Editor’s Note: This post was originally published in June 2012.
In many reenacting circles, there is a force that drives participants to historical accuracy. Have the right tent structures, keep plastic out of sight, wear clothing only your period character would wear, etc. This is fabulous thought and great effort should be given to be as good of a representative of the past as we can.
Sometimes, however, this verges on the insane like only eating types of food they would have access to and no machine stitched clothes before the late 1850s. (It gets bad when this viewpoint gets forced on others – for shame!)
So why can’t you be 100% historically accurate?
The Simple Answer: You weren’t there.
You are living in the 21st Century with 21st Century goings-on. You have internet access. You know what a credit card is.
And what about your knowledge of history that’s happened since the time period you are re-creating?
Let’s take the “simple” act of allowing women to vote. That itself, my friends, changes your whole mindset about how you sew your costumes, and more significantly, how you wear them. Think about it.
Did you see that amazing 17th Century jacket reproduction from 2009? Incredible work! The Plimoth Plantation museum curators in charge of bringing it to life made every possible effort to get as period correct as possible. They even had custom fabric woven specially for it! Crazy!
So in this example, yes, with oodles of time and money you can make a garment REALLY close to accurate. Just like the original. (Unfortunately, this is beyond the reach of those of us who modestly like making period clothing and dressing up in it.)
But what happens when an experienced reenactor puts that jacket on? How does she feel? Trained in etiquette of the period, she moves and acts as if she were someone who is visiting us from 300 years ago.
Yet… it’s still not 100% accurate. No.
You see, HER experiences and knowledge of today cannot be entirely pushed aside even for the brief time she’ll wear that jacket. Her movement will have the ever-so-slight flavoring of her 21st Century life. She will never truly hide it.
And what about us viewing this Lady of the Past? How do we see her? We also cannot forget our modern lives completely when participating in living history right alongside this wonderful character.
Strive as you may with specially-woven linen from Ireland and Spitalfields silk and handmade lace…. Add a wood-burning fireplace and the hauling of water from the well.
It cannot ever be a complete, period accurate picture.
(Although I will note, those in immersion museums & houses like Colonial Williamsburg, where some live day-in and day-out occupied in the past, they come pretty darn close.)
But why can’t it ever be 100% accurate? Because of you. Because of us.
Our minds, both reenactor and observer alike, are filled with images of cell phones, light switches and cars with air conditioning. Socially we are a part of a generation that has experienced the immense tragedy of 9/11. We know the history of the Holocaust. We know about Civil Rights and our dependence on oil.
And we cannot abandon these concepts at the door of the event. They are with us. They shape us into who we are as people living today, in the 21st Century.
We struggle to get as close as we can to sewing costumes and wearing them as clothing from the past. We can study history books and diaries and photos to bring that essence of the period to our character. But we can never leave ourselves out of the picture.
We study costuming and live through our unique 21st Century senses. Embrace that joy. That wonderment of what it was like to really live back then.
Remember to show YOU through your period wardrobe. Teach what it was like, but show them that the world can change….
I was an reenactor as William Willis Blackford CSA ANV for over 15 years. I never could become 100% for that time, I did however go to Charlesville VA to study Blackford’s history at the University there. His brothers dependent work there as well.
I did my best to represent him as best I could, I must have, I was the only one who did Blackford.
There was a discussion one night around the campfire, it was a headed debate, I said to the whole group, “What would you do if a man came from that time period in full confederate uniform? I bet you would tare him apart because he is not period correct.” Sad to say but he would be degraded from his appearance as he would look and act very different then we do.
Its one thing to put on a uniform and walk around, then degrading some one because you think that person is not correct. One day, I was stopped by a solder who started to put me down. I was in full Confederate Staff Officers uniform. He told me they did not have kepi’s or blue pants then. I opened my CMA book, had him read the uniform for a confederate staff officer. He said “Sorry Captain” I whispered to him,” best get rid of those polyester paints and jacket “
Great story examples Roger. Thanks for sharing.
