Does anyone know where I can get a pattern to make some pucker toe moccasins.Thanks
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Pucker Toe
- Thread starter rusty
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
What is probably the most accurate moc pattern is illustrated on the Southern Indian Dept. page.
http://southernindiandept.org/mocpattern.htm
http://southernindiandept.org/mocpattern.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 6,489
- Reaction score
- 1,424
I agree with J.D. if for eastern use. The Mocs in that article are mt. man period, or look western at any rate. I have seen eastern types like those shown, but they were noticably puckered, and have no seam under the toes. However, I am no expert on mocs. LaBonte would probably have a more definative answer.
Being as the gent asking is from Alberta I'd "assume" he would want the western (actually Great Lakes/Metis) style as shown in Dave Scott's PDF - eastern and western patterns for pucker toes are not the same.
As for the seam under the toe - there are those that claim it's a 1960's pattern, but they are wrong - check out the AMNH site for just one source - http://anthro.amnh.org/anthropology/databases/north_public/north_public.htm - and you can see plenty of under the toe seams on western pucker toes from well before the 1960's. I've seen them on there and other sites with good provenance as far back as the 1850's.
On the other hand if you're wanting a good pattern for western period/style I'd recommend side seams - they are MUCH easier and less time consuming to make then pucker toes and for an item that tends to wear fast that IMO is important.
Despite A.J. Miller the mountaineers wore other styles than the pucker toe - the best documented one being the side seam.....Eastern styles though probably were worn by some in the west since a number of eastern Indians became part of the wester fur trade, the most prominent being the Iroquois, Shawnee, and Delaware who at least in some documented cases continued to use their eastern styles and in the early days (pre-1820's?) "Whites" who came west very probably continued to use at least some of the eastern styles, although trading with western Indians for mocs is well cited which would have been western styled.
As for the seam under the toe - there are those that claim it's a 1960's pattern, but they are wrong - check out the AMNH site for just one source - http://anthro.amnh.org/anthropology/databases/north_public/north_public.htm - and you can see plenty of under the toe seams on western pucker toes from well before the 1960's. I've seen them on there and other sites with good provenance as far back as the 1850's.
On the other hand if you're wanting a good pattern for western period/style I'd recommend side seams - they are MUCH easier and less time consuming to make then pucker toes and for an item that tends to wear fast that IMO is important.
Despite A.J. Miller the mountaineers wore other styles than the pucker toe - the best documented one being the side seam.....Eastern styles though probably were worn by some in the west since a number of eastern Indians became part of the wester fur trade, the most prominent being the Iroquois, Shawnee, and Delaware who at least in some documented cases continued to use their eastern styles and in the early days (pre-1820's?) "Whites" who came west very probably continued to use at least some of the eastern styles, although trading with western Indians for mocs is well cited which would have been western styled.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 6,489
- Reaction score
- 1,424
Just curious Chuck, but I saw no pucker on Daves pucker toe mocs. Why are they called pucker toes, with no pucker? I have to say, they do look good. Pucker, or no pucker.
Yes, Ojibwe, Cree, and Métis. This is the style Rindibacher shows, usually with a red or blue cloth vamp.
In this pic you can see some pucker:
http://www.erabliere-lac-beauport.qc.ca/images/dict/picho.jpg
Some say the name Ojibwe refers to pucker toe mocs.
In this pic you can see some pucker:
http://www.erabliere-lac-beauport.qc.ca/images/dict/picho.jpg
Some say the name Ojibwe refers to pucker toe mocs.
i am looking for western puckertoe moccasins
Do you mean these?
http://www.birchbarkcanoe.net/images/book-lacingmoccasin.jpg
Craft Manual of North American Indian Footwear. See real ones at the Banff Indian Trading Post. :wink:
http://www.birchbarkcanoe.net/images/book-lacingmoccasin.jpg
Craft Manual of North American Indian Footwear. See real ones at the Banff Indian Trading Post. :wink:
Last edited by a moderator:
Wick has a good point, everyone calls the style "pucker toe" but it is really a center seam with a vamp. As far as the degree of puckering, a lot depends on how the material is cut. There is a magazine called "Whispering Winds". This magazine usually has at least one moccasin pattern per issue. Some of the Delaware(that is..Eastern center seam with no vamp) moccasins are cut so that there is no puckering, they are really works of art.
But back to topic. Pichou posted two images, a drawing and a photograph. In the drawing of the Great Lakes style with the vamp and a center seam, there is some puckering around the vamp. The toe is rather pointed. The Museum of the Fur Trade has a dead ringer for this except it is Shoshone. You can therefore argue the pattern existed around the Great Lakes and also in the mountains. There are paintings of Eastern Sioux with this style, sometimes with a very small vamp. There are paintings of mountain men with this style shown in the Pichou posted drawing.
But....there are also other paintings of mountain men with moccasins that have a larger vamp and the paintings are somewhat unclear as to whether there was or was not a center seam. If there was no center seam then the style is similar to that in the second image, or photograph, that Pichou posted. This second style, with no center seam, simply has an over sized sole in the shape of a foot. The sides of the sole piece are gathered up and puckered into the vamp. It has been stated that Miller first made sketches and then painted from them and on the original sketches a center seam is shown on these larger vamp moccasins. I know from my own experience that making this second style (without a center seam) needs a vamp that is very large, otherwise the amount of puckering becomes excessive. To my knowledge the pucker toe- no center seam is a Cree pattern (and maybe some other tribes). There is an eastern Cree moccasin dating to 1820 of this style that appeared in Whispering Winds about a year ago. The vamp was completely covered in quills.
So, what did mountain men wear? That's a tough question. We have accounts of mountain men claiming they could identify moccasin tracks as white or Indian because the style worn by mountain men was different. The trouble with such statements is that there doesn't seem to be any information on what were the differences. One pure guess is the mountain men usually wore center seam/vamp and the plains tribes usually wore side seams- the tracks are different. But.. this idea that mountain men didn't wear Indian style moccasins conflicts with other information. There are accounts of a caravan trading with Pawnee for moccasins. These Pawnee moccasins were likely side seams. Sage describes a side seam moccasin as the type mountain men made for themselves. The Delaware in the west likely wore eastern center seams with no vamp, the painting of Black Beaver indicates such.
Then it gets complicated, on the vamp with the center seam, different tribes handled the toe area in different ways, sometimes there were two small seams to take up some of the excess material, there were also cross seams to eliminate a floppy point. Then there is the issue of how wide were the flaps. If during the summer the flaps were folded down, they would not have been too high.
The Metis were a special people and they made up a significant portion of the trappers. The Bata shoe museum has a Metis side seam pattern- plain without decoration. Several years back Muzzle Loader ran an article on a different Metis pattern with a vamp/center seam. This pattern had a rectangular shaped sole with a notch in the top for the toe. This creates a more stubby, less pointed toe.
There are several accounts of Indian women married to trappers that spent quite a bit of their time making moccasins or embroidering moccasins. The style these women made probably depended a lot on what tribe the women came from.
Then there is the issue of whether everyday moccasins were decorated. It's hard to prove. Now a days it seems like a waste of time to decorate a piece of footwear that may need to be re-soled in 3 days to a week but just because it is a lot of work doesn't mean it wasn't done. Paintings of Indians of the day invariably shows decorated moccasins. The paintings of mountain men show the same. There are accounts of highly decorated, ceremonial moccasins but these might have been far more decorated than those shown in the typical painting. There is some indication of ceremonial moccasins beaded on the bottom and the wearer- at a ceremony- had to dance until he broke off all the beads (this however could be post 1840). In any event the vamp with cloth and decoration may have been saved and used on new moccasins.It's probably fair to say that every day moccasins had at least a cloth covered vamp with a minimum of bead decoration- a bead border takes about 15 minutes to sew.
So Rusty are you totally confused? Rufus Sage and James Clyman made side seams and I'd bet the farm they weren't decorated. So... that's an option.
The other style, documented in the artwork, would be like that drawing Pichou posted and possibly(it's sort of unclear) the style in the photograph Pichou posted. Your final choice ought to depend on what style feels best on your feet.
Moccasin leather was originally thin and the foot wear was often replaced. That's the right way to do it. Once you have a pattern you like make a permanent copy and when ever there some thin cheap leather about grab it for more moccasins. If you were on a horse your moccasins likely lasted a while but if you had to walk they could wear out in a day. Mabe that's why the mountain men married the Indian women- good supply of moccasins.
But back to topic. Pichou posted two images, a drawing and a photograph. In the drawing of the Great Lakes style with the vamp and a center seam, there is some puckering around the vamp. The toe is rather pointed. The Museum of the Fur Trade has a dead ringer for this except it is Shoshone. You can therefore argue the pattern existed around the Great Lakes and also in the mountains. There are paintings of Eastern Sioux with this style, sometimes with a very small vamp. There are paintings of mountain men with this style shown in the Pichou posted drawing.
But....there are also other paintings of mountain men with moccasins that have a larger vamp and the paintings are somewhat unclear as to whether there was or was not a center seam. If there was no center seam then the style is similar to that in the second image, or photograph, that Pichou posted. This second style, with no center seam, simply has an over sized sole in the shape of a foot. The sides of the sole piece are gathered up and puckered into the vamp. It has been stated that Miller first made sketches and then painted from them and on the original sketches a center seam is shown on these larger vamp moccasins. I know from my own experience that making this second style (without a center seam) needs a vamp that is very large, otherwise the amount of puckering becomes excessive. To my knowledge the pucker toe- no center seam is a Cree pattern (and maybe some other tribes). There is an eastern Cree moccasin dating to 1820 of this style that appeared in Whispering Winds about a year ago. The vamp was completely covered in quills.
So, what did mountain men wear? That's a tough question. We have accounts of mountain men claiming they could identify moccasin tracks as white or Indian because the style worn by mountain men was different. The trouble with such statements is that there doesn't seem to be any information on what were the differences. One pure guess is the mountain men usually wore center seam/vamp and the plains tribes usually wore side seams- the tracks are different. But.. this idea that mountain men didn't wear Indian style moccasins conflicts with other information. There are accounts of a caravan trading with Pawnee for moccasins. These Pawnee moccasins were likely side seams. Sage describes a side seam moccasin as the type mountain men made for themselves. The Delaware in the west likely wore eastern center seams with no vamp, the painting of Black Beaver indicates such.
Then it gets complicated, on the vamp with the center seam, different tribes handled the toe area in different ways, sometimes there were two small seams to take up some of the excess material, there were also cross seams to eliminate a floppy point. Then there is the issue of how wide were the flaps. If during the summer the flaps were folded down, they would not have been too high.
The Metis were a special people and they made up a significant portion of the trappers. The Bata shoe museum has a Metis side seam pattern- plain without decoration. Several years back Muzzle Loader ran an article on a different Metis pattern with a vamp/center seam. This pattern had a rectangular shaped sole with a notch in the top for the toe. This creates a more stubby, less pointed toe.
There are several accounts of Indian women married to trappers that spent quite a bit of their time making moccasins or embroidering moccasins. The style these women made probably depended a lot on what tribe the women came from.
Then there is the issue of whether everyday moccasins were decorated. It's hard to prove. Now a days it seems like a waste of time to decorate a piece of footwear that may need to be re-soled in 3 days to a week but just because it is a lot of work doesn't mean it wasn't done. Paintings of Indians of the day invariably shows decorated moccasins. The paintings of mountain men show the same. There are accounts of highly decorated, ceremonial moccasins but these might have been far more decorated than those shown in the typical painting. There is some indication of ceremonial moccasins beaded on the bottom and the wearer- at a ceremony- had to dance until he broke off all the beads (this however could be post 1840). In any event the vamp with cloth and decoration may have been saved and used on new moccasins.It's probably fair to say that every day moccasins had at least a cloth covered vamp with a minimum of bead decoration- a bead border takes about 15 minutes to sew.
So Rusty are you totally confused? Rufus Sage and James Clyman made side seams and I'd bet the farm they weren't decorated. So... that's an option.
The other style, documented in the artwork, would be like that drawing Pichou posted and possibly(it's sort of unclear) the style in the photograph Pichou posted. Your final choice ought to depend on what style feels best on your feet.
Moccasin leather was originally thin and the foot wear was often replaced. That's the right way to do it. Once you have a pattern you like make a permanent copy and when ever there some thin cheap leather about grab it for more moccasins. If you were on a horse your moccasins likely lasted a while but if you had to walk they could wear out in a day. Mabe that's why the mountain men married the Indian women- good supply of moccasins.
All the info shows that the small vamp center seam is an invasive style - i.e. WHEN were the Shoshone mocs made/dated to - I;d bet post 1830 or later.
Eastern Sioux - heavily Great Lakes influenced, so again the style could be invasive.
Which accounts? I've read citations of tribal styles being identifiable (but find that a bit difficult to believe after testing the subject with so-called different tribal styles and besides mocs tend to form to one's foot and feet are different....)
There is also Ruxton's note about meeting Arapahos in 1846 that were fascinated by his mocs, which they had not seen before - he was wearing an eastern Canadian style that he had learned to make when on a trip there a few years before......
Catlin's pics of Pawnee's show at least three different patterns - side seams, small vamp, and center seam......
ALL paintings must be eyed with a "grain or two of salt" - they are not photographic evidence - without additional citations they may be nothing more than the artist liked a certain item so much that he continually included them as Miller did for sure in his later paintings.....Also there are a number of cites that have mocs being made from green or unfinished hides I would doubt very much these were decorated.
IMO - virtually all the styles mentioned can be at least in part (based on a portrayal of who, when, and where) can be documented so wear what you prefer - neither the mountain man nor the NDNz wore a "uniform", although over time the mountaineers did wear gear that became identifiable to them it was still not a uniform...
FWIW - Having made and worn mocs on a daily basis for over 40 years I can say that by far the easiest and fastest to make for me are side seams or plain center seams - but with my broad feet (EE width) the side seams fit better and they can most definitely be cited to the west of the early to mid-1800's.
Well let me wade through some of these comments as best I can. First and foremost my mind isn't set on anything and I'm still on a learning curve so I'm all ears- so to speak.
A. On the idea someone could identify a tribe by their moccasin tracks(or a mountain man track from an Indian track). I got that from the following:
1. Uncle Dick Wooten (signed on 1836) page 209, the moccasins wore by mountain men were different from the moccasins worn by Indians.
2. Francis Parkman (post 1840) Page 131 saw impression of an Indian moccasin.
3. Lewis Garrard (post 1840) Page 16. You can identify Indians from their tracks.
4. Ruxton( the Killbuck book) Post 1840. The mountaineer Gonneville knew the Sioux Indian belonged to the more hostile Yankton tribe by the peculiar make of the moccasins.
5. If I recall there are a few more quotes I'll have to look for- I thought I had written them down- but in any event that's some of what I am basing my opinions on. Now the facts are the facts to some extent- the question is how are we interpreting this information. Indians never wore spurs- to my knowledge. Did the bottom of the spur's strap- the part under the foot- show up in a track? Was the ability to identify a track as made by a mountain man that simple? Or maybe if the toes were pointed inward the mountain man looking at the track took it as Indian. Or if all the tracks were single file that was an indication they were made by Indians. From the face of things, it does seem incredible that anyone could actually identify a tribe by the imprint of a moccasin track.
B. Taking the artist paintings with a grain of salt. On this one I guess I just disagree. The reason why is because it seems we have multiple artists, not just one or two artists. Tait has been discredited as having never been west and as I understand matters he got a lot of details wrong. Miller was in the mountains, Bodmer and Catlin got pretty far into Indian country. Stanley is supposed to have only gotten to around Ft. Snelling and St. Louis but Isaac Rose has him farther west unless Rose got his artists mixed up. Maybe Rose meant Miller however I thought Miller went back to St. Louis. Ranney I believe fought in the Texas War of Independence and hung around St. Louis and saw folks coming in from the mountains. In any event it seems to me that all these artists were painting similar images. There were other artists as well. Catlin admits in his portraits that most of the Indians got dressed up for their portrait painting. Here Catlin shows side seams with all sorts of embroidery as well as fox tail tassels, etc but in many common scenes- hunting buffalo, playing lacrosse, etc- it seems to me that the Indians had moccasins without tassels etc but a modicum of bead work. In any event I'm not basing my feelings on Miller alone. If it was just Miller I would have questions- and I do about other things with Miller- like so many mountaineers with capotes when a lot of other folks say buck skins were the typical garb. Therefore I am basing my thoughts on the fact that many artists show the same thing and very few artists ever show plain, undecorated moccasins.
Another issue is if the mountain men working out of Taos wore a different type of moccasin that the mountain men that headed up the Platte River. Did the new Mexico mountain men have a rawhide or parfleche sole? I agree it seems incredible that the Arapaho had never seen a center seam/vamp moccasin. What were the Taos trappers wearing? By 1870 the Sioux had a moccasin that looked sort of like a side seam except it had a rawhide sole and a soft top- the same T cut was made for the flaps (or tongue slits- depending on which way you want to go).
I think we all agree both raw hide and tanned hides were used- if anyone wants the quotes I'll post them.
So where does that leave us? Probably that various moccasins were worn by mountain men.
On the invasive aspect. David Sager (Whispering Winds Vol 36/ No. 6) claims the center seam/vamp developed more than once in different parts of North America- it wasn't necessarily a pattern that started in one area and spread to other areas. Sager is a pretty knowledgeable fellow. He also claims that even spaced puckering may indicate a post 1840 date. After 1840 the puckering was done using two lengths of sinew or thread- each length matching the length of one of the pieces to be joined. These lengths were then put through their respective sides using a running stitch. If you scrunched up the leather- like a shower curtain- and sewed to the centers of the bends- you end up with perfect puckering, but not necessarily PC for pre-1840.
Let me also add that Hanson at the MFT says the rawhide- two piece style didn't hit the northern plains until a later date (I think 1860's) but if the style can somehow be documented to pre-1840 in Santa Fe/Taos- then that would be an easy way to make a tough pair of moccasins that would last a long time. A lot of these NM trappers went to the Rendezvous in the Green River country. What's more, from what I see the stirrups on a lot of saddles were metal and not too wide- it seems a heavier sole would be a lot more comfortable.
In any event I find the whole subject riddled with conflicting data and I admit that I base a lot on paintings but unfortunately I'm not sure what else there is. These paintings show mountain men with vamp type moccasins. I can't recall any paintings with side seams even through Indians are shown with side seams and side seams can be equally decorated or "fancied up" with beads and quills. Since Sage said the side seam is what mountain men made when they made moccasins by their own hand- well that stands and it makes the side seam a pc pattern and I agree if I had to make a fast pair of moccasins I'd make the side seam pattern.
Well, those are some of my thoughts.
A. On the idea someone could identify a tribe by their moccasin tracks(or a mountain man track from an Indian track). I got that from the following:
1. Uncle Dick Wooten (signed on 1836) page 209, the moccasins wore by mountain men were different from the moccasins worn by Indians.
2. Francis Parkman (post 1840) Page 131 saw impression of an Indian moccasin.
3. Lewis Garrard (post 1840) Page 16. You can identify Indians from their tracks.
4. Ruxton( the Killbuck book) Post 1840. The mountaineer Gonneville knew the Sioux Indian belonged to the more hostile Yankton tribe by the peculiar make of the moccasins.
5. If I recall there are a few more quotes I'll have to look for- I thought I had written them down- but in any event that's some of what I am basing my opinions on. Now the facts are the facts to some extent- the question is how are we interpreting this information. Indians never wore spurs- to my knowledge. Did the bottom of the spur's strap- the part under the foot- show up in a track? Was the ability to identify a track as made by a mountain man that simple? Or maybe if the toes were pointed inward the mountain man looking at the track took it as Indian. Or if all the tracks were single file that was an indication they were made by Indians. From the face of things, it does seem incredible that anyone could actually identify a tribe by the imprint of a moccasin track.
B. Taking the artist paintings with a grain of salt. On this one I guess I just disagree. The reason why is because it seems we have multiple artists, not just one or two artists. Tait has been discredited as having never been west and as I understand matters he got a lot of details wrong. Miller was in the mountains, Bodmer and Catlin got pretty far into Indian country. Stanley is supposed to have only gotten to around Ft. Snelling and St. Louis but Isaac Rose has him farther west unless Rose got his artists mixed up. Maybe Rose meant Miller however I thought Miller went back to St. Louis. Ranney I believe fought in the Texas War of Independence and hung around St. Louis and saw folks coming in from the mountains. In any event it seems to me that all these artists were painting similar images. There were other artists as well. Catlin admits in his portraits that most of the Indians got dressed up for their portrait painting. Here Catlin shows side seams with all sorts of embroidery as well as fox tail tassels, etc but in many common scenes- hunting buffalo, playing lacrosse, etc- it seems to me that the Indians had moccasins without tassels etc but a modicum of bead work. In any event I'm not basing my feelings on Miller alone. If it was just Miller I would have questions- and I do about other things with Miller- like so many mountaineers with capotes when a lot of other folks say buck skins were the typical garb. Therefore I am basing my thoughts on the fact that many artists show the same thing and very few artists ever show plain, undecorated moccasins.
Another issue is if the mountain men working out of Taos wore a different type of moccasin that the mountain men that headed up the Platte River. Did the new Mexico mountain men have a rawhide or parfleche sole? I agree it seems incredible that the Arapaho had never seen a center seam/vamp moccasin. What were the Taos trappers wearing? By 1870 the Sioux had a moccasin that looked sort of like a side seam except it had a rawhide sole and a soft top- the same T cut was made for the flaps (or tongue slits- depending on which way you want to go).
I think we all agree both raw hide and tanned hides were used- if anyone wants the quotes I'll post them.
So where does that leave us? Probably that various moccasins were worn by mountain men.
On the invasive aspect. David Sager (Whispering Winds Vol 36/ No. 6) claims the center seam/vamp developed more than once in different parts of North America- it wasn't necessarily a pattern that started in one area and spread to other areas. Sager is a pretty knowledgeable fellow. He also claims that even spaced puckering may indicate a post 1840 date. After 1840 the puckering was done using two lengths of sinew or thread- each length matching the length of one of the pieces to be joined. These lengths were then put through their respective sides using a running stitch. If you scrunched up the leather- like a shower curtain- and sewed to the centers of the bends- you end up with perfect puckering, but not necessarily PC for pre-1840.
Let me also add that Hanson at the MFT says the rawhide- two piece style didn't hit the northern plains until a later date (I think 1860's) but if the style can somehow be documented to pre-1840 in Santa Fe/Taos- then that would be an easy way to make a tough pair of moccasins that would last a long time. A lot of these NM trappers went to the Rendezvous in the Green River country. What's more, from what I see the stirrups on a lot of saddles were metal and not too wide- it seems a heavier sole would be a lot more comfortable.
In any event I find the whole subject riddled with conflicting data and I admit that I base a lot on paintings but unfortunately I'm not sure what else there is. These paintings show mountain men with vamp type moccasins. I can't recall any paintings with side seams even through Indians are shown with side seams and side seams can be equally decorated or "fancied up" with beads and quills. Since Sage said the side seam is what mountain men made when they made moccasins by their own hand- well that stands and it makes the side seam a pc pattern and I agree if I had to make a fast pair of moccasins I'd make the side seam pattern.
Well, those are some of my thoughts.
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
One way you can distinguish Indians tracks from white man tracks, unless the white man was raised with Indians, is the gait patterns. Indians were trained from childhood to use what is now referred to as the " Fox Walk" when moving. This puts the foot down using a bent knee, rolling in from the outside of the foot to the inside. White men, then, and now, are used to wearing shoes, and we walk with a locked knee, so that the track impression we leave shows the heel hitting first, then the weight shifting to the full foot, and then the toes at the ball of the foot pushing off as the weight leaves the impression. Indians down leave 'cones" at the heels, walking the way they do, while white men do.
I don't know enough about the various styles of moccasins made by various tribes, to know if there is enough of a difference among tribes to be able to identify a particular moccasin as having been made by a particular tribe.
More likely, scouts became very accustomed to reading tracks wherever they went, and you do get to recognize all the tracks and gait patterns of the people with whom you live, year in and year out. With that knowledge, they would easily recognize a "foreign" track, be it Indian or White man.
When I was first learning to read tracks, I followed tracks of other students walking to school in the snow. I had NO proper fitting show shoes or boots, because the family could not afford new shoes for both my twin brother and me at one time, until the January clearance sales came around. So, I wore street shoes and walked in the tracks of other students to avoid getting my socks and feet wet. I soon learned I could identify individual people from their gait patterns, even people who lived blocks away from me, but walked to school, nonetheless. At first I thought I could only tell them by the style of sole on their boots, but later, I found I recognized them, no matter what they were wearing, from their gait patterns.
I, too, have read countless histories and letters from people who talked about Indians being able to read or identify the tracks of a given tribe from the construction of their moccasins. If you ever find a good source of information on all the variations in patterns or style, I would be interested in reading it. :hmm: :hatsoff:
I don't know enough about the various styles of moccasins made by various tribes, to know if there is enough of a difference among tribes to be able to identify a particular moccasin as having been made by a particular tribe.
More likely, scouts became very accustomed to reading tracks wherever they went, and you do get to recognize all the tracks and gait patterns of the people with whom you live, year in and year out. With that knowledge, they would easily recognize a "foreign" track, be it Indian or White man.
When I was first learning to read tracks, I followed tracks of other students walking to school in the snow. I had NO proper fitting show shoes or boots, because the family could not afford new shoes for both my twin brother and me at one time, until the January clearance sales came around. So, I wore street shoes and walked in the tracks of other students to avoid getting my socks and feet wet. I soon learned I could identify individual people from their gait patterns, even people who lived blocks away from me, but walked to school, nonetheless. At first I thought I could only tell them by the style of sole on their boots, but later, I found I recognized them, no matter what they were wearing, from their gait patterns.
I, too, have read countless histories and letters from people who talked about Indians being able to read or identify the tracks of a given tribe from the construction of their moccasins. If you ever find a good source of information on all the variations in patterns or style, I would be interested in reading it. :hmm: :hatsoff:
Rod Lassey
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,418
- Reaction score
- 10
Well, I'll throw in my 2 cents worth as well, to muddy the issue even more.
We have a number of listings from the posts on the Upper Missouri of purchases of moccs from natives. These would obviously be what they were used to making. When at Ft. Clark, Maximillian collected a pair of these moccs, made up for the trade. They are plains side seam, and were recycled from something else, as there is painting on them that would not otherwise be there. They are not sewn up the back, but are otherwise complete. It is thought that this was a means to make a one-size-fits-most mocc---simply trim and stitch up the back to fit the length of your foot. They do have modest quillwork decoration.
Then, there's that famous Lewis & Clark quote about the men putting parfleche soles on their moccs. I'm betting that these were a soft soled variety, with a hard sole sewn on to the bottom. Certainly a viable option to make those moccs last a few days longer. Is this what the various mountain men authors refer to when they mention things like eating their mocc soles? Maybe they've got some cut out and with them to resole when needed?
I've always made side seams myself, but I realize that as I develop a more metis look in my clothing and gear that I'd better make up some Ojibwe or Cree style moccs.
We have a number of listings from the posts on the Upper Missouri of purchases of moccs from natives. These would obviously be what they were used to making. When at Ft. Clark, Maximillian collected a pair of these moccs, made up for the trade. They are plains side seam, and were recycled from something else, as there is painting on them that would not otherwise be there. They are not sewn up the back, but are otherwise complete. It is thought that this was a means to make a one-size-fits-most mocc---simply trim and stitch up the back to fit the length of your foot. They do have modest quillwork decoration.
Then, there's that famous Lewis & Clark quote about the men putting parfleche soles on their moccs. I'm betting that these were a soft soled variety, with a hard sole sewn on to the bottom. Certainly a viable option to make those moccs last a few days longer. Is this what the various mountain men authors refer to when they mention things like eating their mocc soles? Maybe they've got some cut out and with them to resole when needed?
I've always made side seams myself, but I realize that as I develop a more metis look in my clothing and gear that I'd better make up some Ojibwe or Cree style moccs.
Well as LaBonte said the Pawnee had three different styles- I'm not sure if the differences were between the divisions in the Pawnee nation- I think there were five different divisions or branches of Pawnee. Ruxton implied in his work that the Yankton moccasins differed from other divisions/branches of the Sioux. And the time issue has value- just look at how the hair is worn by the Crow, Sioux, etc in the Miller works. The Crow and Sioux at the time of the Little Big Horn have completely different looking hair.At the time of the mountain men the Crow were supposed to have long hair but most of the photos of Crow at the time of the Little Big Horn show two braids with the part on one side of the head. I don't think any of the Sioux in 1876 were still shaving their heads with only a top knot.
If truth be told, how do we know if most of the surviving moccasins actually date to the period claimed? If one of the explorers/adventurers brought back samples that were put into a museum- well that seems to be valid documentation except in such cases we have only a sample, we don't know if it was a common or typical moccasin.
But to get back on topic, it would seem to me incredulous to argue that the center seam/vamp moccasins painted by Miller, Ranney, Eastman, and Stanley- on the feet of mountain men were NEVER worn by them. The issue is whether they were a special item obtained at rendezvous or whether they were worn throughout the year. In any event it seems valid to argue the center seam/vamp style is a mountain man moccasin. The second valid style would be the side seam and if this was an item made by the trappers themselves then it would seem logical that they were not decorated. The puckered toe that has a vamp without a center seam- like the Cree typically wear- that may or may not be valid- if Miller's sketches show a seam then that seems to rule out the puckered toe without a center seam.
Finally if you have a unique persona like a Delaware trapper, then an eastern woodland pattern would seem to be acceptable.
So, if Rusty wants a "puckered toe" style I would choose either the pattern in the PDF file or the rectangular Metis pattern that was in Muzzle Loader a few years back. Depending on what art work you view, either the stubby toe or longer toe are both portrayed.
and as far as identifying tracks. The Shoshone (according to the MFT sample) had a side cut to round the toe somewhat. Some of the tribes had various heel treatments that differed. Were the powers of observation among the mountain men so keen as to read these tiny differences? Maybe.
If truth be told, how do we know if most of the surviving moccasins actually date to the period claimed? If one of the explorers/adventurers brought back samples that were put into a museum- well that seems to be valid documentation except in such cases we have only a sample, we don't know if it was a common or typical moccasin.
But to get back on topic, it would seem to me incredulous to argue that the center seam/vamp moccasins painted by Miller, Ranney, Eastman, and Stanley- on the feet of mountain men were NEVER worn by them. The issue is whether they were a special item obtained at rendezvous or whether they were worn throughout the year. In any event it seems valid to argue the center seam/vamp style is a mountain man moccasin. The second valid style would be the side seam and if this was an item made by the trappers themselves then it would seem logical that they were not decorated. The puckered toe that has a vamp without a center seam- like the Cree typically wear- that may or may not be valid- if Miller's sketches show a seam then that seems to rule out the puckered toe without a center seam.
Finally if you have a unique persona like a Delaware trapper, then an eastern woodland pattern would seem to be acceptable.
So, if Rusty wants a "puckered toe" style I would choose either the pattern in the PDF file or the rectangular Metis pattern that was in Muzzle Loader a few years back. Depending on what art work you view, either the stubby toe or longer toe are both portrayed.
and as far as identifying tracks. The Shoshone (according to the MFT sample) had a side cut to round the toe somewhat. Some of the tribes had various heel treatments that differed. Were the powers of observation among the mountain men so keen as to read these tiny differences? Maybe.
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
The mountain men learned to be great trackers, or they didn't live long. Trackers not only read tracks to find game, and friends, but to locate enemies so that the main body of friends can be alerted and prepare a defense, or RUN! Knowing which tracks belong to friendly tribes, and which belong to enemy tribes meant the difference between living and dying- not just for the scout, but for his whole group.
Indian scouts performed the same function for their tribes, and clans. They were the early warning system of their day. Some of this is shown in Dances with Wolves, the movie.
Its only because cameramen, and directors don't know how to take pictures of tracks that we don't get good pictures on the movie screen of the tracks they are looking at. ( Opening scene of the Last of the Mohigans; Thunderheart, in the scene where Graham Greene is showing and reading the tracks of Val Kilmer, the FBI agent to show him how and why he is able to know facts from reading footprints; and several scenes in Dances with Wolves, where reference is made to tracks, including the famous Buffalo slaughter scene with the wagon tracks.)
There is a science to reading tracks, but few modern people are interested in learning it. People would rather think you have to be born an Indian to know how to track, or at least be trained by Indians. Unfortunately, because of US Government policies for most of the 20th century, few Indians today know how to track like their grandfathers. There are now several schools that teach tracking, and more books on the subject now in print than were published in the past 100 years. The US Military has even quietly opened some tracking schools at a couple of locations. But that doesn't mean that the Generals, or most Chief of Police have a clue what trackers can do, or how valuable they can be in combat, or in working crime scenes.
Indian scouts performed the same function for their tribes, and clans. They were the early warning system of their day. Some of this is shown in Dances with Wolves, the movie.
Its only because cameramen, and directors don't know how to take pictures of tracks that we don't get good pictures on the movie screen of the tracks they are looking at. ( Opening scene of the Last of the Mohigans; Thunderheart, in the scene where Graham Greene is showing and reading the tracks of Val Kilmer, the FBI agent to show him how and why he is able to know facts from reading footprints; and several scenes in Dances with Wolves, where reference is made to tracks, including the famous Buffalo slaughter scene with the wagon tracks.)
There is a science to reading tracks, but few modern people are interested in learning it. People would rather think you have to be born an Indian to know how to track, or at least be trained by Indians. Unfortunately, because of US Government policies for most of the 20th century, few Indians today know how to track like their grandfathers. There are now several schools that teach tracking, and more books on the subject now in print than were published in the past 100 years. The US Military has even quietly opened some tracking schools at a couple of locations. But that doesn't mean that the Generals, or most Chief of Police have a clue what trackers can do, or how valuable they can be in combat, or in working crime scenes.
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
There is a huge track from the buffalo, and there were narrower wheel tracks left by the Hide Hunters- presumably White men. Most people didn't see or recognize the tracks for what they were. 
:thumbsup:
:thumbsup:
