ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/hist_text/archive/v01.n236

Internet Message Format | 1999-02-12 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (hist_text-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: hist_text-digest V1 #236
Reply-To: hist_text
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


hist_text-digest      Saturday, February 13 1999      Volume 01 : Number 236




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:14:14 -0600
From: John Dearing <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: Re: Trade blanket items

> >I appreciate someone who has taken the time to research his "stock" to make sure
> >it is correct for the period. So much of what is seen at even the big National
> >Rendezvous these days sadly does not fit into that category and at the smaller
> >shoot/rendezvous the problem is even greater. It is a problem in that what folks
> >(especially the new people) see on trade blankets is what they perceive to be
> >historically correct when in reality it is more correctly tourist trap junk. It
> >dilutes the efforts of all who put as much into the sport as they can, trying to
> >be authentically representative of the real historical event. It's almost
> >cheating. Pretty strong words, I know but some times it needs to be said. So go
> >and see, research what is right, build it with care and craftsmanship, trade it
> >with pride.
>
> >BTW, where am I coming from? I was the "Trade Chief" for the last non NMLRA
> >Western Nationals in Viapon Park. I did my best to see that what was offered for
> >sale was period correct. Wish I could have done more. I remain.......
>

Capt. Lahti
    I truly feel your pain. ;-)  As a member of the authenticity committee for a
couple
of Colonial trade fairs, I can relate  to what you are talking about. Even when
attending
"invitation only" trade fairs, some traders seem to think the rules don't apply to
them when
they display non period items.  I have ask some traders to remove certain non period
items only to have those items put back on display as soon as I walked around the
corner.
The second time the request is changed into an order with the threat of confiscation
of
the "contraband" until such time as that trader left the premises.  One confiscation
is usually
enough to make the point. I want to make it clear that the confiscated item is
returned
before the trader leaves the encampment.

This can only be done when "rules of trade" are defined in the application sent to
the
traders specifying what is considered period, and what is not allowed. I always carry

a copy of "rules of trade" to settle any disputes, or to clarify any questions by
"confused"
traders, and as always, the rules apply equally to everyone.

YHOS
J.D.

P.S.  The time period after the French War, and before the Rev War is divided into
two "war" periods, i.e. Pontiac's War, 1762-1763, and Dunmore's War, 1774, but the
time frame of 1761-1775  is usually referred to as the Late Colonial Period.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 20:15:26 -0500
From: "LEWIS K RAPER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Enamel Cookware and dishes

According to Lehman's Hardware in Kidron OH, Enamel "Granny" Ware came in
after the war of the northern aggression
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 5:07 PM
Subject: MtMan-List: Re: Enamel Cookware and dishes


>I see a lot of enamel cookware at rendezvous and have been told it is dated
to
>1840.  At others I have been to they say it isn't to be seen.  Just what is
>the proper date for enamel dishes and cookware?  If it was around, just how
>far west?
>
> TrapRJoe
>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 20:45:40 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Trade blanket items

In a message dated 99-02-12 20:19:11 EST, you write:

>     I truly feel your pain. ;-)  As a member of the authenticity committee
> for a couple of Colonial trade fairs, I can relate  to what you are talking
about.
>Even when attending "invitation only" trade fairs, some traders seem to think
the
> rules don't apply to them when they display non period items.

Our event is an "invitation only" public event.  We limit it to 90 camps, with
a target of 40% sutlers and food vendors and 60% demonstrators and blanket
traders.  The trade committee consists of  3 sutlers, chosen by the Booshway,
because of their authentic wares and their willingness to accept the job.

Once selected, they answer to no one, their decision is final, they only give
one warning, and their decisions cannot even be over-ridden by the Booshway.
If the person who is given the warning chooses to ignore it, he is booted from
the event.  Those who have marginal items are placed at the bottom of the
invitation list, and someone on the waiting list is given preference the
following year.  It only took a couple of years to get the event cleaned up,
and we seldom have any problems now.  It is a matter of the participants
policing their own flock, and they have gained the respect of their peers in
doing so.

OldFox

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:15:20 -0500
From: "Salvatore P. Patti" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: Rendezvous

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BE56CC.CC181500
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Does anyone know of any Rendezvous on the East Coast??? ( New York, =
Pennsylvania, New Jersey )=20
Peace Be With You Always!

- ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BE56CC.CC181500
Content-Type: text/html;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><EM><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3DAmaze size=3D6>Does anyone know of =
any=20
Rendezvous on the East Coast??? ( New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey )=20
</FONT></EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3DAmaze size=3D6>Peace Be With You=20
Always!</FONT></EM></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BE56CC.CC181500--

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:47:49 -0700
From: Gary Farabee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Oilcloth

Laurel huber wrote:
>
> Most waxed linen thread is about five strand.  For canvas work that's about right,
> especially if you are making seams  (two or three thicknesses of material) or adding
> reenforcing at the corners (up to six thicknesses of fabric).  For shirting or
> similar thickness fabric, unwind the thread to three strands and use a smaller
> needle.  Also, if you're making a square to use as a "fly", don't sew on loops.
> Just make a 5/8" strap, fold it in the middle and attach it to the fly at the fold
> (a reenforcement at this point is good if you're not on a seam.).  This gives you
> greater options when you set-up.  Sometimes you need to tie that connection instead
> of staking it out.
>
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > Well, that's kind of what I was thinking also.  I had an idea that L&C had used
> > oilcloth but had not seen any later references.  I expect that I will continue
> > to pursue my first path which is a simple square of light canvas with some
> > sewn-on loops that can be configured as a diamond, a fly, an A-frame over a
> > rope, a lean-to, and who knows what else a bit of creative rigging might make.
> > I'm wondering about the right stuff to sew it with.  I'm concerned that ordinary
> > cotton thread won't withstand much outdoor use.  I have some rather heavy waxed
> > linen cord but the needle necessary to use that stuff will leave pretty big
> > holes. Any ideas?
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > Pat Quilter wrote:
> >
> > > In my humble opinion (and that's all it is) although historically available,
> > > and thus theoretically "acceptable" I would bet the occurance of oilcloth in
> > > the Rocky Mountains during the fur trade was about zero. Such references to
> > > portable shelters that I can recall mention "bowers" draped with blankets,
> > > skins or the like (and of course, other, semi-permanent structures such as
> > > tipis, forts, etc). It's my impression that trappers did not use a prepared
> > > shelter, although a few of the most well-equipped expeditions (such as
> > > Stewart's) brought simple wedge tents. With all due respect to those who
> > > prepare and use oilcloth, I find that simple untreated canvas is lighter,
> > > more versatile, and sheds water adequately with a few basic precautions of
> > > rigging. On the few horse outings I've participated in, we used our pack
> > > animal mantees as shelters. When back packing, I take a canvas, and 1-2
> > > blankets depending on weather. If things turn really snotty, we consolidate
> > > our stuff and make communal shelters. Trappers did the same.
> > > Humbly submitted,
> > > Pat Quilter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tom Roberts [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 8:07 PM
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: MtMan-List: Oilcloth
> > >
> > > I've scoured the archives of this forum and find no reference to the use
> > > of oilcloth
> > > for shelter, particularly <1820 and am wondering if it is an acceptable
> > > alternative
> > > to canvas.  Any thoughts?


Somewhere in my readings I ran across something called Lubac Cloth. As I
recall I was doing research on Conestoga Wagons at the time. The period
would be about the time in discussion. I'm sorry I can't remember more.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 20:48:37 -0600
From: "Glenn Darilek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Enamel Cookware and dishes

I think what we are talking about here is "granitewear"  which is ironware
with mottled enamel.  Track of the Wolf, Inc. reported that "The earliest
reference to enameled finished iron cookware is a German newspaper
advertisement from 1788.  Apparently enameled cookware was a common
commodity in Germany.  Since many American longrifle makers were German born
and trained, it seems likely that they were familiar with the advantages of
the enamel finish."

For my opinion, there are too many 'maybes' in these statements, and I
personally discarded my granitewear a long time ago.

Track continues: "In America, the earliest patent for an improvement in
coating metalware with enamel was granted to Charles Stumer in 1848."

I found that Merriam Webster's Tenth Collegiate dictionary lists their
earliest written documentation of the word "granitewear" is in 1878.

I know that the attraction to 'skinners using granitewear is that it is
cheap and very available, and it looks old-timey.  Around here, they still
stock it in larger grocery stores.   So you can decide.  If you want to use
granitewear, it is acceptable at most buckskinner rendezvous.  Of course,
being accepted, and being documented as authentic to the period are two very
different things.  For sure tinwear is easily documented for the rendezvous
era, particularly tin cups.  Why not pay a little more for tinwear, and
spend a little more time maintaining tinwear instead of arguing the fine
points?

Glenn Darilek
Iron Burner



- -----Original Message-----
From: LEWIS K RAPER <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Enamel Cookware and dishes


>According to Lehman's Hardware in Kidron OH, Enamel "Granny" Ware came in
>after the war of the northern aggression
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <[e-mail]>
>To: <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 5:07 PM
>Subject: MtMan-List: Re: Enamel Cookware and dishes
>
>
>>I see a lot of enamel cookware at rendezvous and have been told it is
dated
>to
>>1840.  At others I have been to they say it isn't to be seen.  Just what
is
>>the proper date for enamel dishes and cookware?  If it was around, just
how
>>far west?
>>
>> TrapRJoe

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 99 20:19:24 -0700
From: Phyllis and Don Keas <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Re: Enamel Cookware and dishes

I did the research on graniteware and then published an article on it for
the Rendezvous Report a few issues back.  Not only was graniteware not
used during the fur trade, it is doubtful it was used that much during the
Civil War.  Certainly not common.  You might want to read the article for
full information and I even wrote one the next issue on alternatives that
are proper you can use.  Don Keas

DON AND PHYLLIS KEAS ---LIving History Consultants

TrapRJoe wrote:
>I see a lot of enamel cookware at rendezvous and have been told it is
dated to
>1840.  At others I have been to they say it isn't to be seen.  Just what
is
>the proper date for enamel dishes and cookware?  If it was around, just
how
>far west?
>
>                            TrapRJoe
>
>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Received: from lists.xmission.com [198.60.22.7] by mail.market1.com with
ESMTP
>  (SMTPD32-4.03) id A7E510040092; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:15:01 MDT
>Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 2.05 #1)
>    id 10BQmc-0004NV-00
>    for [e-mail]; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:09:58 -0700
>Received: from [198.81.17.68] (helo=imo24.mx.aol.com)
>    by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
>    id 10BQmZ-0004Lm-00
>    for [e-mail]; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:09:55 -0700
>Received: from [e-mail]
>    by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id IFLCa03463
>     for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:07:51 -0500
(EST)
>From: [e-mail]
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:07:51 EST
>To: [e-mail]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Subject: MtMan-List: Re: Enamel Cookware and dishes
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 205
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>X-UIDL: 915555748
>Status: U
>

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 99 21:17:25 -0700
From: Phyllis and Don Keas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post

Sal - I admire your sentiments, but have to disagree about the lack of
furs.  Not only did silk spell the end, but also the Nutria from So America.
 They were very numerous and cheaper to export than the beaver here.
Lack of furs was not what caused the demise of the beaver fur trade.  Plain
old economics.

