ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/hist_text/archive/v01.n476

Internet Message Format | 2000-02-26 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (hist_text-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: hist_text-digest V1 #476
Reply-To: hist_text
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


hist_text-digest      Saturday, February 26 2000      Volume 01 : Number 476



In this issue:

-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: kettle, was Dutch Ovens?
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens?
-áááááá MtMan-List: metal boat & arrow heads
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens?
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: kettle, was Dutch Ovens?
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens?
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Cast iron pots/Miller print
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens?
-áááááá MtMan-List: Proof of Dutch ovens
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Oven Original Period Source !!!

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

Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 23:58:41 -0800
From: "John C. Funk, Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: kettle, was Dutch Ovens?

Cabella's now sells three different pots similar to this one.  Each holds a
different amount.  They're said to be made if Africa, I think.  As to their
resemblance to those produced in the 1800's....I haven't a clue.
John Funk


- ----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Spencer <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 6:08 PM
Subject: MtMan-List: kettle, was Dutch Ovens?


> Will some of you iron pot experts look at my kettle and take a guess as to
> its age, please. It came from an antiques store, many years ago. It's at:
>
> http://members.aye.net/~bspen/Pictures/Kettle.jpg
>
> The kettle holds 2 1/2 quarts, is 6 1/2" in diameter and 5 1/2" tall, the
> metal is just about 1/8+" thick. It was apparently cast in two parts, and
> the mold mark runs from ear to ear and through one foot. The mark of the
> pouring gate has been smoothed and is not easily seen. The ears show no
> sign of wear as from a bail, and I don't think it ever had one.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bob
>
> Bob Spencer <[e-mail]>
>
>
>
> ----------------------
> hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
>


- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 08:42:12 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Bill Cunningham)
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens?

John, your approach to historical authenticity appears to be that if you
can't lay your hands on it you won't accept it. Research done by people
immediately after the period you will accept - maybe, but only if it is
replete with detailed descriptions and coorboration by some other authority.
That is well and good. By using that method you can be sure that you are
historically correct beyond refutation. It also can lead to personal
judgements that may or may not be as lead lined accurate. I do, however,
support your right to live in that limited world.

I, however, and, I think, many others, are on the other side of the AMM
coin - the side of survivalism. We seek to learn the skills the mountain men
had. If there were cast iron pots in the equipment of the trappers, or
available in the west of the time, we don't much worry about the shape. We
make use of the iron pots. If they had cotton shirts, we don't worry about
thread count, we wear cotton shirts. If they shot black powder, we use black
powder, not worrying about its constituent grind, etc., etc. We do continue
to do research, and where ever we can, we obtain the exact same type of
equipment they had. Where we find they had an item or material that may
present controversy, such as the recent "Dutch oven" pots, we do not limit
ourselves in our learning and practicing survival skills because someone
else has boxed themselves into a historical reenactment corner. We do,
however appreciate the dedication of people like yourself who have a vast
knowledge of historical correctness and who are so willing to share it.
Between the two "sides" (reenactors and survivalists) there is often a
synergism that works to the benefit of all. From the arguments and
discussions (mostly carried on in a gentlemanly manner with appropriate
politeness and consideration) come new information and ways of looking at
things. In the spirit of this, I remain,
Bill C
- -----Original Message-----
From: John Kramer <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, February 25, 2000 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens?


Walt Foster,

Burton Harris' 1952, "John Colter His Years in the Rockies", republished
1977,
Big Horn Book Company, page 163.  Lists the Dutch Oven sold to  John Simpson
@$3.87, Hartley Sappington bought the pot and pot hooks for $4.00.  Colter
died
in November 1813.  If you had been paying attention you would know this was
previously covered.

Two points:  If the dutch oven was so precious, why did the pot sell for
more?
Second, this says nothing about exactly what style of dutch oven was sold.
This offers no proof that what was sold resembled in any way a modern camp
oven.  It doesn't even prove it was cast iron.  It also says nothing about
what
his pot was made of.

