Period Correct??

[tg]

"I guess since it isn't written down it never happened, or was invented.'

not really, it is just a matter of knowing what the "rules" are and accepting them whether we agree or not, the general feeling is that if you are really serious then you want to have solid evidence to support your gear,I do not agree with all thecalls but I accept the standards as the community in large does and go with that, if looking to go outside this level then it is time for some real serious research, many have done years of this to get us a close as we are now to understanding what was used/done in the past.

 

[Robert Egler]

When I saw the original post I said "THIS is going to be a very long thread!" :wink:

Whenever this topic comes up it could save a lot of typing if we just cut and pasted the comments of any of the last 10 times it came up. :grin:

Or maybe we could just assign numbers to standard positions, like
#1 = If they had it they would have used it,
#2 = Its not acceptable unless there's actual documentation,
#3 etc...

Then we could just post "#1" and reply "#2" or whatever, save a lot of typing. :haha:

(Intended to inject a bit of humor here, no offence meant to anyone. :surrender: )

 

[Black Hand]

After rading this WHOLE thread, I have come to the conclusion that we still don't know about documentation of the "diamond" shelter.

There is ample documentation of its' absence as it is not mentioned in any journal or seen in painting/drawings/prints...

 

[necchi]

There is ample documentation of its' absence as it is not mentioned in any journal or seen in painting/drawings/prints...

Does that mean they didn't wipe their butt?

 

[Black Hand]

I've got a full coyote-skin hat for you to wear...

While not up to my usual standards... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper

Although paper had been known as a wrapping and padding material in China since the 2nd century BC,[1] the first documented use of toilet paper in human history dates back to the 6th century AD, in early medieval China.[2] In 589 AD the scholar-official Yan Zhitui (531”“591) wrote about the use of toilet paper:

"Paper on which there are quotations or commentaries from Five Classics or the names of sages, I dare not use for toilet purposes".[2]

During the later Tang Dynasty (618”“907 AD) a Muslim traveler to China in the year 851 AD remarked:

"They (the Chinese) are not careful about cleanliness, and they do not wash themselves with water when they have done their necessities; but they only wipe themselves with paper."[2]

also: http://nobodys-perfect.com/vtpm/exhibithall/informational/tphistory.html

Sorry, I realize that DOCUMENTED is a dirty word around here.....

 

There is ample documentation of its' absence as it is not mentioned in any journal or seen in painting/drawings/prints...

Does that mean they didn't wipe their butt?

Somewhat humorous, but that's not how historical documentation works. You cannot prove a negative. People do not portray history based on what they can't document. If they did, people could portray Civil War solders wearing kilts, Roman helmets or togas and it would be up to you to prove they didn't.

 

[Black Hand]

I keep seeing kilt-wearing Fur Trade Trappers at rendezvous a even though kilt-wearing was illegal at the time (except for the Black Watch)...

If it is historical and "cool-looking", it matters not whether it is actually time & location-appropriate (for some). Even "historical" is optional.

 

[necchi]

Well if that's the case I haven't seen nor read any document or journal about butt's in the fur trade era.
We Know The Corps of Discovery was smitten with dissentary several times but there seems to be a lack of proper documentation for the exact care used beyond sulpher or mercury. Did they or did they not carry a large quantity of "paper" on this trek? We'll never know and are forced to not do anything because of a lack of documentation.
It's your logic, not mine.

Too get back to the topic, Man as a creature seeks shelter first in a crisis situation. Trying to say a piece of canvis wasn't put in a shape similar to a diamond just because it wasn't writin is just plain silly.
The Voyaguar used the canoe and canvis for a shelter on a regular basis, wouldn't a stick be handy to put under that and the corners pinned down for a better shelter? Esp in a high wind and nasty storm?
I'm of the school that our ancestors where actually capable of thought and ingenuity, not forced to suscribe to only what their fathers did.
Come-on,,,,

 

Well if that's the case I haven't seen nor read any document or journal about butt's in the fur trade era.
We Know The Corps of Discovery was smitten with dissentary several times but there seems to be a lack of proper documentation for the exact care used beyond sulpher or mercury. Did they or did they not carry a large quantity of "paper" on this trek? We'll never know and are forced to not do anything because of a lack of documentation.
It's your logic, not mine.

I'm not sure why this is so confusing for some. There is documentation for using toilet paper during that time period, there is none (so far) for the "diamond" shelter.