DON AND PHYLLIS KEAS ---LIving History Consultants

Salvatore P. Patti wrote:
>Rick,
>What you wrote makes a lot of senses. But the real fall of the fur
traders
>was the mass killing of the animals that made the business grow then
fall.
>If more trappers toke the time and managed the animals the way the
Indians
>did, There would have been more animals and the business would have
lasted a
>hell of a lot longer then it did... Or that is just the way I feel??? I
feel
>to manage the animal is more important the to make a buck... Just like I
>think 200lbs of meat is way better then a 8+ point rack on a Deer....
>
>        The so called Hunters are nothing more then killers of a Great
and
>noble beast ( Deer, Buffalo, Elk, Caribou, Bear and Beaver ). Indians
toke
>what they needed not what they wanted... If I'm wrong in this thinking
I'm
>truly Sorry.... I know I'm know back in the time of the Mountain men/
>Trapper, but that is the way I think. thank you for your time in reading
>this ....
>                                Sal______
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rick Williams <[e-mail]>
>To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
>Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 7:22 PM
>Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post
>
>
>Henry,
>While I can concur with many of your points, I have to differ with some.
>"I" feel the death of the Rendezvous and 'BEAVER' trapping endeavors in
the
>Rocky Mountains was due to two primary reasons.  First, the change of
>fashion brought on by the "NEW " popularity of silk hats rather than the
>beaver that had been so fashionable for decades previous.  By 1840 the
price
>per pound of beaver fur had plummetted from its high just a few short
years
>earlier.  Second, with so many people after the same commodity (BEAVER),
it
>was not long before significant sections of the Rockies were denuded of
>beaver much as the Pacific West Coast had been depleted of sea otter.
>(Astors and many Russian fortunes).  By the 1860's we see the 'robe
trade'
>making significant depletions in the bison herds eventually bring this
>industry to it's demise.  Is this the fur trade?  Yes in it's broadest
>definition but very distinct from the Rocky Mountain fur trade.
>
>Another question raised was the image of the free trapper vs the
'company'
>man.  In reading biographies of so many of these mountain men, I'm
struck
>with how many different companies and trapping associations in which
these
>individuals participated.  Yes, Ashley and Andrew became Ashley and
Smith,
>then Smith, Sublette and Jackson and then Sublette and Fitzpatrick with
Jim
>and others thrown in there somewhere and this is just Rocky Mtn Fur Co..
 To
>and from every Rendezvous, there were numerous comings and goings to and
>from civilization.  We see the upstarts like Wyeth and  Bonneville
jumping
>in the middle.  My point is, many of these so called companies were no
more
>than many of the trappers themselves making companies of THEMSELVES.
While
>seed monies were definitely needed for many of these upstarts, they were
>managed and staffed by those found in the Mountains.  So, free trapper
vs
>company man, I didn't dispute that most MAY have been company men but I
have
>a harder time with the Steel Mill analogy.  Yes, there is AFC, HBC and a
few
>others, but we also see cross employment in these concerns.  I guess
what
>I'm getting at is that there was a great deal of freedom for these men.
>
>
>
>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Received: from lists.xmission.com [198.60.22.7] by mail.market1.com with
ESMTP
>  (SMTPD32-4.03) id AF4BA6B014E; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:03:07 MDT
>Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 2.05 #1)
>    id 10BTNQ-0003Kh-00
>    for [e-mail]; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:56:08 -0700
>Received: from [24.48.0.3] (helo=pi.adelphia.net)
>    by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
>    id 10BTNM-0003Jm-00
>    for [e-mail]; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:56:04 -0700
>Received: from default (isp132-235.dov.adelphia.net [24.48.6.235])
>    by pi.adelphia.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id TAA26531
>    for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:56:00 -0500
(EST)
>Message-ID: <000601be56ec$2b77e1a0$eb063018@default>
>From: "Salvatore P. Patti" <[e-mail]>
>To: <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post
>Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:59:52 -0500
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>    charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>X-UIDL: 915555753
>Status: U
>

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:42:06 -0500
From: "Salvatore P. Patti" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post

Thank you for your input... I guess I really meant how people just waste
things like Animals... I read somewhere that after the White Man come here..
Over 1,000,000 Buffalo where killed and over 10,000,000 Beaver.... I do be
leave that's the right numbers... I'm sorry I be leave in the true old
way....( take only what you need).
- -----Original Message-----
From: Phyllis and Don Keas <[e-mail]>
To: hist_text <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post


