Trade Coats in the Colonial Southeast
and some obligatory thoughts on waistcoats
Native reenactors seem to be drawn to “trophy coats” as their choice for outer wear for some odd reason. Yet, the historic record
is glaringly lacking in references to the widespread wear of clothing ripped from the bodies of the slain enemy… so why is it so popular? Honestly, that is beyond the scope of this article. However, what Natives actually wore in the 18th century Southeast is
the target of this writing.
If Indians were not wearing trophy coats, then what were they wearing? Well, I am glad you asked! Trade coats, not trophy coats.
There are hundreds and hundreds of references to coats procured specifically for the Indian trade from a very early date.
An Account of the Prices of Goods, settled between Col. James Moore and the Conjuror, the 30th Day of April, 1716, as they are allways to be sold to his People, viz.,
Skins
“A Broadcloth Coat, laced . . 30
A Half Thicks Coat . . . . . 20”
http://amohkali.com/?p=13
Much like that other article on blue wool, there is a dominating trend which emerged by the 1750’s Southeast. In stark opposition to the dominance of blue wool for matchcoats, breechclouts, and leggings, most Native Americans in the region tended to favor red wool coats.
From a memorial from Benjamin Martyn, agent for Georgia, to the
Board of Trade, Jan. 28, 1755.
“34 second hand scarlet, red, and blew coats
6 Do. a better sort, and 6 Waistcoats for head men”
In the Colonial Records of South Carolina, there is an interesting exchange where the red wool coats sent to Fort Loudoun had to be turned back by Demere because they were so inferior that he couldn’t even issue them to his soldiers. Regardless of their quality, it was red wool trade coats which the Indians of the SE were demanding.
But what did these coats look like? That is a much harder question. Unfortunately, none of the thousands of simple English trade coats survive intact. The remains of a trade coat were recovered from Conestoga Town, dating to the early 1760’s. The garment was examined by Laura Johnson in her essay, “Goods to clothe themselves.” Sadly, her understanding of period fashion diminished her interpretation of the remnants. Thankfully, however, Mark Hutter of Colonial Williamsburg undertook a project to faithfully reconstruct the coat with great attention to detail.
It is this reconstruction which my thoughts of design are drawn from, combined with pricing and various descriptions of the trade common trade coats (which were not elaborately decorated with metallic braid) as “jackets”. “Jacket” in the mid-18th century is now accepted to generally mean a shorter coat, with trim to non-existent skirt pleats, cuffs, and sometimes even a collar. My interpretation is that of a blend between a coat and a waistcoat; a coat in that it has full cuffs, and buttons at the top of the side vents; a waistcoat in that there are no pleats in the skirts.
Below is my interpretation of the trade coat after years of consideration of the subject. These directions are designed with with the JP Ryan 1750's style commerical waistcoat pattern in mind, but really could be applied to any good mid-18th century English sleeved waistcoat pattern. Hopefully, new information will present itself over time and the details will evolve along with our understanding of 18th century Southeastern Native Material Culture.
This information is presented with the spirit of sharing knowledge in mind. However, I do ask that credit be given. My thoughts on trade coats have been claimed once already by someone I shared them with. Quite frankly it sucks to learn that someone has taken credit for your ideas.
is glaringly lacking in references to the widespread wear of clothing ripped from the bodies of the slain enemy… so why is it so popular? Honestly, that is beyond the scope of this article. However, what Natives actually wore in the 18th century Southeast is
the target of this writing.
If Indians were not wearing trophy coats, then what were they wearing? Well, I am glad you asked! Trade coats, not trophy coats.
There are hundreds and hundreds of references to coats procured specifically for the Indian trade from a very early date.
An Account of the Prices of Goods, settled between Col. James Moore and the Conjuror, the 30th Day of April, 1716, as they are allways to be sold to his People, viz.,
Skins
“A Broadcloth Coat, laced . . 30
A Half Thicks Coat . . . . . 20”
http://amohkali.com/?p=13
Much like that other article on blue wool, there is a dominating trend which emerged by the 1750’s Southeast. In stark opposition to the dominance of blue wool for matchcoats, breechclouts, and leggings, most Native Americans in the region tended to favor red wool coats.
From a memorial from Benjamin Martyn, agent for Georgia, to the
Board of Trade, Jan. 28, 1755.
“34 second hand scarlet, red, and blew coats
6 Do. a better sort, and 6 Waistcoats for head men”
In the Colonial Records of South Carolina, there is an interesting exchange where the red wool coats sent to Fort Loudoun had to be turned back by Demere because they were so inferior that he couldn’t even issue them to his soldiers. Regardless of their quality, it was red wool trade coats which the Indians of the SE were demanding.