In the end, do as you wish. Nobody cares what people do - UNLESS they tell others that something is historically correct. Then, they will be asked to back it up, with more than "they could have".

 

[Black Hand]

http://bertc.com/subone/g23/hopkins.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FAH_Voyageurs.jpg (clearer image)

Where exactly is the diamond???

 

[Claude Mathis]

http://bertc.com/subone/g23/hopkins.htm

Where exactly is the diamond???

In the brown box, to the right of the canoe? :wink:

 

[LaBonte]

I keep seeing kilt-wearing Fur Trade Trappers at rendezvous a even though kilt-wearing was illegal at the time (except for the Black Watch)...

No it was not illegal at the time of the RMFT - this is an oft repeated misconception. The Proscription Act of 1746 was repealed in 1782 and technically even before that the Act only applied to Scotland and not the rest of the Empire and even then it was not always applied equally in Soctland - the Campbell's for instance who fought with the Brits were often allowed to continue to wear proscibed items (there is documentation available for that inlcuding post 1745 paintings). The full Act and it's history is available on line.
By the late 1700's the Highland revival had begun with several Highland societies coming into being. In 1822 George the 4th visited Scotland and with the "help" of Sir Walter Scott, re-discovered his Stewart roots, then the revival really began in earnest. This is the period when much of the modern Highland mythos began - research the Sobieski Brothers for more info.

Pipers and kilts were worn by some of the pipers and others at least in the HBC and that can be documented. Whether they showed up at rendezvous I'd have to check, but they were definitely at Ft. Vancouver and other large posts. Many of the gents, including the founders of the NW Company were of Scots heritage, and were later incorporated into the HBC hierarchy and brought their heritage with them.

 

[necchi]

on the far canoe, being supported by stick and folded corners.
Darn artist had to add his own interpritation too the painting.
Historians are rank with that, only wanting to document what they preceive. And ommiting some facts to present a bias view.
Ask the Sioux about Custer,,,

There's proof of that at just about any Univarsity, when a Document is noted as "Edited by ____ ____" in history class books.

Trouble comes when some student quotes the edited material as fact.

 

[Black Hand]

on the far canoe, being supported by stick and folded corners.

Nice try....

I see a canoe with 2 poles leaned against it and canvas thrown over top.
Seems like you have a case of "only wanting to document what they preceive [sic]".

 

on the far canoe, being supported by stick and folded corners.

I guess you see what you want to see.

Obviously, the guy standing by the water is wearing these. :rotf:

 

[necchi]

Seems like you have a case of "only wanting to document what they preceive [sic]".

Exactly.

 

[Black Hand]

Seems like you have a case of "only wanting to document what they preceive [sic]".

Exactly.

I guess you have no interest in being HC if it doesn't fit your preconceived fantasy notions. Carry on....and may the force be with you.

 

[LeeinVA]

Yes.. But the 79th NY did wear kilts early in the war. Then they switched to the tartan plaid trousers..

 

Yes.. But the 79th NY did wear kilts early in the war. Then they switched to the tartan plaid trousers..

See, good documentation. Now, how about those Roman helmets and togas? :wink:

 

[tg]

I would really have a hard time making that out as a "diamond shelter" myself, I think this is another case like a similar thread lately which is pretty much not accepting the standards of the game as the majority of the community goes by, again if an event sets the standard one just goes by them, for personal use use whatever but if one trys to attach the definitive, descriptive terminlogy to something that does not meet these standards in a historical bases setting or forum do not expect to be well recieved, and no amount of arguement will change the overall view of the item, I carry a shoulder bag which I paitned for water proofing, many shopulder bags are shown in Euro paintings and there is records of some in NE and Canada in the 18th century used by farmers and peddlars and then there is the military haversack, this is generally not accepted as being documented for civvy use so I do not try and push the issue, I ran the existing bag evidence across a couple of high power boards and it was not accepted, so fine, I explain that while there were many such bags in europe and some records of them in some areas of the colonies that I cannot offer definate documentation for mine, nor can I for the very thick walls of my Fusil, or its smallish lock and a number of other little things, and to date it has not hurt physicaly or emotionaly to do so nor has the sky fallen on me, I think someone put it about as plain as can be with the old..."when in Rome" I think our time might be better spent as Spence does in sharing various perod sources which may very well remove the doubt on some item sometime, (as a rule most of those who like to add questionable items are lacking much in the way of period research in general) at least maybe after the 6th or 7th page of arguement about an item. :idunno: