are much like those of practicing Law. There is also an important difference, but I'll get into that later. Imagine yourselves, if you will, as the accused in a trial. Under English Common Law the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In order to convict, it is up to the prosecutor to prove that something actually happened and that you actually did it. To do that, the prosecutor must bring evidence against you. Similarly, as historians, we might seek to discover whether Viking helmets were decorated with horns. Until we can prove with evidence that horns were used, we must assume that Viking helmets were innocent of horns. Many of us might feel uneasy with our legal system because, without enough solid evidence to convict, some guilty persons might go free. But what is our alternative? Simply chaos. Likewise, some of us might protest the fact that it is possible that some Viking did once put horns on his helmet, but we will never know that because that particular individual's helmet was never recorded. It doesn't matter. As long as we are playing the game, whether it is Law or History, we have to draw the line somewhere. If you cannot prove it with solid evidence, it is as good as saying that horned helmets never existed. Rule #2 It is far easier to prove the existence of something rather than the absence. There are, of course, other schools of Law. The Code Napoleon, as I understand it, holds that the individual is guilty until proven innocent. This popular notion is accepted in many parts of the world, but I would rather not be tried under such a system. But there are many I have met who believe that a similar law exists in the realm of History. "Prove to me that they did not have it," is the usual way their challenge runs. At that point I usually give up on them, for clearly we have very different ideas about History. I could give reams of evidence for Viking helmets found in archaeology, period artwork and literature that are completely devoid of horns. I could also ask my challenger to provide me with just one example of a helmet _with_ horns. They seldom grasp the point. I just heard from a friend of mine who does living history at a California state park. The period she interprets is 1835 - 1841, in a small Russian fur trade outpost. Over the years we have painstakingly reconstructed what the Russians probably wore at this outpost by examining early records, archaeological remains, eyewitness descriptions and artwork, as well as what was worn in Siberia and Russia at this same time that we can find references to in the sources from America. We have put together some very good costumes and published various guidelines. Nevertheless, every year folks will show up in buckskin mountain man outfits or costumes that seem derived from Rimsky- Korsakov ballets. When asked what their sources were, they almost always say "No, you prove to _me_ that they didn't wear this." My friend is thinking of going next year as a Klingon and asking the mountain men to prove she is out of place. Once again, please remember that I am speaking here of costumes for living history programs at historic sites. I have tried on several occasions to let people know that I consider the costumes worn for Renaissance Faires, SCA and like events quite different in purpose. Rule #3 All sources are not created equally. This may seem obvious. In your imaginary trial, imagine if the prosecutor brought a witness who testified that they saw you commit the crime. That would carry more weight than if they brought someone to testify who reports that they had heard someone else say that you commited the crime. The first is an original source, an alleged eyewitness. The other is a secondary source, for they got their information somewhere else. Our friend might counter all of our original source information on hornless Viking helmets with a 19th century engraving of a Viking in a horned helmet and genuinely believe that his source is as good as ours, but it would not be. Not that secondary sources are worthless. Much of classical history, to take one example, is based on someone quoting or paraphrasing what someone else had to say about, say, the Punic Wars. We accept this evidence (with a grain of salt) because there may not be anything better. Remember, too, that all History is secondary. _Godey's Lady's Book_ or, in England _The Ladies Treasury_ are original sources for 19th century women's fashions. C.Willet and Phyllis Cunnington's _Handbook of English Costume in the Nineteenth Century_ is a secondary source because it is a work of History. But such books as the Cunningtons' help us to understand a subject because it is a distillation of original sources which attempts to chronicle what were and were not major trends in fashion. Just reading a few original fashion magazines might not give us those insights. #4. Never draw conclusions from just one original source. We are back in the courtroom now. The prosecutor has brought a plausible witness who says he saw you commit the crime. Your lawyer then counters with another witness who says with equal conviction that you were somewhere else at the time and could not have done the deed. How can we tell who is right? Here is where History and Law get tricky. In order