But what did these coats look like? That is a much harder question. Unfortunately, none of the thousands of simple English trade coats survive intact. The remains of a trade coat were recovered from Conestoga Town, dating to the early 1760’s. The garment was examined by Laura Johnson in her essay, “Goods to clothe themselves.” Sadly, her understanding of period fashion diminished her interpretation of the remnants. Thankfully, however, Mark Hutter of Colonial Williamsburg undertook a project to faithfully reconstruct the coat with great attention to detail.
It is this reconstruction which my thoughts of design are drawn from, combined with pricing and various descriptions of the trade common trade coats (which were not elaborately decorated with metallic braid) as “jackets”. “Jacket” in the mid-18th century is now accepted to generally mean a shorter coat, with trim to non-existent skirt pleats, cuffs, and sometimes even a collar. My interpretation is that of a blend between a coat and a waistcoat; a coat in that it has full cuffs, and buttons at the top of the side vents; a waistcoat in that there are no pleats in the skirts.
Below is my interpretation of the trade coat after years of consideration of the subject. These directions are designed with with the JP Ryan 1750's style commerical waistcoat pattern in mind, but really could be applied to any good mid-18th century English sleeved waistcoat pattern. Hopefully, new information will present itself over time and the details will evolve along with our understanding of 18th century Southeastern Native Material Culture.
This information is presented with the spirit of sharing knowledge in mind. However, I do ask that credit be given. My thoughts on trade coats have been claimed once already by someone I shared them with. Quite frankly it sucks to learn that someone has taken credit for your ideas.
Lastly, waistcoats need to be addressed. This is one of the most incorrectly constructed and worn articles in the Native reenactor's wardrobe. Sadly, this has become a pet-peeve of mine. Like longhunter reenactors, many Native interpreters choose to wear a waistcoat over their shirt as the sole outer garment. Unlike the longhunters, Native interpreters tend towards gaudy paisley designs and other modern upolstry fabrics which were never used (or worse, didnt exist!) in the 18th century.
"But waistcoats do show up in the Native trade!" Yes they do. But, just like everything else in the study of history, context is key. On every trade list I have examined in which waistcoats appear, the are always associated with coats, and are greatly outnumbered by coats. Typically, waistcoats make up a small fraction of the clothing presented; and they usually are found in corresponding numbers to the quantity of fancy coats. They most commonly show up as part of a suit of clothing presented to headmen. The suit typically consisted of a laced hat with ostrich feathers, a fine ruffled white linen shirt, a coat adourned with metalic lace, a waistcoat with metalic lace, breeches, and shoes with buckles.
Along with the way waistcoats appear on the various trade and gift lists, they are noticably absent from descriptions of the clothing typically worn by Native Americans. When waistcoats are mentioned, they are worn under a coat and over a nice ruffled shirt. I have yet to come across a single reference to an Indian in the colonial Southeast wearing a waistcoat without a coat over top of it. If the evidence were ever to present itself, I would absolutely love to see it. Until the time this evidence presents itself, I feel very confident in saying that the practice of Native interpreters wearing a waistcoat without a coat (or shirt - even worse!) is poor interpretation and should be avoided at all costs.
"But waistcoats do show up in the Native trade!" Yes they do. But, just like everything else in the study of history, context is key. On every trade list I have examined in which waistcoats appear, the are always associated with coats, and are greatly outnumbered by coats. Typically, waistcoats make up a small fraction of the clothing presented; and they usually are found in corresponding numbers to the quantity of fancy coats. They most commonly show up as part of a suit of clothing presented to headmen. The suit typically consisted of a laced hat with ostrich feathers, a fine ruffled white linen shirt, a coat adourned with metalic lace, a waistcoat with metalic lace, breeches, and shoes with buckles.
Along with the way waistcoats appear on the various trade and gift lists, they are noticably absent from descriptions of the clothing typically worn by Native Americans. When waistcoats are mentioned, they are worn under a coat and over a nice ruffled shirt. I have yet to come across a single reference to an Indian in the colonial Southeast wearing a waistcoat without a coat over top of it. If the evidence were ever to present itself, I would absolutely love to see it. Until the time this evidence presents itself, I feel very confident in saying that the practice of Native interpreters wearing a waistcoat without a coat (or shirt - even worse!) is poor interpretation and should be avoided at all costs.