Part 3 - Chapter 1

The historical development of 17th century English and English/American dress. 

Very little has been written about European dress as it existed in America at the beginning of colonization. Most of what was written applied to the European continent. To what degree the styles were adhered to in America has to be surmised.

The only information as to how European clothing was worn and modified in America has to be gleamed from documents, letters, and diaries written by travelers, explorers, and a few settlers. Modern writers, as well as writers from other centuries, did not document, to any degree, clothing in America worn prior to the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Elizabethan dress in all its splendor and extravagance was still in effect in the beginning of the seventeenth century. This style of dress would continue, basically, in the same mode until the death of King James's wife, Anne of Denmark, in 1619, especially as it related to women's dress.1 After her death, men's stylish and extravagant dress would continue, but ladies' attire would pale in comparison.

Until the advent of Charles I and his French wife Henrietta Maria in 1625, clothes still remained formal, stiff, and highly adorned in the tradition of Spain and England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

Henrietta Maria brought French influence to English apparel. The clothes began to have softer folds and a looser fit as well as a more pronounced décolletage and a higher waistline.2 The style was known as the Cavalier style.

    Costume Plate # 5
17th Century Cavalier
05cavalier 1600 sm.jpg (9933 bytes)
Both Elizabethan men's and women's dress has already been described briefly. Women's influence in the early days of the Virginia colonists was practically non-existent. It was not until 1619, the same year in which Queen Anne died, that Virginia saw an influx of women. During that year, ninety young women came for the express purpose of becoming settler's wives.3 Unfortunately, there is no inventory nor descriptions of what they wore. It is probably safe to assume that the majority of the clothes that they brought with them were more serviceable than decorative.

The costume that women wore consisted of a long waisted, tightly laced bodice that ended in a point. The neckline could be either low or high, finished with a stand up collar for the former and a ruff for the latter. The simplest gowns would only have a falling collar of white linen. Tight fitting sleeves with cuffs at the wrist completed the basic bodice. Outer fuller sleeves, lace, and additional ruffs were all added depending upon societal position.

Women, also, wore a garment that was similar to a man's. Although, not usually identified in books, women of that period wore waistcoats described as "jacket-bodices worn with a skirt (called a petticoat).4 It was, also, worn as an undergarment.5

The skirts might or might not have contained farthingales. It can be conjectured that because of their width they would not have been often worn in Virginia. The skirts were almost to the ground and full with a slit up the front that exposed the underskirt in the shape of a "V" which was usually of another color.

Women's hair was worn high off the forehead, padded with false hair, and decorated elaborately. When an openwork bonnet of lace or linen was worn, the hair would have been dressed low with a roll at the front. Their other form of headgear was copied from the men and consisted of a hat with a high peaked or truncated crown and a wide brim.

For outer wear, women wore shawls and capes, both long and short, that were similar to those worn by the men.

Women's shoes were similar to the men's and their gloves were decorative like the men's.

The women also wore mirrors attached to their waist, powder, paint, and small patches (also known as beauty marks) on their face. Fans were, often, carried.

Even though these colonists were living far from home without many amenities, they still tried to emulate the dress of the nobility. Class consciousness was part of these colonists' backgrounds.

The Cavalier period started with the reign of Charles I in 1625. This mode of dress became very well established in England by 1630; however, it was not until the advent of Cromwell in 1649 and the beheading of Charles I that the style became very well represented in Virginia as the Cavaliers were forced to flee from England. 6

Virginia became a colony with a prosperous and style conscious class of both men and women relatively early.

"At that time London fashions were strictly followed by the quality, and seem to have been not only the chief amusement of the women, but a matter of great moment to both sexes."7

However, too great a display of extravagant dress was frowned on; the House of Burgesses enacted a law that stated: 

"Be it enacted that for all public contributions every unmarried man must be assessed in church according to his own apparel, and every married man must be assessed according to his own and his wife's apparel."8

       Costume Plate # 6
  Anglo-American Woman
06woman_1600sm.jpg (9059 bytes)


Starting in 1625, both men's and women's clothes lost their rigidity. Men's doublets, while still created from satins and velvets, lost their boning. The formal doublet still kept its pointed waist and overlapping tab skirt; but the doublet worn everyday was cut with more freedom and less of a pointed waistline. It still retained its multi-tabbed skirt.

