Son, it Looks Like a Turkey Ran Into the Back of Your Head and Exploded...
A number of threads have appeared in the “Native American Reenacting” section of the Frontier Folk Message Board (http://frontierfolk.net/mb/) in the past year which attest to the widespread misunderstanding of 18th century Indian hair ornamentation practces for all regions of North America. It would be easy to launch into a tirade about all of it, but once again, I will restrain myself to discussing the Southeast only. I probably need to apologize to the readers who will be offended by this in advance.
turkey feather roaches - http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=45391
turkey feather roaches - http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=43948
red roaches - http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=46224
red roaches - http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=44728
turkey beard roaches - http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=43776
porky roaches - http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=43415
Having been guilty myself, many folks opt to reenact other reenactors, or copy modern paintings by famous artists like John Buxton and Robert Griffing. While Buxton, Griffing, and others are very talented, they are simply painting reenactors, not necessarily documentation. Having been the subject of a couple of paintings, I look back and wish there are things I had done differently… hind sight is 20/20 after all. A lot of my good friends have also been featured in modern works. While we all hold ourselves to a high
standard, copying the art really means copying another reenactor. Not the best method of research and interpretation. How many “trophy” coats appear in Griffing’s work? How many appear in the historic record?
Before I digress too much, I need to redirect back to the issue I said I am going to rant...er... talk about: hair. North, South, East, and West, the two most common forms of hair ornaments employed by Native reenactors are deer and porcupine hair combination roaches and/or split turkey feather roaches in various combinations. Unfortunately, these items are the absolutely least documentable types of hair ornaments for the 18th century! So why are these first choices for so many folks? Well, they look cool. They look “Indian.” Tons of people sell them for really cheap. Finally, they show up in the works of modern artists constantly.
Many will point out that there are numerous 19th century examples of deer and porcupine hair roaches in various collections. Yes there are. However, one must remember that they come from a time and place far removed from the 18th century Southeast (and Northeast). There are definitely descriptions and even surviving examples of red dyed deer hair roaches which survive from the 18th century. None of them have porky hair in there construction! Add to this, the complete lack of porcupines in the colonial Southeast and you have a destinct lack of porcupine anything decoration! (There are exceptions to every rule - and I will discuss the EXTREMELY limited use of quillwork in the SE... unless it is a diadem or a calumet, it should not have quills!!!)
A fun read about the lack of porcupines in Tennessee:
http://friendsofthecumberlandtrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/im3511_20091103_114650.pdf
Yes, we do find split feathers on a few diadems and other types of headdresses, and what are very likely PEACE pipes... and there is a destinct lack of split feathers ornamenting anything associated with conducting war. Mike Galban posed the idea some time ago that the split feathers could specifically be a symbol of peace... a symbolic removal of the fletching from arrows. I believe this theory has quite a bit of merit. So, combine this with the complete lack of support for the wearing of split turkey feather head ornaments and we have a pretty good argument on our hands against them!
turkey feather roaches - http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=45391
turkey feather roaches - http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=43948
red roaches - http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=46224
red roaches - http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=44728
turkey beard roaches - http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=43776
porky roaches - http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=43415
Having been guilty myself, many folks opt to reenact other reenactors, or copy modern paintings by famous artists like John Buxton and Robert Griffing. While Buxton, Griffing, and others are very talented, they are simply painting reenactors, not necessarily documentation. Having been the subject of a couple of paintings, I look back and wish there are things I had done differently… hind sight is 20/20 after all. A lot of my good friends have also been featured in modern works. While we all hold ourselves to a high
standard, copying the art really means copying another reenactor. Not the best method of research and interpretation. How many “trophy” coats appear in Griffing’s work? How many appear in the historic record?
Before I digress too much, I need to redirect back to the issue I said I am going to rant...er... talk about: hair. North, South, East, and West, the two most common forms of hair ornaments employed by Native reenactors are deer and porcupine hair combination roaches and/or split turkey feather roaches in various combinations. Unfortunately, these items are the absolutely least documentable types of hair ornaments for the 18th century! So why are these first choices for so many folks? Well, they look cool. They look “Indian.” Tons of people sell them for really cheap. Finally, they show up in the works of modern artists constantly.
Many will point out that there are numerous 19th century examples of deer and porcupine hair roaches in various collections. Yes there are. However, one must remember that they come from a time and place far removed from the 18th century Southeast (and Northeast). There are definitely descriptions and even surviving examples of red dyed deer hair roaches which survive from the 18th century. None of them have porky hair in there construction! Add to this, the complete lack of porcupines in the colonial Southeast and you have a destinct lack of porcupine anything decoration! (There are exceptions to every rule - and I will discuss the EXTREMELY limited use of quillwork in the SE... unless it is a diadem or a calumet, it should not have quills!!!)