>Sal - I admire your sentiments, but have to disagree about the lack of
>furs.  Not only did silk spell the end, but also the Nutria from So
America.
> They were very numerous and cheaper to export than the beaver here.
>Lack of furs was not what caused the demise of the beaver fur trade.  Plain
>old economics.
>
>DON AND PHYLLIS KEAS ---LIving History Consultants
>
>Salvatore P. Patti wrote:
>>Rick,
>>What you wrote makes a lot of senses. But the real fall of the fur
>traders
>>was the mass killing of the animals that made the business grow then
>fall.
>>If more trappers toke the time and managed the animals the way the
>Indians
>>did, There would have been more animals and the business would have
>lasted a
>>hell of a lot longer then it did... Or that is just the way I feel??? I
>feel
>>to manage the animal is more important the to make a buck... Just like I
>>think 200lbs of meat is way better then a 8+ point rack on a Deer....
>>
>>        The so called Hunters are nothing more then killers of a Great
>and
>>noble beast ( Deer, Buffalo, Elk, Caribou, Bear and Beaver ). Indians
>toke
>>what they needed not what they wanted... If I'm wrong in this thinking
>I'm
>>truly Sorry.... I know I'm know back in the time of the Mountain men/
>>Trapper, but that is the way I think. thank you for your time in reading
>>this ....
>>                                Sal______
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Rick Williams <[e-mail]>
>>To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
>>Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 7:22 PM
>>Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post
>>
>>
>>Henry,
>>While I can concur with many of your points, I have to differ with some.
>>"I" feel the death of the Rendezvous and 'BEAVER' trapping endeavors in
>the
>>Rocky Mountains was due to two primary reasons.  First, the change of
>>fashion brought on by the "NEW " popularity of silk hats rather than the
>>beaver that had been so fashionable for decades previous.  By 1840 the
>price
>>per pound of beaver fur had plummetted from its high just a few short
>years
>>earlier.  Second, with so many people after the same commodity (BEAVER),
>it
>>was not long before significant sections of the Rockies were denuded of
>>beaver much as the Pacific West Coast had been depleted of sea otter.
>>(Astors and many Russian fortunes).  By the 1860's we see the 'robe
>trade'
>>making significant depletions in the bison herds eventually bring this
>>industry to it's demise.  Is this the fur trade?  Yes in it's broadest
>>definition but very distinct from the Rocky Mountain fur trade.
>>
>>Another question raised was the image of the free trapper vs the
>'company'
>>man.  In reading biographies of so many of these mountain men, I'm
>struck
>>with how many different companies and trapping associations in which
>these
>>individuals participated.  Yes, Ashley and Andrew became Ashley and
>Smith,
>>then Smith, Sublette and Jackson and then Sublette and Fitzpatrick with
>Jim
>>and others thrown in there somewhere and this is just Rocky Mtn Fur Co..
> To
>>and from every Rendezvous, there were numerous comings and goings to and
>>from civilization.  We see the upstarts like Wyeth and  Bonneville
>jumping
>>in the middle.  My point is, many of these so called companies were no
>more
>>than many of the trappers themselves making companies of THEMSELVES.
>While
>>seed monies were definitely needed for many of these upstarts, they were
>>managed and staffed by those found in the Mountains.  So, free trapper
>vs
>>company man, I didn't dispute that most MAY have been company men but I
>have
>>a harder time with the Steel Mill analogy.  Yes, there is AFC, HBC and a
>few
>>others, but we also see cross employment in these concerns.  I guess
>what
>>I'm getting at is that there was a great deal of freedom for these men.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>RFC822 header
>>-----------------------------------
>>
>>Received: from lists.xmission.com [198.60.22.7] by mail.market1.com with
>ESMTP
>>  (SMTPD32-4.03) id AF4BA6B014E; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:03:07 MDT
>>Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 2.05 #1)
>> id 10BTNQ-0003Kh-00
>> for [e-mail]; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:56:08 -0700
>>Received: from [24.48.0.3] (helo=pi.adelphia.net)
>> by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
>> id 10BTNM-0003Jm-00
>> for [e-mail]; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:56:04 -0700
>>Received: from default (isp132-235.dov.adelphia.net [24.48.6.235])
>> by pi.adelphia.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id TAA26531
>> for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:56:00 -0500
>(EST)
>>Message-ID: <000601be56ec$2b77e1a0$eb063018@default>
>>From: "Salvatore P. Patti" <[e-mail]>
>>To: <[e-mail]>
>>Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post
>>Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:59:52 -0500
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain;
>> charset="iso-8859-1"
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>X-Priority: 3
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
>>Sender: [e-mail]
>>Precedence: bulk
>>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>>X-UIDL: 915555753
>>Status: U
>>
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:42:10 -0600
From: Jim Colburn <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Re: Enamel Cookware and dishes