The body and sleeves were still paned and slashed to allow for the linen shirt or various linings to be visible. Sleeve widths varied. One of the popular widths was full from the shoulder to elbow and tight from the elbow to wrist with a linen and lace cuff.

The most popular form of jerkin in Virginia was that of leather since it offered protection from arrows and rough outdoor terrain. This type of jerkin was also called a buff-coat. Its skirt could reach to the middle of the thigh.

Since the terms vest, jerkin, doublet, waistcoat, coat, etc. are frequently found in descriptions of Indian dress from the sixteenth century onward, a brief explanation is warranted. Firstly, often the same garment was called by different terms; secondly, the style of the individual garments also varied. Earle refers to all of them as a

"coat like over-garment...........all closed with a single row of buttons or points or hooks and eyes."9

Earle states that the jerkin was not deemed a coat by the colonists because it didn't have a skirt in twentieth century terminology.10 Unfortunately, the fact that the terms were confused cannot be repudiated and, thus, the cut of the garment must be gleaned from the contex of the narrative or situation.

          Costume Plate # 7
Jerkins, Waistcoats, Coats, & Buff Coats
07Coatlike_Garmentssm.jpg (22733 bytes)

Men began to wear longer and less full breeches that came down to or below the knee. They could be full, like the venetians, but not padded; straight and tight at the knee; or loose at the knee. Ribbons for garters and decorations were used instead of jewels.

Stockings were usually gathered above the knee and the wealthy wore silk stockings.

High, square toed leather boots that came as high up as the thigh for riding or could be cuffed over at about the knee for other activities were very popular with the men. Shoes had rounded or square toes with low heels.

The hats that men wore were similar to those described for the women. Often plumes were added to both the men's and the women's.

The Cavalier Period can be envisioned by the pointed beard and the flowing locks worn by the men. They wore their hair at or below their shoulders in waves. Sometimes a love lock was also worn. This consisted of a lock of hair tied by a ribbon that was separate from the rest of the hair and worn on either side of the face.

Swords were, still, worn either hanging from the belt or from a shoulder-strap.

Women's dress, like the men's, became softer, more flowing, and less rigid. From 1625 on, the boned and long waisted bodice started to give way to a softer and higher waisted one which ended in skirt tabs that would go over the skirt. Both bodices had low necklines outlined with spreading collars of linen and lace. The sleeves became very full, often bound with a ribbon at the elbow. They ended narrowly at the wrist with a wide turned back cuff.

The skirts became full and made up of soft folds. They were placed beneath the bodice and reached to the ground. They could either be closed or opened in an inverted "V" as in earlier styles. The outer petticoats or gown began to be looped up in an attractive style to avoid dragging on the ground. The decorative under petticoat was worn a few inches above the ground while the outer one touched the ground.

Women's hair styles changed; the hair was pulled back into a coil at the back of the head with curls that outlined the face. A fringe of hair was worn over the brow that was either straight or, also, curled.

Cloak styles remained relatively constant as did the style of shoes.

Aprons could be worn over the skirt for both formal and everyday wear.

The common man and laborer dressed differently from the "quality" class of people. The common man wore a doublet that was less confining due to the elimination of the waistline. However, it still retained its shape. It was made out of very serviceable material: leather, canvas, linsey-woolsey etc.

The workman - carpenter, blacksmith, mason etc. wore loose breeches (to the knee) and a loose jerkin over his shirt, doublet, etc. His hose was of coarse wool and his shoes were made from tanned leather and tied in front. He, also, wore a wide brimmed hat of thrums (the end of the material from a weaver's warp) or felt. All wore, while at work, aprons of dressed leather. The poorer families used leather for all their outer garments.

Startups (a shoe made of tough leather and reaching above the ankles) and cockers (leather leggings) were worn mainly by country peoples.

According to McClellan, English Mariners dressed in a similar mode to the workman.11

The working or servant girl wore skirts that were less full than her "quality" counterpart. She wore her bodice laced over her white chemise that had a low neck and semi-full sleeves. Her collar was full and soft.

The clergy in Virginia followed the style of those in England. Their basic dress consisted of:

"a black coat, (ancestor of the cassock), full breeches to the knee, silk hose fastened with points, a soft brimmed hat, and a plainstock or falling band for outdoor wear; the white surplice with bands and a close cap of silk or velvet in church."12

Fashion was evolving more rapidly than it had in the beginning of the century. From the sixteen thirties to the sixteen forties, men's doublets became shorter, unpadded, and less tailored to the body and were worn open from the chest downward in an inverted "V". The jerkin began to go out of style and was replaced by the buff coat.

As part of their decorative outfit, men wore capes positioned under the wide collars (often extending beyond the shoulders) of their doublet.

Although the late forties and fifties were turbulent in England and Cromwell had ascended to power, men's attire still outshone the women's even though the women carried many accessories from masks to veils and wore fur stoles or tippets. While the material for men's clothes didn't change significantly, women's became plainer although the cuffs and collars were still large and edged with lace.

Women's hair became longer and the heartbreaker curl, worn over the shoulder and extending in front, became fashionable. Pearls were worn in long strands around the neck and the waist.

Waistcoats became popular with the men. They were worn under the doublet, decoratively or for warmth.

By the sixteen sixties, the doublet started to evolve into a coat (although it seemed to still be called a doublet by some) with longer sleeves and a longer length. Neck cloths became fashionable in the sixteen seventies and a man's suit consisted of a "coat and breeches".13

There seems to be a divergence of opinion among fashion historians as to which garment, the doublet or jerkin was labeled as a coat. Some even make a categorical statement that: "After the 1660s, the doublet began to be replaced by the waistcoat and coat."14 Since the emphasis of this study is on the dress of the Indian, time will not be spent in examining this apparent contradiction. The fact remains that a coat became a necessary part of a man's everyday attire.

During the development of colonial Virginia in the seventeenth century, the itinerant peddler became a common sight for both Indians and Europeans. He was dressed simply in what could be called a plain suit of coat and breeches.

The somberness of the sixteen fifties gave way to the extravagance, once again, of the sixteen sixties with the rise of Charles II to the throne of England.

The wearing of many colored ribbons on clothes reached a new height, as did the wearing of lace, especially amongst the men. The waistline moved downward, once again. Men wore periwigs and, by sixteen seventy, had started to wear the tri-cornered hat that was to become very popular later in history. The women shed the hat for the hood since it caused less disarray to the hair. Black became a popular color for women's dresses and men's suits.

The sixteen seventies saw almost every article of a lady's attire modified.15 Skirts were drawn back in the style of the bustle. The sleeves of the bodice ended at the elbow and were pinned back to expose the sleeves of the undergarments which were very full and edged with cuffs of lace at the elbows. The neck became very low. Elbow length gloves were worn to cover the exposed forearms.

By the sixteen eighties, women's hair was worn flat on top with masses of curls on the sides often covered by a diminutive lace cap.

McClellan depicts the outdoor dress of two working people of Virginia in the reign of James II (1685-1689).

The woman wore an open mantle which was loose fitting and came down probably as far as her knees. The mantle had loose elbow length sleeves out of which extended the full sleeves of her undergarment, not her bodice which still had the pinned back sleeves. The lower corners of her mantle were rounded. The mantle was made of a sturdy wool called Durant. On her head she wore a hood. Her dress was made of a simple and durable material with a low neckline.

The male worker basically wore leggings of tanned leather, a coat of Frieze, and, underneath the coat, a woolen jerkin. His hair was simply styled and reached to the back of his neck. On his head he wore a wide brimmed felt hat.16

The people of "quality" during this period and that of William and Mary of England (1689-1702) wore rich and much embellished attire. The skirt of the women's gown extended to the side and was looped back to show the richly decorated underskirt. On her head she wore a very high headdress with streamers extending down her back.