to find out the truth of any matter we must decide which source is better than another. Did the eyewitness tell the truth? Is he prejudiced against you? Did he genuinely believe he was telling the truth but, in fact, was mistaken? We must consider these and other factors in weighing the evidence. What other experts think about this eyewitness testimony might be helpful. So might additional witnesses. One professor of mine would never accept any conclusion, no matter how small, as even likely unless we could bring three independent original sources to prove it. Good newspaper reporters follow a similar rule. Our friend is back with his Viking helmet. He has found an original source, a decorative carving that shows Norse warriors in horned helmets. What now? Before throwing in the towel, let's take a look at his evidence. Is it genuine? Yes, it was found in a grave in Denmark. Is it for the correct period? No, actually it dates from the 6th century, the 500s, which is a couple of centuries too early for Vikings. Do we reject it? We might, after all, it is not of the period. But wait, someone else comes in with a description, just translated, that describes a Rus warrior from the 9th century on the Volga River, whose helmet has horns on it. The source was written originally in early Arabic, and the word for "horn" could also mean nail head. This one's a judgement call. Then you find a picture from 12th century Ireland of a Viking in a horned helmet. Nothing is definite yet, but a case is building of three sources, from before, possibly during and then after the Viking era of the existence of horned helmets. You may have to adjust your thinking. Now you are open to the idea. Do you give in?...... No, you do not. You will admit that there is some interesting evidence for horned helmets, but nothing conclusive. Meanwhile, you still have stacks of evidence for helmets without horns. This is our best evidence, and, by the rules of History, we have no other choice but to rule in favor of our best evidence. We "know" to the extent that History enables us to know, that Vikings wore helmets innocent of horns. We suspect that there may have actually been a few individuals who put horns on their helmets but it remains unproven and, even if it eventually is proved, we have to look for what was "typical" of an era. In a court of law, such an outcome would be that you would go free. You may actually have committed the crime, but since it is not proven, you are as good as innocent. In written history we would interpret this by saying, "Virtually all evidence points to Viking helmets without horns. However, some interesting evidence is emerging which suggests that a few men may have decorated their helmets, for some occasions, with horns." In living history events with a focus on authenticity we would hope that 999 out of a thousand men who wear helmets will leave them plain. We will undoubtedly have someone, however, show up with a horned helmet. It is then the judgement call of the event organizer, or whoever has the authority to say either "go ahead and join us" or "don't come in with horns on your head until it is proven." And those are all the rules of History I care to handle in one message. I hope I haven't bored you. Oh, and by the way, the evidence I laid out for horns on Viking helmets is completely made up. Please don't write for my sources. Briefly, though, I want to explain that I bring this all up because I do see from time to time on this list, others who play History by different rules than I do. For example, one writer to the list suggested that the explanation for the whole cotton vs. wool controversy might lie in the fact that people used words incorrectly. No doubt they did and still do. However, the point of the discussion was to look for hard evidence of just _how_ words might have been used at a particular point in time, and how that use evolved. Another frequent correspondent theorizes quite reasonably that, as adjectives are often converted to nouns, i.e. automatic rifle to automatic, that cotton cloth could just as well have converted to simply "cotton" at a very early date without our knowing it. He may be right, but where is the evidence to prove this? I said that I would point out one important difference between what I understand are the rules of Law, and the rules of History. This is that it is the duty of every prosecutor to look at the evidence and try to discover from it what actually occured and then prove to a judge or a jury in a court of law. It is the duty of every defense lawyer to first devise a plausible alternate reconstruction of events, one favorable to his client, then select from the evidence only those pieces which support this case in order to persuade the judge or jury. He will then challenge the prosecutor to prove that this is not what happened. This, of course, is the essence of good Law, but a very poor example of History. I would like now to invite the members of this list, if they are interested, to tell us how they think History should be practiced. Maybe if we can all agree to the rules, the game will become more fair, and more fun. Thanks. David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 13:25:39 -0500 (CDT) From: VICKI@lib.uttyl.edu Subject: joseys I recently read a reference in a set of letters by a woman in the South during the ACW to "joseys" as a piece of clothing for slave women. What is a "josey" for this time period? I've seen the definition of a button-down-the-front ladies' coat for an earlier period. Vicki Betts vicki@lib.uttyl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 17:19:33 -0400 (EDT) From: cpecourt@mhv.net Subject: Highlander Hello I have been meaning to post this for ages! I recently watched Highlander I again and was struck by how much I liked Heather's dresses from when the Highlander was in ancient Scotland. Can anyone tell me 1. What type of dress it is. 2. How to go about making it and 3. How *dare I ask* accurate it was for the period. thanks a whole bunch Chantal ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 May 1995 17:57:18 -0400 From: theresa@licaone.iii.net (Theresa Stefancik) Subject: Re:Mutant cotton "As you grow older in your observation of the peoples of this Earth World, it becomes more noticeable that stupidity is the reigning virtue."-P.Twitchell "One or the other way," she said, how shall I know the difference, when wrinkles come, to spinster or bride? Whether to marry or burn is blessed best, O stranger to my bed, there is no pity in the flesh."-H.Nemerov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 May 95 16:16:31 PDT From: susanf@EERC.Berkeley.Edu (Susan Fatemi) Subject: Re: H-Costume Digest, Volume 292, 5/3/95 a Western perspective, and anthropologist's training, and she learned about kimono/obi from experts (geisha). Also, IMHO, western women look ridiculous in kimono, unless they wear the full rig, make-up, wig, etc. See Shirley Maclaine in "My Geisha"--quite convincing actually, and Ms. Dalby herself dressed as an apprentice geisha and attended their working parties. (the word after "Alison's" (above) was meant to be "rec." for recommendation, sorry) I should perhaps explain that I am a "western woman" also, and the wrong shape for kimono. Of course, most Japanese women never wear them any mor either. I love making new garments out of old kimono, however! Susan Fatemi susanf@eerc.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 17:24:19 -0700 From: ccary@tiara.wpd.sgi.com (Christina Cary) Subject: COSTUME: Boning Hello Costumers, The type of boning used by couturiers and good dressmakers is a long metal coil, kind of like a flattened, skinny Slinky. It can be cut with metal shears, and you can get smooth, curved metal caps to fit over the ends so that they don't cut through the fabric. It is a little difficult to find but is supposedly the best thing going, as it provides firm support but some flexibility, too. I have used the commonly-found plastic mesh type--hated it. You can't get the ends smooth and they will eventually cut through fabric. I usually use the solid nylon boning that comes in long strips. You can buy coils of it at any fabric store. I cut this to the right length and soften/curve the edges with a file. Christina ccary@tiara.wpd.sgi.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 21:38:08 -0400 From: TrystBass@aol.com Subject: Re: Hair Dye? w/hands into a spike, spray, then point the hairdryer on the hair in the direction of the spike). Spray everything w/lots of hairspray to set it. Spray again between scenes, as necy. Try to keep the color away from the scalp, because sweat will make the color run (this is true for all temporary hair colors). I do recommend that the actors wash & condition their hair thoroughly after each performance. These products aren't dangerous, but being extra kind to hair is always a good idea. Hope this helps (& sorry I went on so long)! @->->-- Trystan L. Bass --<-<-@ TrystBass@aol.com . . . . . Life is short and love is always over in the morning . . . . . ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 May 95 19:22:38 PDT From: Connie_Frick@Douglas.BC.CA Subject: Re: Hair Dye? TrystBass@aol.com was overheard to say.... > > For the color, I recommend food coloring. Yes, ordinary food coloring. You > can mix your own colors & paint it onto strands of hair. My friends & I used > to do this all the time in high school to get obnoxious pink & green hair > (pink for me, green for my friend). Parts of my hair were bleached & her hair > was pale red, & everything came out in one wash. Be careful, my blond friend died her hair for halloween with food coloring and walked around for about a month with very faintly green hair. She doesn't have overly damaged hair, either. Connie -- Connie Frick Connie_Frick@douglas.bc.ca Buyer, Douglas College aka Her Grace Jacyntha, AA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 23:29:33 -0500 (CST) From: Cindy Johnson Subject: Schooling Thanks to the people who have responded to my querry. I just wanted to let you know that life (or, more accurately, death) will be taking me away for the rest of the week, and I will be unable to address your responses. I am still interested, I do still want more information, and I'm not ignoring you. Thank you in advance for your help in getting leads on universities to investigate, Cindy Johnson (PhD canidate wannabe) ------------------------------ ------------------------------ End of Volume 295 -----------------------