I still maintain the dutch oven in question MAY BE something like the round
top
version you despise, or is a brick lined oven (unlikely, but based on what
we
don't know not fully excludable), or is a reflector oven.  All valid
definitions of the term "Dutch Oven".  It's all a may be because no one
really
knows.

Prove the existence of the modern camp oven before 1840 and the possibility
list only grows.  Nothing submitted has even begun to suggest a modern camp
oven is remotely correct.

Were there any footnotes or references to sources provided to support the
statement you placed in quotes?  I do note the use of the word "legend" and
the
lack of specificity; it does read like great historical fluff.  The first
recognized use of the term "dutch oven" was in 1760 which makes the quote
you
included PURE unadulterated BS.

begin copy of quote:
>"By this time the Dutch oven had already been part of frontier history and
>legend for more than one hundred years. It is also interesting to note that
>in 1813 Colter's oven brought the equivalent of a week's pay."
end copy of quote.

Burton on page 172 provides the following:
"(17) Extract of sale bill dated December 10, 1813, made from records of the
Probate Court, City of St. Louis, originally located by Dr. Trail.  The
figures
quoted are precisely as quoted by the Probate Court.  The careful reader
will
note that the totals are incorrect."  (This speaks to the calculated grand
total, the court clerk couldn't add.)

Your example does not provide any of the documentation you seek.  I accept
few
books at face value; too many have been fabricated wholly of rumor,
mis-information and the writers personal assumptions, I am not familiar with
the book you quote.

I have found six references to Paul Revere being the designer of the modern
camp oven.  None offer any source for the information, 4 admit it is a
legend.
All who repeat the legend are trying to sell something involved with modern
style camp/dutch ovens.  I don't consider them any more authoritative than
the
Official Utah Pot Page.  Nothing more than great historical rumors.  Go find
the facts if you still believe the Bullshit.

What evidence of use of a modern camp oven by Lewis & Clark?  Once again you
include a flat statement without ANY supporting information.  Do you think
at
this point I'm going to accept what you say at face value?

I can't be ignoring evidence -- you haven't provided any.  The most you've
done
is repeat that which has already been refuted by fact as you attempt to
start
new rumors.

I am not sure why you are pursuing this nonsense.  Your #1 & #6 pot, if like
that pictured in Ruxton between pages 108 & 109 or in Miller on page 135
(same
picture) is what those who've made substantive comment on this list are
agreed
is the type of pot that could have been in the Rocky Mountains in LIMITED
numbers prior to 1840.  A round bottom three legged pot -- exactly what has
been described again and again.  It bears absolutely no resemblance to a
modern
camp oven.

Keep in mind that Miller mostly depicted the stuff that Stewart brought
along
which is far from typical of what the great unwashed had available.

A very similar legged round bottom pot can be seen and purchased in a
variety
of sizes at:

<http://www.caspians.net/cast_iron_pots.htm>http://www.caspians.net/cast_ir
on_pots.htm

PLEASE NOTE:  WE HAVE NO, I repeat, NO, I repeat, NO EVIDENCE yet submitted
that ANY of the early pots CAME WITH lids.  These folks (there are others)
will
sell you a pot they call an "African Potje" which comes with a raised lip
lid.
At least they'll look right as long as there's not one on every fire.
Remember, at best, cast iron was uncommon per a real authority, Charles
Hanson.

My patience has worn thin on this now ridiculous subject.  If you choose to
pursue this issue come up with something of substance.  Quit spewing
nonsense
or I'll not be nearly so polite in the future.

To those who've had to read all this drivel, I do apologize.  It is only
important because nonsense, as has been presented, is how the wrong
information
becomes historical gospel.  We must stamp it out at its source as it raises
its
ugly head.  It happens because people want something to be fact for their
comfort & convenience or to conform to their preconceived notions; and they
are
too lazy to do the real research required.

John...

BEWARE: modern camp ovens may now be subject to the great historical hammer
test.