The man was dressed in equally rich attire. His coat was the same length as his breeches and he had added a cravat to his dress.17

The last twenty years of the century saw an even greater use of ribbons and bows. Ribbons were worn at the throat, wrists, shoulders, down the front of a lady's dress, and as garters for a gentleman. The styles of the gentry were still extravagant. Dozens of buttons were worn by men on their coats which now sported waists lower than the natural waist. Knee length breeches were still worn although they continued to be slim. By 1685, the coat had extended beyond the breeches.

Men began to carry muffs or wore them attached to their waist. Men still wore periwigs and tri-cornered hats with large brims.

The ladies were powdered, rouged, and wore patches (as beauty marks) on their face. Head gear became very elaborate as did the style of the coiffeur which boasted a myriad of curls. A lady's skirts and underskirts were not as full, but were intricately draped up in the back. Her gown was richly embellished.

The sixteen nineties saw lady's wear mimicking the style of the sixteen seventies with bustles, tight bodices, and frilled and ornamented petticoats.

McClellan in Historic Dress in America, gives a summary of fashions from 1660-1700 that she claims is representative of the English colonies as a whole. It is taken from Philip Bruce's Economic History of Virginia. The text being quoted is from Bruce's book and does vary slightly from McClellan's. The clothing refers to what was worn by the planter's family.

"The shirt was made of holland, blue linen, lockram [a coarse linen18], dowlas [a coarse linen worn by the lower classes], and canvas, according to the quality desired; the holland representing the most costly and canvas the least expensive. The buttons on the shirt were either of silver or pewter, and in many cases were carefully gilded. The drawers were of blue linen, calico, dimity, and canvas; a pair has been noted made of leather. (`Drawers' was a term which in that age was very often applied to breeches.) The stockings were either of silk, woolen or cotton thread, worsted or yarn. Thread stockings seem to have been used in riding. The shoes worn by the men were made of ordinary leather, or they were of the sort known as French falls. [A low boot like shoe with a wide fold-down cuff.] The shoe buckles were manufactured of brass, steel, and silver. There were many references to boots, a popular means of protection to the leg and foot since the planters were compelled to pass much of their time on horseback. The periwig was worn in the latter part of the century. The covering for the heads of men consisted of the monmouth cap, the felt, the beaver or castor, and the straw hat, occasionally with a steeple. The neck-cloth was of blue linen, calico, dowlas, muslin or the finest holland [a linen cloth]. The band or falling collar was made of either linen or lace, in keeping with the character of the suit. The material of the coat ranged from broadcloth, camlet [camblet- woven from either goat's hair, woven partly of silk or linen, or woven entirely of wool], fustian [large category of linen and cotton weaves], drugget [a very thin stuff woven of half wool and half silk], and serge, which became less expensive with the progress of the century, to cotton, kersey [a cheap and coarse woolen twill], frieze [a coarse napped woolen cloth], canvas, and buckskin. When of broadcloth, it was lined with calico and doubtless different kinds of linen. There are numerous references to the stuff coat, and the smock, and to the serge or linen jacket. The upper garment used in riding seems to have been made of camlet. The buttons attached to the coat ranged in composition from small and large silk thread to brass and pewter, silver, gimp, and mohair. The sleeves terminated in ruffles and cuffs when its material was of the finest quality of cloth. Over the ordinary coat a great-coat of frieze was worn in spells of cold weather; on special occasions a substitute was found in a blue or scarlet cloak or silk mantle. The waistcoat was made of dimity, cotton, or drugget, flannel or penistone [a coarse woolen cloth], and reflected a great variety of colors, black, white, and blue being the most common. It was also adorned with what was known as Turkey-work [a woolen pile fabric made to look like Turkish carpets]. The breeches when of the finest quality were of plush or broadcloth; when of inferior material, of linen or common ticking [linen twill]. There are many references to serge breeches lined with linen or worsted and having thread buttons. The whole suit was occasionally of plush, broadcloth, kersey, or canvas, or the coat was made of drugget, and the waistcoat and breeches of stuff [stuff cloth - a cloth made of common wool] cloth. The olive-colored suit was not uncommon. The handkerchiefs were of silk, lace, or blue linen, the gloves of yarn, or ox, lamb, buck, dog, or sheepskin tanned, and were of local manufacture. The hands of children were kept warm with mittens. It seems to have been the habit of many persons among the wealthy class of planters to have even their plainest and simplest articles of clothing made in England.