Washtahay-
At 08:19 PM 2/12/99 -0700, you wrote:
>I did the research on graniteware and then published an article on it for
>the Rendezvous Report a few issues back.  Not only was graniteware not
>used during the fur trade, it is doubtful it was used that much during the
>Civil War.
    Fascinating.  Not that I agree with it, you understand.  One of my
favorite arguments because it is so much fun to watch.  You might want to
find some new references, as it was in use prior to 1820.  Check French
military contracts.
LongWalker c. du B.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:43:20 -0600
From: Jim Colburn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post

Washtahay-
At 07:59 PM 2/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>If more trappers toke the time and managed the animals the way the Indians
>did, There would have been more animals and the business would have lasted a
>hell of a lot longer then it did...
    The way the Indians "managed" the animals?  What do you mean?  Are we
talking the same people who hunted various animals to extinction?  The
tradition of wiping out species is one of mankind, not one exclusively
reserved to the evil white man.  Before the arrival of the white man, the
Indians wiped out 20 or 30 species that I can name off the top of my
head-and that was using stone and bone weapons.
    Project that forward to the damage they were doing with firearms and steel
knives.  Those furs were money-they could trade them for things they
couldn't make.  In essence, they were working overtime to buy things that
had a significant impact on their survival, let alone the quality of life
issues.

>        The so called Hunters are nothing more then killers of a Great and
>noble beast ( Deer, Buffalo, Elk, Caribou, Bear and Beaver ). Indians toke
>what they needed not what they wanted...
    Hmmm.  So they drove herds of buffalo off cliffs-far more than they could
use, or even harvest in part-for what reason?  The use of surrounds was an
established custom before the arrival of the Europeans, as was the use of
nets to hunt birds, torching prairies to drive game, birdlime, poisoning
ponds, etc.
    For that matter, man is not the only animal to over-hunt.  Ever hear of
the damage a weasel will do in a henhouse?
    I once watched a pair of coyotes kill over thirty ducks, obviously far
more than they needed.  And do you think predators stop eating meat while
the prey is nursing young?
LongWalker c. du B.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 02:40:38 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Enamel Cookware and dishes

I've heard (but can't cite anything) that not only the Military, but also
Commoners had access to 'granite-ware'. Antique dealers have shown me
referrences indicating that enamelware was in use in Europe in the late
1700's, predominately being produced in Germany.  Although it was definitely
NOT produced in the colors we see today, (blue and green), from what I can
gather from pictures and those that have traded in it, it was most commonly
seen in a whitish backround with dark (granite) colored mottling.  More fuel
for the fire..... <g>  Barney Fife

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 01:28:53 -0800
From: Laurel huber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Oilcloth

Sean,
    I assume by "grommet" you mean those nice little brass washers you see at
the corners of contemporary tarps and tents.  Those practical little devices
never existed during the period we're trying to portray.  I'd be interested in
knowing just when those items were invented and came into common use on canvas
goods.  Grommet holes, hemmed around the edges like button holes, were what was
used on military tents when "tie straps" weren't used.  Generally, a rope loop
was passed through this hole and that became the loop that was staked to the
ground.  If brass grommets is what you've used for your "period" shelter, I'd
recommend using that tarp AS a painters drop cloth.  On your next version put
tie straps at the corners or use small stones tucked into the cloth and tied off
as Pat Quilter has recommended in a pervious posting.

