Re: MtMan-List: period tanning / Alans comments

["Jerry H. Wheeler" <itwhee@mcn.org>]

bark tan  was extensive in California a mans rigging hors gear was of a color
that if he road into strange camp you could tell by the color of the leather if
he was from California or the general area there of iv never heard of bark tan
being used for garments. to much tannic acid. bark tan a derivative of tan oak i
flourishes in this area. the wild cattle in this area and southern california
were used extensively for leather. they were killed just for the hides and left
to rot. the indians were used in the manufacture. i think texas was another area
that had this industry. some skins were shipped out all over the world and
indeed to Mexico. there were tanneries all over the southern ca area in late
1700 hud and early 1800hds. enough of my babble.    iron tongue.

Matt Richards wrote:

> Allen
> I appreciate your spoutin off! Makes for good conversation and learning. I
> disagree with you on a number of points....here goes.
>
> 1) You are right that there were 'commercial' tanneries throughout the
> colonies and states...and that they predominantly bark tanned. In the
> moderate amount of research I've done on this, I have found no evidence of
> any other type of tanning being done in a tannery of the day.
>
> Bark tan is not a material that has, or was, commonly used as a garment
> leather in any period of time. Bark tanned leather just doesn't lend itself
> well to garments (doesn't breath, is thicker and stiffer). Of course it's
> excellent for shoes (in town), bags, water bottles, belts and countless
> other uses. But garments ain't one of them (with the exception of armor in
> the middle ages). Do you have any evidence of it being used for shirts,
> jackets, breeches or the like during this era?
>
> Bark tanneries were in fact one of the very earliest forms of
> industrialization in the US, in the late 1700's. It lends itself to being
> industrialized because it requires an immense quantity of bark to be
> pounded, and that's the part of the process that was industrialized. Huge
> toothed wheels were pulled around in a circle by horses and mules to crush
> the bark.
>
> I have never heard of any other type of tannery in the early US, if anyone
> has, lets hear about it.
>
> 2.) Alan, you stated that "Most of the tanning was for heavy leather,
> but a significant part went into garment leather
> which in turn was mostly used for breeches and
> gloves.  I believe that as the breeches went out
> of fashion in the first quarter of the 19th
> century, leather pantaloons were manufactured on
> the same basis."
>
> I am very curious to know of any primary sources for this information.
>
> My understanding from primary source research is that hundreds of thousands
> of hides were sent to England.....many of them already brain and smoke
> tanned by Natives (such as the Creeks). As the 1700's went on, an increasing
> amount of these exported deerskins were sent untanned. They were then tanned
> in Europe, using an oil tanning process, and many of these were then shipped
> back to the US for use in garments. Many more hides were tanned on people's
> homesteads and in their backyards for use as garment leathers (this is
> generally presumed to be brain tanning, though there isn't any specific
> evidence I know of.....the only other real option was alum tanning).
>
> I have never read of tanneries in the US making garment leathers in the
> 1700's or early 1800's, if you know of any sources for this information, I'd
> love to know about it for my own studies.
>
> 3) As far as hides being smoked or unsmoked on the plains. My previous
> statement was that smoking was not nearly as common of a practice amongst
> Native peoples as most people presume (the common line is that white hides
> were just for ceremonial use). You are right that there are many references
> of tipi tops being cut up into moccasins, and that you can certainly find
> pieces in museums that were smoked. You're also right that smoked buckskin
> washed a great deal starts to look like it may have never been smoked.
>
> My comments on smoking is not based on 'common knowlege' as you termed it,
> its based on studying ethnographies.....the earliest accounts of brain and
> smoke tanning that seem to exist. I have a bibliography of well over 100
> accounts of Native tanning processes that I'm planning to put up on
> braintan.com tomorrow. Admittedly, very few are pre-1840, but unfortunately
> there are very few detailed accounts of Plains Indian tanning pre-1840
> (exceptions being John D. Hunter's and George Catlin's).
>
> In all due respect, lets get down to the nitty gritty of what we really
> know, and what is supposition!
>
> Matt Richards
> www.braintan.com