I totally agree. I like to think that historical accuracy allows for some wiggle room when it comes to the overall “spirit” of an era. For instance, Victorians were all about “economy.” Women were encouraged to dress within their means and often had a relatively strict budget for clothing. Sometimes they would fashion entirely new dresses from older, out of style ones. A “good wife” would make do with less costly fabrics, always being mindful not to spend more than her husband could afford, but yet still look her best.So if modern costume makers sacrifice a little authenticity for the sake of saving time and money, I’ve got a hunch the Victorian dressmaker of the past would not only approve, but would marvel at our ingenuity.
Great point of view!
My sister and I attend the SIT weekend and my husband and I have done Civil War Reenacting. I believe that in this day and age, we as “costumers” are doing the best we can with what we have. It’s not cheap to prepare these outfits.
We just want to go out to these events to enjoy ourselves, with others, that share the same passions.
I make hats for the Victorian/Edwardian era, not easy, but very enjoyable.
When I am dressed up, I wear comfy underwear. I am often standing and/or walking for hours so I put cushion inserts in my reproduction shoes.
I skip arsenic green wallpaper in my 1882 historic home and I skip food poisoning and plague in my re-enacting. If you wanted to be REALLY accurate, you would have to be physically smaller with bad teeth and stink to high heaven and probably have parasites. I do NOT want to go there.
Wonderful post, Jennifer, and such thoughtful comments in response. I agree completely that understanding the past is one thing, being able to reproduce it 100% accurately is another. It’s not simply too time-consuming and costly, it’s physically and psychologically impossible. We aren’t the same people, in the same world, now as they were then. We can’t be them. Nor, almost certainly, would we choose to be.
You can also never be 100% historically accurate, because there is no such thing. Especially when it is about time periods when every piece of clothing was a handmade unicate. You can only attempt to copy one of them and be as accurate to it as you can, but then compare your work to another original from the same period and you will probably be far from it. There was variety at all times.
Well, it’s all about the group you hang out with and the norms they try to enforce. There are hobbyists who reenact solely for their own enjoyment, and those are the groups where one tends to find the extremists for either side of the debate. Experimental archaeology has its place, as does costuming.
But a lot of us reenact as first person interpretation, doing living history for the public. Someone standing right next to you will notice all the modern shortcuts used in your clothing. Obvious machine stitching, synthetics, chemical dyes in unlikely colors, modern hairstyles, cosmetics, etc. where the visitor can see will break the spell we’re trying to cast! So I hand stitch many of my garments in order to help maintain the illusion that the visitor is interacting with someone from the
early republic. At the same time, many of us do use machine stitching where it will never show, such as when making stays or the inner seams of shifts. As one living history friend likes to say, “A proper lady is not going to be showing them her underwear!” Though a roughneck might be showing his shirttails…
Ok I can throw in my two cents. Having been an active re-enactor since the Bi-Centenial in 1976, I suppose I have at least some experience in these matters. I have done impressions from The French and Indian War to the Civil War. I have even been in a couple of historical movies over the years.
I started doing this when you had to go to the library and research the items you wanted to create. We spent countless hours around campfires discussing what they would have worn or what they would have done.
The internet has been the single biggest factor in compliance with historical accuracy since the beginning of time! If you want to know anything it is just a few clicks away…
As far as historical impressions, I have to agree it is impossible not to allow the present affect the way we act even in the most stringent of historical context. You simply could never pull it off. The caste sysems of the time do not exist anymore, therefor our attitudes are simply different. Period.
You simply can’t treat other people that way these days..and you would spend way too much time explaining yourself to observers to have any fun at all…and after all isn’t that why we do this in the first place? It is suposed to be fun.
I am the president of the volunteer association at a State Historical Park here and while I encourage as much accuracy as possible I don’t bar too much either.
My own pet peeve for instance is footwear…most reenactors put the very least in that part of a costume…very sad. I even have a few guys with those black coach shoes for comfort! It gives me the willeys…but I want participation first. Impression is something we can always work on.
Oh by the way..if you want to do a real impression you will first have to loose about 40 pounds, pull about half your teeth, stop bathing every day, go the local stable and smear yourself with horse manure, grease your hair to your head and the next few times you are deathly ill, skip the doctors and medicine…still think you can do 100%?
Good opinions Thomas! I think we everyday 21st C. people would shudder to think of what their lives were truly surrounded by – sights, smells, textures, tastes. It would probably abhor us in our Clorox, Big Pharma, post 9-11 world.
Hear hear. I don’t want to be authentically smelly.
Ok, ladies I have a question for those seriously into reproduction clothing. How on earth do you handle a visit from “Aunt Flo”? do you stay (pardon the pun) period? or do you use modern supplies? in other words, how deeply do you live the life? where do you draw the line between physical, mental and medical comfort and practicality? I haven’t seen this topic addressed anywhere. I’m genuinely curious on how it’s handled by those women dedicated to the fashions and style of living.
My friends and I have briefly discussed this over the years. I personally go modern and leave off my historical drawers when dressing up. I have also ruined a pair of drawers which told me that it may have been a common occurrence back then too. Not done much research but what I have, there seems to be very little written about it – probably because the event was as normal as eating. No one talks about how to actually eat (i.e. put your fork to your mouth…). They also, I believe, “suffered” for only a couple days, not a full week, due to less chemicals in their food & water and all the other man-made stuff we deal with today in our systems. They probably said they were out of sorts and stayed in their rooms… although for the working, lower-class woman that could not be done. Then again, it’s simply not discussed. Perhaps others might have more ideas.
There is some evidence for this . . . a few years ago, I found an entire “Website Museum” dedicated to the subject, but of course have no idea where to find it now . . .
Rags. Folded rags and a garment like bikini-panties, some of which came out of an archeological dig in Germany not too long ago (conventional wisdom insists that’s the only time a moral woman would be wearing underdrawers . . . and it’s true, they do not appear in wardrobe inventories.). And, later (late 19th cent.), a belt/suspenders thing like you used to be able to buy in that section of the grocery store, before the manufactured stuff all went to adhesive strips.
Me . . . mercifully, I’m past the “age.” I used to just use the modern commercial supplies; I’m not going to be doing THAT kind of laundry at an event!!
I think the website you are looking for is the Museum of Menstruation: http://www.mum.org.
Yes! Thank you.
I know I would never really want to experience living in the 18th or 29th centuries, and I ‘m not in the least concerned about 100% accuracy. I just want to make and wear the pretty dresses I see in the fashion plates and in the movies. The creative process is engrossing and fun and the experience of wearing the clothes, sharing with like-minded companions just feels amazing. As long as I’m not glaringly farbulous, I’m a happy camper.
Ha! I meant 19th century, of course!
Oh, but I laughed at “29th” Century! Probably ’cause it’s true. 🙂
I found it fascinating to undertake one sheep-to-shawl endeavor, just to fully appreciate the labor process that went into producing a garment. My handcards and spinning wheel are modern, even if the engineering is the same, and I used circular needles to knit. Dawn dishwashing liquid cleaned the fleece, which I fortunately did not have to shear from the sheep myself. It was a great deal of work, and I am very proud of the outcome and have a better understanding of what went into clothing production in past eras as a result. But I will leave it at that one project – for my part, bring on the machine instead of hand-sewing, washable fabrics make for more pleasant dance wear. Utilize the modern conveniences at your disposal to help make the process of constructing the clothing as enjoyable as the wearing of it. Do your research, do your best, make it fun.
There is a difference between wearing clothing and wearing a costume. A costume is something made specifically to recreate a character or image as quickly and as cheaply as possible and and then to be discarded without a second glance.
If you’re like me, you make and wear historical CLOTHING. I hunt for fabrics as close to the originals as I can get and afford. I research what the shape is meant to be. I wear foundation garments that mold me into as close to their fashionable silhouette as I can get. I study the speech patterns, hair styles, hats, accessories and footwear of the period. I trim and hand-sew my beading. But let’s face it, we can’t grow our own flax, raise sheep for wool, tan our own leather or work with the sometimes toxic materials to make 100% accurate garments. Besides–wool and linen are not only itchy but brually hot in my Southern climate.
I refuse to tear myself apart over it. Never mind what anyone else says. This is what we do to reward ourselves for our “other” lives. Do the best you can. If you do not love what you are doing, if it isn’t fun–don’t do it. If it IS fun and you DO love it, ignore the self-appointed “Costume Police”.
I’m going to throw in a man’s view. At least women can find a seamstress willing to make them a period gown- most that I’ve known would rather tackle a hand stitched reproduction of a Worth gown than sew one man’s tailcoat. I know where they’re coming from- construction techniques of men’s and women’s clothes are very different. Still, that leaves your average man with little to fall back on at a ball but a military uniform or commercially available “Historical” men’s clothes which have more than a touch of costume to them. This is why many men (myself included) will end up wearing a 20th C. dress suit to an 1860’s ball…or any ball for that matter.
But you’re at least AT the ball Eric! And we women appreciate that.
It’s true what you say about they’d rather make a completely hand-stitched gown than a man’s coat. Tailoring is a skill that takes years to polish, but I’ve found that it’s simply the fear of messing it up that stalls anyone wanting to make menswear. I’ve made several men’s articles, including a wool morning coat and Regency tailcoat. But I’m still as you say, I’d rather make ME a new dress. Which reminds me… I probably should go get that new waistcoat finished for my husband. 🙂
That sir is a cop out. I am Male and have been building clothing for myself and other for decades. I have built for just about every time period from the mid 800’s through the late 1800’s and it can be done and and done right…and by men. Are there elements I send to female seamstresses, sure I like to send out my embroidery work and such I have little patience for it. But this is no different than the tailors of the day sending out specialty work to those that did i and did it well. Clothing was after all a cottage industry until late in the 1800’s. LEARN TO SEW it is a skill every human should know.
As for being 100% accurate I agree it is impossible in this day and age. Most people thing with a 21st century mind set and there is nothing you can do to completely eradicate that. It taints your every action and decision. From how you deal with women and children to how you deal with the various social classes and others.
Not to mention the matter of hand sewn or machine sewn modern undergarments or period undergarments. Personal Hygiene, brushing of teeth, using deodorant, hair products, hair ties, contact lenses proper glasses or just being partially blind and wearing no eye wear. Do you smoke? Do you do it with proper hand cut tobacco in a pipe or are you sneaking a butt here and there. Do you drink? Are you only drinking whiskeys and such available during that period from period vessels, or Beers brewed from traditional recipes and bottled or kegged as they would have been done according t the proper period?
Being How do you say the date the time or judge distance and such? Are you using the proper vernacular for every aspect of your day… for that day in question and all day long? No it is far to hard for most of us to be 100% accurate every day all the time because we are flawed and tainted by TODAY and the world around us.
You are quite right Jennifer it is nye impossible to be 100% accurate to any period other than our own.
D.W.Potter
I come at this question from a different viewpoint…
While I started as a reenactor, I am now a living history professional., having worked my way through a M.A. and Ph.D. in related subjects, and run the historical interpretation programs at living history museums. All history and all living history is ultimately our best *interpretation* of the past. Not only because we can’t know any absolute truth of historical knowledge, but any attempt to present it to a modern audience represents a condensation of those elements and facts we as historians find significant and important.
Good costumes (clothes) are needed to create the illusion of the past for living history practitioners… But not only are most not going to deal with custom woven, hand sewn and embroidered garments… It’s unlikely that the underlying materials will be correct in all details. How was the flax grown and was the wool taken from the right breed of sheep? How are you going to come up with whalebone corset stays when the animals are now protected by international treaty. Are there cordwainers (shoe makers) that even *know* the correct construction techniques? And are you willing to use toxic materials in your dyestuffs and makeup?
While the impossibility of perfect replication is no excuse for not knowing (or trying to know) what is correct and appropriate, there are a variety of compromises that are reasonable and appropriate depending on the context. And ultimately, each historian needs to make such choices….and live with the consequences of being called a “farb” or “stitch-nazi” (or some other name) by another historian who does not agree with those choses…
What a very thoughtful response this is! When reenacting I do try to at least use natural fibers, but will use synthetics that accurately mimic fabric of the past when cost or availability become an issue. Construction and shape are most important. I agree that it is the essence of history that is being conveyed. What’s more, it is meant to be fun and to attract interest so that history can continue to be portrayed by following generations, so that the various eras of our social cloth will not be forgotten. Well done!
I have had the thought, while working on period clothing and chastising myself for using “modern” supplies, fabrics, etc., would a seamstress or milliner in that era not have used the most user-friendly method or product that was available? We are still slaves to fashion or custom as were our ancestors and many times may wear something that is not comfortable to just fit in. And those who wore the height of fashion type garments generally did not do the housework or yard work or even care for their children. They were ornamental and dressed themselves accordingly. I’m not an ornament…I have a full time job as well as a home to care for. I love period clothing and I love to sew, but I am not going to stress myself over not having hand woven fabric to sew with.
It’s true we can become a slave to fashion. I agree that that includes being a slave to historical fashion too. Back then they were making their clothes, whether for everyday or for fancy events. Just like we do today.
It is my belief, like you, that they would have gone the most economical route and stayed with designs they enjoyed that fit within their alloted sewing time. hmm… sounds exactly what most of us do in our hobby of historical costuming!
I have numerous photographs of women that are firmly dated in the 1870s yet the woman is wearing a definite 1860s fashion. Women definitely stayed with the styles they were most comfortable with, just as we do today.
You are so correct. Why bother doing anything correctly if you can never be 100% accurate?
Because it’s fun.
Because trying to do something right is much more satisfying than givign up before I start.
In addition to the issues mentioned in the article and subsequent comments, there is also the modern problem of political correctness. Before the Civil Rights movement, it was acceptable to refer to persons of color with terms that would immediately raise eyebrows today. To refer to a Black person as a Negro, colored, or even “darky” was not racist , but nobody would dare use these terms now while in character for fear of offending. Many other terms freely used for minorities, even in genteel society, would be considered grossly inappropriate now.
Gender roles, societal hierarchies, and parent/child relationships were all very different 100 years ago, so any attempt to reproduce these norms today would result in a very backward, repressive, chauvinistic or outright racist impression, even if the reenactor is totally accurate in their speech and behavior of the day. If you’ve ever seen a period film and one character says or does something “period-correct” it’s inevitable you’ll hear clucks of disapproval from audience members who can’t remove themselves from the modern world. Likewise, we living historians are bound by modern society’s rules when attempting to speak to modern spectators, lest we completely turn them off two minutes into our presentation.
Whether we are educating others who will follow our every word or simply wearing the garments for our own edification and enjoyment, the limitations of what is permissible in our modern society will always affect the way we portray living history.
I have been recently struck by the different ways we bring up children in the past. During the second world war the children of London were evacuated. I am struggling with how they did it. The children of school age were evacuated with there school. There mums might have been evacuated as well if they had babes but the mums were evacuated separately. In my modern mind I just cant fathom how those families in the past could evacuate a child as young as 4 with out a parent, and with no comfort items, just the necessity.
Well, if you want the movement issue–people learned how to walk, curtsey/bow, hand people objects, stand, sit, and other aspects of deportment from dance masters. It does irritate me to see so many modern actresses in period films tramping or stamping around swinging their arms vigorously, walking indoors as if they were trying to beat the pedestrian light at a nasty intersection , and worse of all, doing what I call the “LA wriggle.” The LA wriggle is the thing where the actress, while sitting or standing, seems to feel she has to move constantly to attract attention, both in her body and her facial expressions. Scrunch the nose up, pout two seconds later, then wriggle the shoulders, then jiggle the head, the scrunch the nose again, then do something else . . . OK, I’m being catty, but calmness and considered movements were considered necessary for adults in indoor social situations. When women wanted to be vigorous they could dance, engage in certain sports, or take brisk outdoor walks . . . although those had their own rules.
This was an excellent article. I used to participate in Civil War re-enactments, and although my appearance was time appropriate, I felt there were too many things that got in the way of having the mind-set to truly embrace the era. In encampments our group had the ladies living in camp – proper southern ladies! Oh, and we had to use porta potties. Now, that experience in hoops is just out of this world! and it certainly brings you to the 21st century in a rude way!
Yes! Even at Renaissance Festivals, trying to use the “deluxe” porta potties in a hoop skirt was an absolute challenge! I’d like to say I wouldn’t do that to myself again, but I know that I’ll be wearing a hoop skirt again this year!
Do you know that during the “hoop era” many privies/outhouses had a hook on the back wall to hang the back of your hoop or your skirt on? Makes sense!
Yeah, and on a more basic level than that, even- think of how we as a population have changed in size over the past hundred years or so. Shoe sizes are bigger, glove sizes are bigger, people are taller, waist-to-hip ratios are smaller… we pluck our eyebrows, shave our underarms, and aren’t as used to wearing corsets as a nineteenth century woman might be.
There definitely are mental aspects as well as the physical, though. You wouldn’t start arguing that women shouldn’t have the vote and alcohol should be banned because you’re playing an early Edwardian character. I used to work in a museum dressed as a Viking, but if someone asked me about Viking archaeology, I wouldn’t feign ignorance. Nor would I have acted astonished by their modern clothing. Nor would I have learnt how to speak Old Norse!
I would love to work in recreations/replicas for museums… This article was such a breath of fresh air. I was required to wear a costume to work each year for Halloween at work and I chose period clothing. I learned to modernize as much as possible so that I could be comfortable. I looked as close to a woman from Elizabethan age but underneath I was modern. I did the same for my Regency as well, even though that was much more comfortable. 🙂
As a biologist/chemist/biochemist, it occurs to me that the nutritional status and environment had to also alter the way people in the past thought, behaved, moved, and looked. Today, we are at least somewhat aware of the problems associated with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS). I would think that FAS must have been much more widespread when the only “safe” beverage was alcoholic. Add the lack of modern water treatment, and this brings about another set of changes wrought by parasite loads in both the mother and her offspring.
It was only about a century ago, during the draft of the First World War, when one of the U.S. Army’s biggest obstacles was feeding their draftees enough to make them strong enough to withstand the rigors of combat, or even just Basic Training. Many draftees arrived chronically malnourished. That is, starvation and lack of adequate food was a condition they endured for years prior to being drafted.
Add to this more subtle behavioral and physical changes from 21st-century humans due to the lack of central heating and electric night. Add the respiratory burden of chronic smoke inhalation from fireplaces and/or stoves. Add a circadian rhythm much more dependent on the rising and setting sun due to very limited indoor lighting. It’s said that if you turn out all the lights in your house after dark, close the curtains, and then open your refrigerator, that’s about how much light most homes had in the 19th century. Imagine trying to read or sew by just the light from your refrigerator! And imagine how dark winter days might affect your mental state.
We literally and physically probably can’t completely imagine what life for our ancestors was like. We are, like it or not, for better or worse, physiologically and physically significantly different from them.
And then there are the practicalitys. I have two children under 5 that come to events with me. They have to be comfortable and I have to be comfortable with what they have on. My oldest is in modern panties and modern tights, the rest of her clothes are period even her shoos, she eats period food, and she plays with period toy at events. But because I know that at any moment she might decide that standing on her head in the middle of camp might be a good idea I put her in modern under things ( this is for the 15th century and there is no evidence for womans panties). She is a modern child and normally that’s not a problem but a little girl of her age in the past wouldn’t be doing that.