Period Correct??

[shortbow]

Good stuff, gus, we're reading from the same script. :thumbsup:

 

[Black Hand]

... 3) Black Hand, I cannot entirely agree with your "3 classes of Rendezvouser" statement since I seem to fit into all three categories in the same breathe! I do try to be as HC/PC as possible and am more than open to learning as much as I can to get better, I make as much is appropriate for my time and place (and skill! :wink: ) but I don't always hit my mark though I am striving to improve all the time!As the old saying goes, "You only get better by playing smarter opponents" well, change the wording slightly (playing = associating, opponents = people) and you kinda get my stance on the PC/HC debate! I might not always be 100% HC/PC and I will admit that there are times when I do say, "If they'da had it, They'da used it!" if only out of frustration (or simple ignorance of the materials!) But I am also there just to wear funny clothes and have a good time with like minded people!(and often enough, the folks I associate with use the term "funny clothes" as a joke) And I can honestly say that some of the best people I have ever met and Could ever want to call friends or Brothers have come from this hobby! so even if I am not always right or up to snuff, I am still in this to learn, and to enjoy myself.
Now feel free to rip into me all you like, as Mark Twain said,"I never let my lack of education stand in the way of my learning" and I'm a high school dropout! :haha:

SO what you are really saying is that you are a closet #1 ...
1)People who know what is PC/HC and do their best to emulate in word, deed and materials what actually was done.
...constantly trying to learn more and improve their kit. This doesn't need to be done all at once, but is a life-time endeavor. As new knowledge comes to light, your impression changes.

In the end, each of us will choose our own path based on our own "vision" of "who" and "where" we are. You will find that we self-segregate - finding a group of people who have the same standards and going with it. All we can hope for is that we continue to learn and improve in addition to being civil when we are making "fun" of the people who don't fit within our standards.

However, never let your pride stand in the way of learning from people who are willing to teach (even if they are gruff, grumpy PC police-types). AND never pass up an opportunity to learn, because no matter who we are, there is someone out there who is smarter and knows more than us.

A stupid question is one that wasn't asked....

 

[crockett]

Well getting back to the diamond shelter- if it was used by the mountain men. I'm comfortable with blankets being used as a lean-to. I don't know if any were ever used in the diamond form however there was the use of a small evergreen that you chopped down- leaned against a tree, and cut out the inside- sort of a diamond- so the diamond shape was likely known- but that's just a guess as far as I know.
In any event after thinking it over I'm wondering if a tent was frowned upon because of hostile Indians. Without a tent you were less noticable and if you were attacked it was a lot easier to look around without a tent in the way. It seems that tents were only used in bad weather. I must admit- I am tent-oriented- but the more pc way is probably just to sleep under the stars.

 

[Claude Mathis]

I would imagine that at some moment in history, someone, somewhere hung a blanket or tarp by two opposing corners. From a certain angle, it may have looked "diamond-shaped".

 

[KJGROHS]

Ok my turn all this agruement pc/hc is bull , if it works do it, no documentation, who cares anyone in thier right mind would do something to get out of the elements, as far as hunting parties of old they built nice camps with surrounding vegitation I would imagine, hey even truck in canvas, is that documented, I'll be it was, has it been found documented I could care less, was a blanket tossed over a log and staked to the ground you bet , is it documented ? Who cares, I bet most of these so called documenters have never steped in the woods to use what's out there or took the time to experiment, I have others have to , so if someone wants to carry the extra goods do so bet ya leave at home next time, but I will take a shelter of some sort.

 

[bangfxr]

I wouldn't doubt that a cover of any shape or size would be welcomed refuge from the weather was it documented doubtful in most cases. As a soldier we get training on how to get through all kinds of weather and we would use anything from blankets to cardboard to any kind of material that will provide shelter. PC/HC why not? Just becouse it wasn't writen down doesn't mean that it was not used.

 

[crockett]

Claude: That's what I meant about if something seems apparent then it ought to be okay whether there is or is not any documentation. If it is apparent to us then logic would argue it would have been apparent at the time.

 

[tg]

Is there anyone here who really understands how the reenactment HC/PC game is played? the way the "they musta done it" or "they were as smart as us" manure is really getting ridiculus, pull your RV into the campground, some one has to have used one in then past cause they are so usefull.Again this is not aimed at the many ways one can and likley has used a piece of tarpage but the principal in general of always falling back on that lame arsse logic if anyone challenges the historical merit of something, it used to be that if something was worth doing it was worth doing right.

 

[Rod Lassey]

Hindsight is always 20/20, though, and what may seem perfectly logical and apparent to us may not have been so clear at the time.

While the diamond time of setup may have been used somewhere, someplace, it is hard to document for sure. Guys like Marcy who wrote books on survival in the West during the 1800s, for instance, show several kinds of shelter, but not the elusive diamond type of setup.

Crockett, you make a very good point about the use or lack thereof for shelters. I've read any number of accounts where a whole party of mountaineers would only have a single tent between them--and would only set it up in very bad weather. I'm not looking it up right now, but I recall one party setting up their single tent to shelter a sick or wounded guy (the rest of them 'roughed it'). Isn't it in Ruxton where he mentions Bill Williams during a rainstorm at night covering himself with a thick Navaho blanket and "determined to take what comes"? Old lodgeskins doubling as pack covers get mentioned, too.

Rod

 

[Black Hand]

That's what I meant about if something seems apparent then it ought to be okay whether there is or is not any documentation. If it is apparent to us then logic would argue it would have been apparent at the time.

It doesn't work retroactively that way. As an example - Vaccination is apparent only because the technology/knowledge had advanced to that point and someone put 2 and 2 together. But "back then", even though the concept was happening naturally, it wasn't apparent.

The rules of PC/HC are that we do what they did - how they did it - with whatever they used to do it. Keep the modern thinking out of it and you'll be OK. It really isn't that difficult to do OR understand.

 

[Claude Mathis]

Claude: That's what I meant about if something seems apparent then it ought to be okay whether there is or is not any documentation. If it is apparent to us then logic would argue it would have been apparent at the time.

I don't think it's that simple. Many things that seems very logical and are "common sense" to us, did not occur to people in the past. They just didn't think of it.

My favorite example is stirrups on saddles. People rode horses for hundreds (thousands?) of years before someone "invented" the stirrup. It changed history.

You can't apply the "if I thought of it, they must have" theory to everything. It just doesn't work.

 

[Rod Lassey]

Good point----my favorite is the frizzen on a flintlock. When the idea of the flintlock came into being, you'd think that someone would have thought "Let's make the frizzen L-shaped and pivot it on a screw, it'll double as a cover for the pan". So simple and logical. But, we know that isn't what happened---instead there was the snaphaunce, with it's overly complicated pan cover linkage, and equally bizarre sear. Talk about a Rube Goldberg device, nothing simple or logical there.

Rod

 

[tg]

I fail to see the point of the contiued arguement about what is and isn't it only matters in an event and the event rules trump all other thoughts, if you are out hunting/camping you can use a AirStream and call it HC/PC or whatever makes your juices flow.No one is going to sway the ideas of any of the well researched serious re enactors on these forums and none of those who just want to toss the terminology around to sound cool are likley to get seriuos enough about it to
really dig in and do some research and use it in the proper context.

 

[mmahlock]

My point exactly. :hatsoff:

 

[shortbow]

The rules of PC/HC are that we do what they did - how they did it - with whatever they used to do it. Keep the modern thinking out of it and you'll be OK. It really isn't that difficult to do OR understand.

The only problem with this statement is that it patently isn't so.

As I pointed out above somewhere, modern pc/hc re-enactors are mostly quite happy to allow cotton tipis. Firstly NO tipis back in the day were made of this material, and secondly few MM used them as a general thing when hunting beaver.

There is a lot of arbitrary justification used by those who illustrate themselves as keepers of the pc/hc flame who are willing to call something period correct only because it is politically correct withing the milieu of their own narrow definitions.

Or to put it another way, "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

I also observe that there are some who are complacently comfortable in their belief that they use perfect, linear logic when what they are saying might be at odds with others who are equally adamant that they use perfect, linear logic.

Perhaps when we discuss the historicity of certain aspects of our sport a bit of humility, tolerance and flexibility would not be amiss while we at the same time remain teachable?

 

[Black Hand]

Every attempt to educate is met with "PC police" and "They could of thought of it..." and "I think (insert)....", "They must of had....", "Ooooh, look at this cool hat made from a full coyote skin that looks like it's humping my head", etc.

I'll make you a deal. I will continue to try and educate while improving my portrayal using period information, and you guys can do whatever you want...

 

[tg]

I hardly see that jus because some wrong stuff is used that it justifies the use of more/other wrong stuff, it would seem that one would best ignore other incorrect items when making a choice on something and strive for a better choice rather than lowering the bar becuase someone else has done so, again I see this as the difference between serious and not serious reenactors, the latter just likleing the sound of the terminology as it rolls off their lips or fingertips and having no interest in putting much effort into the hobby, which is fine for a particular level but not so if claiming a higher level which is often the case, and is really a sort of slap in the face to those who reside there and do the homework that goes with the higher level.

"As I pointed out above somewhere, modern pc/hc re-enactors are mostly quite happy to allow cotton tipis. Firstly NO tipis back in the day were made of this material, and secondly few MM used them as a general thing when hunting beaver."

This type of rationalization is the root of the problems one faces when trying to share anything of a historical nature, it is meaningless and nothing more than a sad atempt to make a less valid position look stronger than it is, and is also why there are so few less serious history students here than a few years ago, some just have to find a way to make what they "LIKE/PREFER a part of history be it so or not, and continue to perpetuate the process of using what one wants and doing whatever is possiblre to tweek history or the item to make it fit rather than just accepting that it does not fit and go about with the hobby, there is no sin in using.having gear that does not fit the time period one is emersed in,my gun is not completely HC/PC but it suits my level of doing things and I have some other things that really do not fit and it really does not hurt to say so.

 

[shortbow]

Tg that's honest and all I'm asking for.

"One guy says "Yep, although I know some of my gear or ways of doing things are not 100% pc/hc, but I do the best I can with what I have and am trying to evolve."

Another guy says, "YOU are doing things wrong, that's not documented, they didn't do that, etc. etc." but when you point out that some of HIS stuff is known to be wrong, he says "Yeah, but everybody does it so it must be ok."

I also think it's important for all of us to know that no matter how hard we try to get things right:

a)Nobody is going to get there completely.
b)At the end of the day, all we're really doing is playing a big kids version of the little kid's "cowboys and Indians."
b)Even the most tightly judged rondy is going to fall short by a country mile by all participants no matter how hard they try, unless you trap for a living, live on buffalo meat, ride a horse for transportation, fight with guns a lot, live with lice in your clothes and stand a good chance of dying before you're thirty.

I take my game pretty seriously, but at my age I've finally come to the conclusion that it is only a game, nothing more.

 

[Poor Private]

After rading this WHOLE thread, I have come to the conclusion that we still don't know about documentation of the "diamond" shelter. But we do know that there are several people who will stand and argue thier way of doing things. SHeeeesh.
In the civil war era there is documentation of all kinds of setups of shelters. from pine tree branches to a sort of modified log cabin, to sleeping on the ground with only a blanket. It all depends on the situation, time of year, or movement of the army.
We call them shebangs when we take a shelter half, dog tent and convert it to meet our needs wehther we button 4 together, or use 1 as a lean to, or even a piece of canvas as a "diamond" type tent. There are plenty of period pictures of shebangs in documentation. Unfortunatly picture or likeness taking was almost nonexistant prior to the civil war. We have to go by written history, but alot of people forget that there is another history out there- verbal history(what was passed on by word of mouth). Are you going to argue with your grandfather when he tells you how he did something (when he didn't actually write it down). My grandfather didn't know how to formally read and write but boy was he smart and was the master of ingenuity, and showed us kids back in the 60's things that his father had taught him. Did I write down what he taughjt me --nope-- but I have passed on some of the tricks to my son. I guess since it isn't written down it never happened, or was invented.

 

[Claude Mathis]

After rading this WHOLE thread, I have come to the conclusion that we still don't know about documentation of the "diamond" shelter. But we do know that there are several people who will stand and argue thier way of doing things.

Do we know that people used whatever they had at hand to shelter themselves from the sun or rain when necessary? Yes.

Question: Do we know if people made or purchased an item like the one pictured below (prior to 1865)?