A fun read about the lack of porcupines in Tennessee:
http://friendsofthecumberlandtrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/im3511_20091103_114650.pdf
Yes, we do find split feathers on a few diadems and other types of headdresses, and what are very likely PEACE pipes... and there is a destinct lack of split feathers ornamenting anything associated with conducting war. Mike Galban posed the idea some time ago that the split feathers could specifically be a symbol of peace... a symbolic removal of the fletching from arrows. I believe this theory has quite a bit of merit. So, combine this with the complete lack of support for the wearing of split turkey feather head ornaments and we have a pretty good argument on our hands against them!
So we cannot document split turkey feather roaches and deer/porky hair combo roaches (or turkey beards for that matter), what can we document? There are actually tons of alternatives found in period illustrations and descriptions which are not only far more authentic, but also often easier to obtain and less expensive. In the Southeast, finger woven hair garters seem to have been very common, as were small heddle woven bead hair fobs. Even more common were a couple of feathers - not the split and curled type, but down and full feathers, often dyed red.
James Adair wrote, : The men fasten several different sorts of beautiful feathers, frequently in tufts; or the wing of a red bird, or the skin of a small hawk, to the lock of hair on the crown of their heads.”… “The party appeared next day painted red and black, their heads covered all over with swan-down, and a tuft of long white feathers fixt to the crown of their heads.”
Lt. Henry Timberlake on the Cherokee: “The hair of their head is shaved, tho many of the old people have it plucked out by the roots, except a patch on the hinder part of the head, about twice the bigness of a crown-piece, which is ornamented with beads, feathers, wampum, stained deers hair, and such like baubles…”
Among the Southeastern tribes we also find frequent mention of river cane worn in the hair. It is very likely that these were just short sections of cane slipped over a braid or chunk of longer hair. There is also plenty pointing to absolutely nothing being worn in the hair. Simple is always a good option as there is less to go wrong.
Another option is a European hat. Both wool felt hats (cocked, uncocked, trimmed with lace, and plain) and worsted knit caps appear in the Native sphere from an early date. While we dont seem to have any 18th century images of SE Natives wearing them, there are a whole bunch of images from the third quarter of the 19th century of Indians in the Northeast wearing hats and caps. As these items appear with equal frequency in the NE and SE, it is pretty safe to say that both were being worn quite frequently by Indians. Sadly, most Native interpreters do not feel they are "Indian enough," and opt for something outlandishly "Indian."
In the end, the options one is left with leaves one looking less like a modern painting and more like a period image. But that is the point; or it should be anyway. We have a responsibility to accurately portray the past. My advice to the novice and veteran alike is to constantly re-evalute your gear. Our interpretations should be ever evolving. Rather than look at the latest print from X artist, turn to Bartram or Adair and see what the guys who were actually there witnessed. The writings are noticably devoid of split turkey feather hair ornaments and deer/porcupine hair roaches.
The following are a few images of reproduction hair ornaments made by myself and Nathan Kobuck (bottom right) which are pretty firmly rooted in the historic record of the Southeast.
Lt. Henry Timberlake on the Cherokee: “The hair of their head is shaved, tho many of the old people have it plucked out by the roots, except a patch on the hinder part of the head, about twice the bigness of a crown-piece, which is ornamented with beads, feathers, wampum, stained deers hair, and such like baubles…”
Among the Southeastern tribes we also find frequent mention of river cane worn in the hair. It is very likely that these were just short sections of cane slipped over a braid or chunk of longer hair. There is also plenty pointing to absolutely nothing being worn in the hair. Simple is always a good option as there is less to go wrong.
Another option is a European hat. Both wool felt hats (cocked, uncocked, trimmed with lace, and plain) and worsted knit caps appear in the Native sphere from an early date. While we dont seem to have any 18th century images of SE Natives wearing them, there are a whole bunch of images from the third quarter of the 19th century of Indians in the Northeast wearing hats and caps. As these items appear with equal frequency in the NE and SE, it is pretty safe to say that both were being worn quite frequently by Indians. Sadly, most Native interpreters do not feel they are "Indian enough," and opt for something outlandishly "Indian."
In the end, the options one is left with leaves one looking less like a modern painting and more like a period image. But that is the point; or it should be anyway. We have a responsibility to accurately portray the past. My advice to the novice and veteran alike is to constantly re-evalute your gear. Our interpretations should be ever evolving. Rather than look at the latest print from X artist, turn to Bartram or Adair and see what the guys who were actually there witnessed. The writings are noticably devoid of split turkey feather hair ornaments and deer/porcupine hair roaches.
The following are a few images of reproduction hair ornaments made by myself and Nathan Kobuck (bottom right) which are pretty firmly rooted in the historic record of the Southeast.