"The clothing of the female members of the planters' families was obtained from the same sources as the planters themselves. The most costly part of it was imported. Many of the dresses worn must have been as handsome as the dresses of the women of the same social class in England; there are numerous allusions to silk and flowered gowns, to bodices of blue linen or green satin, and to waistcoats trimmed with lace. The petticoat was of serge, flannel, or tabby, a species of colored silk cloth [that was stronger and thicker than taffeta]; it was also made of printed linen or dimity, and was trimmed with silver or silver lace. An outfit of gown, petticoat, and green stockings, composed of woolen material, is often entered in the inventories. The coverings for the head were of several kinds; there was sarsnet [a thin transparent silk of thin weave] and calico hoods, palmetto hats and bonnets trimmed with lace, to be used on special occasions. Black tippets were worn on the lower portion of the arms, and the hands were covered with thread gloves. Scarves reflecting a variety of colors were drawn around the neck, and mantles of crimson taffeta over the shoulders. the hose also varied very much in color, being white, scarlet or black. There were silk garters dyed in different hues. The shoes of finest quality were either laced or gallooned [closed with a type of tape or ribbon]. Wooden shoes and shoes with wooden heels were also worn. The aprons were of muslin, silk, serge, and blue duffield [duffels, a heavy napped woollen cloth]. Fans, many of which were doubtless highly ornamented, were conspicuous article of dress in the toilets of the planters' wives, and golden and guilt stomachers were not unknown. Sweet powders were also in use."19

In the seventeenth century, children, basically, dressed like their elders after about the age of four years even though there were variations pertinent to the sexes.

By the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, as the Euro-Americans advanced westward, a new class emerged both in the northeast and in the southeast - that of the frontiersmen. In order to blend in with their surroundings, they exchanged their colorful dress for more neutral or woodsy colors and their hard soled shoes for quieter moccasins. They also, on occasion, wore mitasses or long, fitted deerskin leggings and breechclouts.

The frontiersmen developed a shirt that became known as the "hunting shirt". It was initially made of buckskin, but later made out of coarse fabric. It was:

"A kind of loose frock, reaching half way down the thighs, with large sleeves, open before, and so wide as to lap over a foot or more when belted. Often attached was a large cape or hood, sometimes handsomely fringed with a ravelled piece of cloth of a different color."20

Although Axtell stated that the shirt was modeled in part from Indian prototypes,21 there is no evidence that that was the case in the southeast for historically these Indians did not wear hunting shirts before European cultural intervention.


1. Brooke, English Costume of the Seventeenth Century, p.22.

2. Sichel, Costume Reference 3 - Jacobean, Stuart, & Restoration, p. 7.

3. Warwick, The History of American Dress, p. 67.

4. Cunnington, A Dictionary of English Costume, p. 232.

5. Alice Morse Earle, Costume of Colonial Times, p. 254.

6. Warwick, The History of American Dress, pp. 70-71.

7. McClellan, History of American Costume, p.50.

8. Ibid., p. 49.

9. Earle, Two Centuries of Costume in America, p. 163.

10. Ibid., p. 165.

11. McClellan, History of American Costume, p. 52.

12. Ibid., p. 53.

13. Ibid., p. 58.

14. Sichel, Costume Reference 3, p. 35.

15. Brooke, English Costume of the Seventeenth Century, p. 66.

16. McClellan, History of American Costume, p. 68 and face page.

17. Ibid., p. 68 and face page.

18. All of the definitions in []s are from Montgomery, Textiles in America 1650-1870.

19. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, volume 2, pp. 190-193.

20. James Axtell, The European and the Indian, pp. 298-299.

21. Ibid., p. 298.