Larry  Huber
"Shoots-the-Prairie"

sean wrote:

> There is a water proofing treatment I have used called COTTON PROOF from
> Nikwax.  It is made especially for waterproofing cotton canvas tents.  You
> can mix it and brush it on, or you can put it in the washing machine for
> clothing such as Hunting Frocks, etc...   For my "tarp", I used a heavy
> painters drop cloth cut to a 10x10 and had the edges "seamed" to prevent
> raveling.  I added a few gromets in each corner and the center, and about
> every 3 feet along each side.  The waterproofing works great, and so does
> the tarp...
>
> Addison Miller
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Quilter <[e-mail]>
> To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 7:33 PM
> Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Oilcloth
>
> >Unless you use a glover's needle (with cutting edges) the thick needle and
> >thread should just push aside the fibers, leaving a fairly tight seal. Your
> >tie straps will naturally be sewn along a short distance to spread the
> >strain evenly. You will get some drippage at these points, but only a few
> >drops. I assume you have seen the trick where you take a small rock or
> >musket ball, poke it into the cloth forming a little pouch, and tie a cord
> >or thong firmly around the "neck" to use as tie points. I do this and use a
> >plain old canvas drop cloth with no loops etc. It takes a few minutes extra
> >at the camp, but you can put the ties anywhere you want along the edges or
> >in the middle. It sounds like you're on the right track overall.
> >Pat Quilter
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Tom Roberts [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 7:04 PM
> >To: [e-mail]
> >Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Oilcloth
> >
> >
> >Well, that's kind of what I was thinking also.  I had an idea that L&C had
> >used
> >oilcloth but had not seen any later references.  I expect that I will
> >continue
> >to pursue my first path which is a simple square of light canvas with some
> >sewn-on loops that can be configured as a diamond, a fly, an A-frame over a
> >rope, a lean-to, and who knows what else a bit of creative rigging might
> >make.
> >I'm wondering about the right stuff to sew it with.  I'm concerned that
> >ordinary
> >cotton thread won't withstand much outdoor use.  I have some rather heavy
> >waxed
> >linen cord but the needle necessary to use that stuff will leave pretty big
> >holes. Any ideas?
> >
> >Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >Pat Quilter wrote:
> >
> >> In my humble opinion (and that's all it is) although historically
> >available,
> >> and thus theoretically "acceptable" I would bet the occurance of oilcloth
> >in
> >> the Rocky Mountains during the fur trade was about zero. Such references
> >to
> >> portable shelters that I can recall mention "bowers" draped with
> blankets,
> >> skins or the like (and of course, other, semi-permanent structures such
> as
> >> tipis, forts, etc). It's my impression that trappers did not use a
> >prepared
> >> shelter, although a few of the most well-equipped expeditions (such as
> >> Stewart's) brought simple wedge tents. With all due respect to those who
> >> prepare and use oilcloth, I find that simple untreated canvas is lighter,
> >> more versatile, and sheds water adequately with a few basic precautions
> of
> >> rigging. On the few horse outings I've participated in, we used our pack
> >> animal mantees as shelters. When back packing, I take a canvas, and 1-2
> >> blankets depending on weather. If things turn really snotty, we
> >consolidate
> >> our stuff and make communal shelters. Trappers did the same.
> >> Humbly submitted,
> >> Pat Quilter
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Tom Roberts [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 8:07 PM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: MtMan-List: Oilcloth
> >>
> >> I've scoured the archives of this forum and find no reference to the use
> >> of oilcloth
> >> for shelter, particularly <1820 and am wondering if it is an acceptable
> >> alternative
> >> to canvas.  Any thoughts?
> >
> >
> >

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 07:42:39 -0800
From: Tom Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Enamel Cookware and dishes

Not familiar with the publication you cite but I would like to be - can you provide
some info on where to obtain?

Thanks!

Phyllis and Don Keas wrote:

> I did the research on graniteware and then published an article on it for
> the Rendezvous Report a few issues back.  Not only was graniteware not
> used during the fur trade, it is doubtful it was used that much during the
> Civil War.  Certainly not common.  You might want to read the article for
> full information and I even wrote one the next issue on alternatives that
> are proper you can use.  Don Keas
>
> DON AND PHYLLIS KEAS ---LIving History Consultants
>
> TrapRJoe wrote:
> >I see a lot of enamel cookware at rendezvous and have been told it is
> dated to
> >1840.  At others I have been to they say it isn't to be seen.  Just what
> is
> >the proper date for enamel dishes and cookware?  If it was around, just
> how
> >far west?
> >
> >                                                       TrapRJoe
> >
> >
> >
> >RFC822 header
> >-----------------------------------
> >
> >Received: from lists.xmission.com [198.60.22.7] by mail.market1.com with
> ESMTP
> >  (SMTPD32-4.03) id A7E510040092; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:15:01 MDT
> >Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 2.05 #1)
> >       id 10BQmc-0004NV-00
> >       for [e-mail]; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:09:58 -0700
> >Received: from [198.81.17.68] (helo=imo24.mx.aol.com)
> >       by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
> >       id 10BQmZ-0004Lm-00
> >       for [e-mail]; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:09:55 -0700
> >Received: from [e-mail]
> >       by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id IFLCa03463
> >        for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:07:51 -0500
> (EST)
> >From: [e-mail]
> >Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> >Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:07:51 EST
> >To: [e-mail]
> >Mime-Version: 1.0
> >Subject: MtMan-List: Re: Enamel Cookware and dishes
> >Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> >Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> >X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 205
> >Sender: [e-mail]
> >Precedence: bulk
> >Reply-To: [e-mail]
> >X-UIDL: 915555748
> >Status: U
> >

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 07:51:18 -0800
From: Tom Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Re: Response to Heny's Post

My belief is that only during the past century has man fully comprehended the concept
of sustainable harvest.  We now know (at least some of us) the critical relationships
between habitat, reproduction rates, food chain, etc.  I expect it is possible that
during previous centuries there were some individuals that also shared this
appreciation but only recently have we actually applied scientific principles to the
"management" of game and we still to a rather poor job.


Jim Colburn wrote:

> Washtahay-
> At 07:59 PM 2/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >If more trappers toke the time and managed the animals the way the Indians
> >did, There would have been more animals and the business would have lasted a
> >hell of a lot longer then it did...
>         The way the Indians "managed" the animals?  What do you mean?  Are we
> talking the same people who hunted various animals to extinction?  The
> tradition of wiping out species is one of mankind, not one exclusively
> reserved to the evil white man.  Before the arrival of the white man, the
> Indians wiped out 20 or 30 species that I can name off the top of my
> head-and that was using stone and bone weapons.
>         Project that forward to the damage they were doing with firearms and steel
> knives.  Those furs were money-they could trade them for things they
> couldn't make.  In essence, they were working overtime to buy things that
> had a significant impact on their survival, let alone the quality of life
> issues.
>
> >        The so called Hunters are nothing more then killers of a Great and
> >noble beast ( Deer, Buffalo, Elk, Caribou, Bear and Beaver ). Indians toke
> >what they needed not what they wanted...
>         Hmmm.  So they drove herds of buffalo off cliffs-far more than they could
> use, or even harvest in part-for what reason?  The use of surrounds was an
> established custom before the arrival of the Europeans, as was the use of
> nets to hunt birds, torching prairies to drive game, birdlime, poisoning
> ponds, etc.
>         For that matter, man is not the only animal to over-hunt.  Ever hear of
> the damage a weasel will do in a henhouse?
>         I once watched a pair of coyotes kill over thirty ducks, obviously far
> more than they needed.  And do you think predators stop eating meat while
> the prey is nursing young?
> LongWalker c. du B.

------------------------------

End of hist_text-digest V1 #236
*******************************

-
 To unsubscribe to hist_text-digest, send an email to
"[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe hist_text-digest" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.