Post by beaudro on Jul 22, 2011 22:38:55 GMT -5
I'm taking a lot of breaks too! ( no bug, just lazy)
This sort of goes along with what PA and I have been talking about, the quality of hides. If someone wanted to see what hides looked like 200 years ago, just go to a Museum and check out the native clothing.
I wish it was that simple, as I said in the other thread I'm fortunate to live real close to a few good museums. Gilcrease is one with good collections, Woolaroc isn't bad, but unfortunately the dates on their examples don't go back far enough. A good museum in Canyon Texas has a nice looking dress hanging , if you look real close it's a commercially tanned hide, maybe early 1900's. This a real common scenario, Museums are way too often run like a business, and they can always use another display even if it's a poor likeness of the real deal. You can sometimes tell if the artifact is a really good example, they will not hang buckskin clothing if it's very old. It's too hard on the stitching, quill and bead work. But you have to realize many times they will lay it down flat in a display simply because they won't spend money for a way to hang it.
Many museums often date artifacts themselves, or if it's donated many times the owner insist that it's much older and the museum will agree so they may display it. If I owned a pipe and my grandfather told me it was 200 years , but the museum told me it's probably early 1900's , I'd probably take it somewhere else too. This happens a lot.
Often a museum will exaggerate and date older , of course that makes it all better for them. Many museums acquire a piece and simply take a few pictures of it , email it to a so-called expert of their choice to get an apprasel. The appraiser often wants to keep working for the museum, so he is in their favor and normally dates artifacts much older, sometimes a picture isn't good enough to be working with anyway, it's only a cheap way to get something done.
With buckskin many times the garment is dated by the style of artwork. Examining beadwork has always been the method of determining the tribe the piece came from, thats a poor way of making a decision if the piece was early 1900's reservation copied from a poor book , thats how history gets distorted in native.
The Museum of the Fur Trade in Chadron Nebraska has a few examples of period buckskins, but it's still a little hard to tell it's real braintan, it takes a braintanner to be able to see it I think. After all the years, even a piece that was rarely used doesn't look the same. It dries up a lot , it wrinkles different than 10 year old buckskin that I know of. But it is a lot different that commercial tanned hides which I see more of than anything else, there is simply no comparison.
This sort of goes along with what PA and I have been talking about, the quality of hides. If someone wanted to see what hides looked like 200 years ago, just go to a Museum and check out the native clothing.
I wish it was that simple, as I said in the other thread I'm fortunate to live real close to a few good museums. Gilcrease is one with good collections, Woolaroc isn't bad, but unfortunately the dates on their examples don't go back far enough. A good museum in Canyon Texas has a nice looking dress hanging , if you look real close it's a commercially tanned hide, maybe early 1900's. This a real common scenario, Museums are way too often run like a business, and they can always use another display even if it's a poor likeness of the real deal. You can sometimes tell if the artifact is a really good example, they will not hang buckskin clothing if it's very old. It's too hard on the stitching, quill and bead work. But you have to realize many times they will lay it down flat in a display simply because they won't spend money for a way to hang it.
Many museums often date artifacts themselves, or if it's donated many times the owner insist that it's much older and the museum will agree so they may display it. If I owned a pipe and my grandfather told me it was 200 years , but the museum told me it's probably early 1900's , I'd probably take it somewhere else too. This happens a lot.
Often a museum will exaggerate and date older , of course that makes it all better for them. Many museums acquire a piece and simply take a few pictures of it , email it to a so-called expert of their choice to get an apprasel. The appraiser often wants to keep working for the museum, so he is in their favor and normally dates artifacts much older, sometimes a picture isn't good enough to be working with anyway, it's only a cheap way to get something done.
With buckskin many times the garment is dated by the style of artwork. Examining beadwork has always been the method of determining the tribe the piece came from, thats a poor way of making a decision if the piece was early 1900's reservation copied from a poor book , thats how history gets distorted in native.
The Museum of the Fur Trade in Chadron Nebraska has a few examples of period buckskins, but it's still a little hard to tell it's real braintan, it takes a braintanner to be able to see it I think. After all the years, even a piece that was rarely used doesn't look the same. It dries up a lot , it wrinkles different than 10 year old buckskin that I know of. But it is a lot different that commercial tanned hides which I see more of than anything else, there is simply no comparison.