At 09:43 AM 2/25/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello again John Kramer.
>
>Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 70-84782 yields a book by Don Holm
>1969.
>His introduction starts this way. " On a gloomy November day in 1813 in a
>log cabin on the Missouri frontier near where Dundee now stands, a man
named
>John Colter died of "jaundice." With him at the time were his bride Sally
>and a couple of neighbors. Possibly one of these neighbors was old Dan'l
>Boone, then in his eighties, who lived nearby. Colter, you may recall, was
>a veteran of the Lewis and Clark expedition who chose to remain in the
>Rockies, and went on to discover "Colter's Hell" and what is now
Yellowstone
>National Park. He was also America's first "mountain Man," that unique
>breed of wild adventures who roamed the mountains for thirty or forty years
>and opened the Far West for the latecomers. For the purpose of this tale,
>however, it is only pertinent to point out that the sale bill of Colter's
>personal property, as listed by his executor contain the following item:
>
>"To John Simpson-one Dutch oven-$4.00."
>
>"By this time the Dutch oven had already been part of frontier history and
>legend for more than one hundred years. It is also interesting to note that
>in 1813 Colter's oven brought the equivalent of a week's pay." Bill
>Cunningham mentioned this in his post earlier.
>
>You say you will argue against modern camp ovens until real evidence is
>presented that they at least existed during the period. This has yet to be
>shown, you say. The above example does demonstrate existence and use during
>the American Mountain Man era.
>
>John Colter did not live long after he left the area. I think it is you who
>are ignoring the evidence. You have ignored the evidence of John Colter and
>you appear to be ignoring the evidence of use by Lewis and Clark.
>
>I think much more about this will come to light as be approach the Lewis
and
>Clark bicentennial celebration 2003-2006.
>Walt
>Park City, Montana
>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------
>hist_text list info:
<http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html>http://www.xmission.com/
~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
>
John T. Kramer, maker of:

Kramer's Best Antique Improver
>>>It makes wood wonderful<<<
>>>As good as old!<<<

<http://www.kramerize.com/>

mail to: <[e-mail]>


- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html



- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:01:08 -0600
From: "Frank Fusco" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: metal boat & arrow heads

    My earlier reference to the frame of Lewis' boat [on the L&C expedition]
being burned and the metal recovered by Indians was incorrect. My
recollection of the event went beyond what the journals record.
    What Lewis recorded was that on July 9, 1805, while trying to continue
past the Great Falls of the Missouri, the hide covered metal boat frame
simply failed. It was an experiment that did not work.
    After recovering the hide covering, he simply "deposited" it and
deserted the whole thing. No reference to burning the hides off or placing
the frame in a cache or the Indians using it for arrow heads.
Frank "Bearclaw" Fusco, Mountain Home, Arkansas


- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 16:46:58 -0600
From: John Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens?

Bill,

You should know better than most that I do not stand in the re-enactors
corner.  That I am rude, crude and socially unacceptable is a given.=20
Gentlemanlyness be damned, when someone is spewing inaccurate historical
drivel.

I've never cared what someone cooked in and have said many times over the
years
that someone wearing a pink blanket capote and cooking in a recycled tin can
didn't bother me: if they had something to teach. =20

We have rules against the Civil War style tin muckets (large cups/boilers=
 with
hinged lid, bale and handle) yet somehow the unsubstantiated "corn boiler"
with
a loose lid, bale and no handle is acceptable.  You are suggesting that
something very different in appearance is perfectly OK simply because of the
material from which it is made.  A very contradictory position from the=
 other
accepted rules. =20

I've never given a thought to what kind of pot someone uses nor complained=
 of
those who use graniteware or other items which have come under scrutiny and
criticism over the years.  These things were previously discussed and argued
privately.  I didn't care and wouldn't now if this had not become a public
issue under the auspices of AMM.  In the past I have eaten meals, breads and
deserts at rendezvous from the very type of pot of which we speak and never
criticized the pot from which I was served.

The problem comes where unsubstantiated personal opinion is stated again and
again as fact when it is repeatedly shown those facts do not exist.  Too=
 many
think we are some kind of authority, and if modern camp ovens are allowed
to be
publicly declared correct on this list without even enough documentation to
prove they existed during the period, we are likely to see scads of them=
 which
is totally inappropriate. =20

I really don't see what a camp oven has to do with survival.  Survival is
about
what we can comfortably do without, not what modern convenience we can
justify.

If the standard you suggest is what we adhere to: then why did I spend so=
 much
time arguing on our private list in the face of Grand Council members who
wanted my scalp over buttons I made the old way out of coins they figured I
hadn't spent enough money to acquire?  A raw material cost of $2 to $5 a
button
for 40 buttons was an insufficient expenditure in their eyes.  Not the way
they
stated it, but nonetheless the essence of the argument.  Why do so many rant
against commercial chrome tan "orange" buckskin if leather is leather?

There is no mountain man skill to be learned with a modern camp oven.  Cook=
 a
meal with no pot: that is a skill to learn.

Given the present base of knowledge we can acquire a cast pot of a style=
 that
it was possible (though unlikely) to have had in the mountains.  At present
there is nothing that indicates the modern camp oven even existed during the
period.   They are very different items in appearance and use.

You know as well as I there are those who will take the flimsiest suggestion
and carry it to the ultimate absurdity.  The "if Jim Bridger would have had
it,
he would have used it" school of thought becomes the standard all too=
 easily.=20
Suddenly inline rifles, magnesium fire starters, modern folding knives, air
mattresses, down sleeping bags and a whole raft of other trash will appear. =
=20

By the reasoning you present below I should be able to wear, without
controversy, my cowboy hat, oil cloth duster, blue jeans and yoked cotton
shirts with double breast pockets: and commercial rubber boots when it gets
wet
and muddy.   The only real difference is in the cut of the cloth.  And I do
happen to own a thread counter.

Since both cut wood why don't I just bring my chainsaw instead of my hand=
 axe
to gather firewood.  Oh well wood is troublesome to gather so why don't I=
 just
load up a propane cylinder and stove to do my cooking, fire is fire you=
 know.=20
Maybe we should allow Fruit Loops for breakfast they are only chemicals,=
 grain
and sugar and we could have milked a wild buffalo.  You've seen how these
things take on a life of their own over the years.

The list can go on and on and grow ever more ludicrous. =20

The point is that when something for which there is no evidence of existence
during the period is repeatedly declared correct and the same=
 non-information
declaring such reiterated over and over; I take umbrage.  Especially when it
flys in the face of real information as has been presented by Mike Rock, Jim
Colburn and Angela Gottfred, among others.

Some folks feel that if they repeat what they believe often enough it will
make
it a fact, too many historical rumors have started that way which contribute
nothing to our advancement and which only retard learning and obfuscate the
knowledge we seek.

One small example if we allow this to pass.  Someone, probably soon, will=
 find
mention of matches in old texts and automatically assume their big box of
kitchen matches is perfectly OK.  Because we've allowed this to pass all=
 they
have to do is keep repeating the same source over and over regardless of
contrary information presented and soon we will allow for modern matches
because someone wants to believe.

At the point we choose to believe; it means we cease thinking.  People of
faith
believe: because there is that which we cannot know.  About all else I have=
 no
beliefs only thoughts.  What I think; is constantly being revised in the=
 face
of new information.  If thought ever rises to the level of belief it is
easy to
be incapable of accepting the new information, at best acceptance becomes=
 much
more difficult.  It is easier to change what you think than what you=
 believe.=20
Wars have been fought over such small points.

I stand ready to agree that modern camp ovens could be correct just as soon=
 as
there is any real information that confirms the mere existence of same=
 during
the period.  If this had never come up I'd never have said a word.  If it=
 came
up privately I'd not have been adamant in demanding proof to substantiate=
 what
are presently only personal beliefs. =20

Because this is seen as our (The American Mountain Men) public forum that
which
passes over it as factual information must be so.  If we now subscribe to a
lesser standard, I have other things to do with my time.

John...


At 08:42 AM 2/26/00 -0800, you wrote:
>John, your approach to historical authenticity appears to be that if you
>can't lay your hands on it you won't accept it. Research done by people
>immediately after the period you will accept - maybe, but only if it is
>replete with detailed descriptions and coorboration by some other=
 authority.
>That is well and good. By using that method you can be sure that you are
>historically correct beyond refutation. It also can lead to personal
>judgements that may or may not be as lead lined accurate. I do, however,
>support your right to live in that limited world.
>
>I, however, and, I think, many others, are on the other side of the AMM
>coin - the side of survivalism. We seek to learn the skills the mountain=
 men
>had. If there were cast iron pots in the equipment of the trappers, or
>available in the west of the time, we don't much worry about the shape. We
>make use of the iron pots. If they had cotton shirts, we don't worry about
>thread count, we wear cotton shirts. If they shot black powder, we use=
 black
>powder, not worrying about its constituent grind, etc., etc. We do continue
>to do research, and where ever we can, we obtain the exact same type of
>equipment they had. Where we find they had an item or material that may
>present controversy, such as the recent "Dutch oven" pots, we do not limit
>ourselves in our learning and practicing survival skills because someone
>else has boxed themselves into a historical reenactment corner. We do,
>however appreciate the dedication of people like yourself who have a vast
>knowledge of historical correctness and who are so willing to share it.
>Between the two "sides" (reenactors and survivalists) there is often a
>synergism that works to the benefit of all. From the arguments and
>discussions (mostly carried on in a gentlemanly manner with appropriate
>politeness and consideration) come new information and ways of looking at
>things. In the spirit of this, I remain,
>Bill C

John T. Kramer, maker of:=A0

Kramer's Best Antique Improver
>>>It makes wood wonderful<<<
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 >>>As good as old!<<<

<http://www.kramerize.com/>

mail to: <[e-mail]>=20


- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 18:09:40 -0400
From: Bob Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: kettle, was Dutch Ovens?

>From what I've been able to find out: up to about the mid-1700's the sprue
>mark
>would be circular and on the bottom of the casting.  From then until the late
>1800's it would be a long thin sprue mark on the bottom,

I agree, John, that's very close to what my reference says. The only thing
I will add is that my reference (Frank T. Barnes, _Hooks, Rings & Other
Things_, Christopher Publishing House, ISBN 0-8158-0440-7) explains that
the round "sprue" is called a sprue, but the long "sprue" is called a gate.
In the descriptions of pots, they always designate the number of gates, as
some vessels had more than one. Also, they state that in the 18th century,
the gates were simply broken off and left rough, while in the 19th, they
were sanded smooth. Nothing hard and fast, of course, but sometimes a
little clue can help you date a pot.

BTW, I don't know if it's "standard", but Barnes defines a 'pot' as a
vessel which bulges out and then gets smaller near the top, and a 'kettle'
one which increases in size from the bottom all the way to the top. That's
the lingo used by antique iron collectors, FWIW.

Bob

Bob Spencer <[e-mail]>



- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 17:10:55 -0600
From: "\"Hatchet Jack\" Daniel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens?

I knew this kind of bullshit would crop up.

JD


- ----- Original Message -----
From: John Kramer <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens?


> Bill,
>
> You should know better than most that I do not stand in the re-enactors
> corner.  That I am rude, crude and socially unacceptable is a given.
> Gentlemanlyness be damned, when someone is spewing inaccurate historical
> drivel.
>
> I've never cared what someone cooked in and have said many times over the
> years
> that someone wearing a pink blanket capote and cooking in a recycled tin
can
> didn't bother me: if they had something to teach.
>
> We have rules against the Civil War style tin muckets (large cups/boilers
with
> hinged lid, bale and handle) yet somehow the unsubstantiated "corn boiler"
> with
> a loose lid, bale and no handle is acceptable.  You are suggesting that
> something very different in appearance is perfectly OK simply because of
the
> material from which it is made.  A very contradictory position from the
other
> accepted rules.
>
> I've never given a thought to what kind of pot someone uses nor complained
of
> those who use graniteware or other items which have come under scrutiny
and
> criticism over the years.  These things were previously discussed and
argued
> privately.  I didn't care and wouldn't now if this had not become a public
> issue under the auspices of AMM.  In the past I have eaten meals, breads
and
> deserts at rendezvous from the very type of pot of which we speak and
never
> criticized the pot from which I was served.
>
> The problem comes where unsubstantiated personal opinion is stated again
and
> again as fact when it is repeatedly shown those facts do not exist.  Too
many
> think we are some kind of authority, and if modern camp ovens are allowed
> to be
> publicly declared correct on this list without even enough documentation
to
> prove they existed during the period, we are likely to see scads of them
which
> is totally inappropriate.
>
> I really don't see what a camp oven has to do with survival.  Survival is
> about
> what we can comfortably do without, not what modern convenience we can
> justify.
>
> If the standard you suggest is what we adhere to: then why did I spend so
much
> time arguing on our private list in the face of Grand Council members who
> wanted my scalp over buttons I made the old way out of coins they figured
I
> hadn't spent enough money to acquire?  A raw material cost of $2 to $5 a
> button
> for 40 buttons was an insufficient expenditure in their eyes.  Not the way
> they
> stated it, but nonetheless the essence of the argument.  Why do so many
rant
> against commercial chrome tan "orange" buckskin if leather is leather?
>
> There is no mountain man skill to be learned with a modern camp oven.
Cook a
> meal with no pot: that is a skill to learn.
>
> Given the present base of knowledge we can acquire a cast pot of a style
that
> it was possible (though unlikely) to have had in the mountains.  At
present
> there is nothing that indicates the modern camp oven even existed during
the
> period.   They are very different items in appearance and use.
>
> You know as well as I there are those who will take the flimsiest
suggestion
> and carry it to the ultimate absurdity.  The "if Jim Bridger would have
had
> it,
> he would have used it" school of thought becomes the standard all too
easily.
> Suddenly inline rifles, magnesium fire starters, modern folding knives,
air
> mattresses, down sleeping bags and a whole raft of other trash will
appear.
>
> By the reasoning you present below I should be able to wear, without
> controversy, my cowboy hat, oil cloth duster, blue jeans and yoked cotton
> shirts with double breast pockets: and commercial rubber boots when it
gets
> wet
> and muddy.   The only real difference is in the cut of the cloth.  And I
do
> happen to own a thread counter.
>
> Since both cut wood why don't I just bring my chainsaw instead of my hand
axe
> to gather firewood.  Oh well wood is troublesome to gather so why don't I
just
> load up a propane cylinder and stove to do my cooking, fire is fire you
know.
> Maybe we should allow Fruit Loops for breakfast they are only chemicals,
grain
> and sugar and we could have milked a wild buffalo.  You've seen how these
> things take on a life of their own over the years.
>
> The list can go on and on and grow ever more ludicrous.
>
> The point is that when something for which there is no evidence of
existence
> during the period is repeatedly declared correct and the same
non-information
> declaring such reiterated over and over; I take umbrage.  Especially when
it
> flys in the face of real information as has been presented by Mike Rock,
Jim
> Colburn and Angela Gottfred, among others.
>
> Some folks feel that if they repeat what they believe often enough it will
> make
> it a fact, too many historical rumors have started that way which
contribute
> nothing to our advancement and which only retard learning and obfuscate
the
> knowledge we seek.
>
> One small example if we allow this to pass.  Someone, probably soon, will
find
> mention of matches in old texts and automatically assume their big box of
> kitchen matches is perfectly OK.  Because we've allowed this to pass all
they
> have to do is keep repeating the same source over and over regardless of
> contrary information presented and soon we will allow for modern matches
> because someone wants to believe.
>
> At the point we choose to believe; it means we cease thinking.  People of
> faith
> believe: because there is that which we cannot know.  About all else I
have no
> beliefs only thoughts.  What I think; is constantly being revised in the
face
> of new information.  If thought ever rises to the level of belief it is
> easy to
> be incapable of accepting the new information, at best acceptance becomes
much
> more difficult.  It is easier to change what you think than what you
believe.
> Wars have been fought over such small points.
>
> I stand ready to agree that modern camp ovens could be correct just as
soon as
> there is any real information that confirms the mere existence of same
during
> the period.  If this had never come up I'd never have said a word.  If it
came
> up privately I'd not have been adamant in demanding proof to substantiate
what
> are presently only personal beliefs.
>
> Because this is seen as our (The American Mountain Men) public forum that
> which
> passes over it as factual information must be so.  If we now subscribe to
a
> lesser standard, I have other things to do with my time.
>
> John...
>
>
> At 08:42 AM 2/26/00 -0800, you wrote:
> >John, your approach to historical authenticity appears to be that if you
> >can't lay your hands on it you won't accept it. Research done by people
> >immediately after the period you will accept - maybe, but only if it is
> >replete with detailed descriptions and coorboration by some other
authority.
> >That is well and good. By using that method you can be sure that you are
> >historically correct beyond refutation. It also can lead to personal
> >judgements that may or may not be as lead lined accurate. I do, however,
> >support your right to live in that limited world.
> >
> >I, however, and, I think, many others, are on the other side of the AMM
> >coin - the side of survivalism. We seek to learn the skills the mountain
men
> >had. If there were cast iron pots in the equipment of the trappers, or
> >available in the west of the time, we don't much worry about the shape.
We
> >make use of the iron pots. If they had cotton shirts, we don't worry
about
> >thread count, we wear cotton shirts. If they shot black powder, we use
black
> >powder, not worrying about its constituent grind, etc., etc. We do
continue
> >to do research, and where ever we can, we obtain the exact same type of
> >equipment they had. Where we find they had an item or material that may
> >present controversy, such as the recent "Dutch oven" pots, we do not
limit
> >ourselves in our learning and practicing survival skills because someone
> >else has boxed themselves into a historical reenactment corner. We do,
> >however appreciate the dedication of people like yourself who have a vast
> >knowledge of historical correctness and who are so willing to share it.
> >Between the two "sides" (reenactors and survivalists) there is often a
> >synergism that works to the benefit of all. From the arguments and
> >discussions (mostly carried on in a gentlemanly manner with appropriate
> >politeness and consideration) come new information and ways of looking at
> >things. In the spirit of this, I remain,
> >Bill C
>
> John T. Kramer, maker of:
>
> Kramer's Best Antique Improver
> >>>It makes wood wonderful<<<
> >>>As good as old!<<<
>
> <http://www.kramerize.com/>
>
> mail to: <[e-mail]>
>
>
> ----------------------
> hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
>


- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:49:29 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Cast iron pots/Miller print

Ho the list,
Here's the Miller print, "Moonlight-camp scene" from Ruxton's book "Life in
the Far West" that we've been talking about. Just cut and paste in your
browser and it should come up.

           http://members.aol.com/swcushing/myhomepage/millerpot.jpg

Sorry it's not better quality, but the pot is rather visible in the fore
ground..... looks cast iron to me and with the flat lid a guy could put coals
over the top...

Ymos,
Steve

- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 19:06:57 -0700
From: "Walt Foster" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens?

Kramer's Best Antique Improver
>>>It makes wood wonderful<<<
>>>As good as old!<<<

Well John, it seems you fail to get my smoke signal across this campfire
straight.  So I will place some more sage brush and cattails on the fire to
build up a more visible signal.

The records show in both Lewis and Clark and John Colter documents mention,
of Dutch ovens.  Not even you can deny this.

I responded to Ole to let him know about the pots I am using like the one
shown by Bob Spenser.

In the mean time I have been experiencing your bullying nature and your
trying to put words in my mouth.  You are the one who is up on the soap box,
not me.  I think the nature of a mountain man is based upon geography and a
particular period of time.  I am lucky.  I have lived all my life here at
the birth place of the American Mountain Man.  My father was born in a log
cabin.  I started out in life at the head of the East Rosebud River where
the American Mountain Men were camped during October 1836.  They moved down
here where I am now camped and have been for 4 years.  By the time I was 10
I was permitted by my parents to explore between Lewis and Clark canoe camp
and the mouth of the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone summers and over the
weekends during the fall and spring.  By the time I was 15 I was making my
own moccasins,  side seam and we were running the 7 mountain ranges around
us.  And I had my second deer under my belt.  I used a bow I made myself.  I
joined the Navy at 17 and after my company brigaded I went home on leave and
spent my time camp on the Red Pryor Mountain overseeing country John Colter
passed through.  A week later after my leave was up I reported to the USS
Lansing DER 338.  Our warship proceeded to patrol Korean coast line.  I
suffered a case of what is now called friendly fire.  I am a DAV starting at
the age of 17.  I am still being treated for my personal illness.  The most
comfortable place I could find to be was in or among the mountains.  I have
spent the last 43 years living on the trails of both Lewis and Clark and the
American Mountain Men here in Montana.  With one 2 year sojourn to the
northern end of these Rocky Mountains in Alaska where I handled 54 head of
horses.  I do not know much about other places.  But I do know how to live
outdoors without any modern equipment, year around.  There are a number of
this list who know me.  Some I have met at the Red Lodge Mountain Man
Rendezvous.  I know they will be the first to tell me if I am out of line at
this campfire.

I have some questions for you.  What mountain man time period is your outfit
and in what geographical area were the mountain men associated with your
outfit?  I ask this because I am interested.   To give me and the other
readers world wide and idea of more about yourself.

Let us talk some real mountain man stuff, not play Billy Goat Gruff.  Preach
or act insecure.

Tell me about your mountain man self.
Walt
Park City, Montana





- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 20:14:11 -0600
From: "northwoods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: Proof of Dutch ovens

I believe I may have found irrefutable evidence that not only did Dutch
ovens as we know them today exist in the rocky mountain fur trade time
period, but they were there without a doubt! I have in my possession Jackson
W. Moores original typewritten report that was made by him in 1967 on the
archeological investigations that were done on the fort from 1963 to 1966.
The information from this report was also the basis of a book entitled The
Archeology of Bents Fort. This manuscript has the original polaroids of the
objects excavated at the site, one of which is I quote "One large iron pot
with three legs and two small harp shaped handles." This was recovered from
the well. In addition it goes on to say "Several Bent floor levels yielded
iron pot lids with upturned rims deep enough to hold glowing coals." The
photo of the "large iron pot" shows a Dutch oven basically of the same type
that is sitting at this moment on my kitchen stove. Flat bottomed, about 5"
high and 12" wide, the only difference being the three legs which are an 1"
or 2" long. The "harp shaped handles" that they describe look to me like
they may have been for attaching a handle of some sorts. They also show a
picture of one of the excavated "lids for holding glowing coals".
I don't have the book The Archeology of Bents Fort so I couldn't say if this
information that I have given is available from that source. If someone
would like to see the photos I have described, or any others from this
manuscript, I would be happy to scan them.
I have followed this thread with interest, but as it dragged on I was sorry
to see it play out the way it did.
John Kramer, you called yourself "crude, rude, and socially unacceptable"
well I sure have learned a lot from your postings and folks who are rude,
crude, and socially unacceptable never bothered me much. Pretty apt
description of myself at times actually. I just hope that you can accept
this as indisputable proof, and we can move on and not have hard feelings
about it one way or another.

northwoods




- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:16:19 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (JON MARINETTI)
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Oven Original Period Source !!!

The following is a brief summation of what was found in certain volumes
of The Journals of the Lewis & Clark Expedition, Gary E. Moulton,
Editor, University of Nebraska Press (12 Volumes):

Vol.4 (April 7 - July 27, 1805), p.6 [map only].

Vol. 9 (The Journals of John Ordway, May 14, 1804 - September 23, 1806),
p.166.

Vol. 11 (The Journals of Joseph Whitehouse, May 14, 1804 - April 2,
1806), pp.193-194.

The above two members of the Corp of Discovery on Tuesday, June 11th,
1805 wrote about burying a number of items in a cache one of which was
"a dutch oven". At the time, they were located on a branch of the
Missouri River where the Marias River and the Teton Rivers join the
Missouri River, at the point where this branch of the Missouri river
starts turning southward, about 45 miles northeast of present day Great
Falls, Montana.

- -----------------------------------
from Michigan
- -----------------------------------


- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html

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

End of hist_text-digest V1 #476
*******************************

-
 To unsubscribe to hist_text-digest, send an email to
"[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe hist_text-digest" in the body of the message.