Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:37:42 -0700
From: "Walt Foster" <Wfoster@cw2.com>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens?
> john K. concure with your input---never have found hanson to ever be
incorrect in
> his historical prespective of anything that was in the mountain man time
span---"end of subject not open for further discussion---" nuff said---you
hammered the nail down---
"HAWK" Michael Pierce
Hawk, Don King just called about something else. I asked him his opinion of
the flat bottom raised lid cast iron Dutch ovens.
He said that the Dutch controlled most of the metal production facilities
back then and that both the round pot and the flat bottom one are very old
in design. Way older than our nation and that both styles were designed to
conserve fuel. The next step is to see book produced about Ft. Bent
artifacts and what the archeologists have to say. As far as Hanson goes he
could not work with what he did not have at hand. Because Hanson did not
have it at hand does not mean it was not there. It is still open ended.
Logic says look further. Look at the book.
Badgerhole
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:56:45 -0600
From: Jim Colburn <jc60714@navix.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Proof of Dutch ovens
Washtahay-
At 09:03 PM 2/26/00 -0700, you wrote:
>> By the logic of "if it was found at Bent's Fort, the mt. men had them>
>LongWalker c. du B.
>
>What logic?
>Badgerhole
Northwoods cited Moore's notes on the dig at Bent's Fort in regard to
various cast iron lids and pots found there. I'm not saying they weren't
found there; I am saying that because they were there at the end doesn't
mean they were there before 1840.
If we were to say that because the cast iron was found at Bent's Fort it
is considered adequate to document its use prior to 1840, then we should be
consistent and say that ANYTHING found then should be considered adequately
documented (including the various things I mentioned, such as cartridge
rifles, aluminum cookware, coke bottles, and twentieth-century coins).
LongWalker c. du B.
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:57:52 -0700
From: "Walt Foster" <Wfoster@cw2.com>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Proof of Dutch ovens
> Washtahay-
> At 09:03 PM 2/26/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >> By the logic of "if it was found at Bent's Fort, the mt. men had them>
> >LongWalker c. du B.
> >
> >What logic?
> >Badgerhole
> Northwoods cited Moore's notes on the dig at Bent's Fort in regard to
> various cast iron lids and pots found there. I'm not saying they weren't
> found there; I am saying that because they were there at the end doesn't
> mean they were there before 1840.
> If we were to say that because the cast iron was found at Bent's Fort it
> is considered adequate to document its use prior to 1840, then we should
be
> consistent and say that ANYTHING found then should be considered
adequately
> documented (including the various things I mentioned, such as cartridge
> rifles, aluminum cookware, coke bottles, and twentieth-century coins).
> LongWalker c. du B.
That is not logical. What is logical is to review the book to see what the
archeologists say. The other day I was shooting into a bank of the side of
a wash. While shooting I picked up 2 arrowheads that had popped up out of
the ground. The artifacts had been buried and the earth popped them back up
on top. History is like that, layers of time. Any archeologist worth his
salt could determine the separation, that is what they do. I think it is
important to consult the book first before doing anything. Don't you
Badgerhole
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 00:01:49 -0700
From: "Walt Foster" <Wfoster@cw2.com>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: powder and lead
A question was asked regarding the carring of weight. Saying would it not
be better to carry a pound of powder and 10 pounds of lead instead of one 10
pound pot? I would like to add to the question and ask how much powder and
lead did the mountain men carry for the yearly cycle between rendez-vous?
Badgerhole
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: 27 Feb 2000 05:20:28 -0800
From: Buck Conner <buck.conner@uswestmail.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Matches
On Sat, 26 February 2000, Jim Colburn wrote:
>
> Washtahay-
> At 04:46 PM 2/26/00 -0600, John Kramer wrote:
> >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.
> In hopes of heading this off...
> The first matches I have run across mention of involve splints of wood
> covered with various (relatively unstable) chemicals. To ignite, they are
> dipped into a bottle containing acid. These are nasty things, I gave up on
> them after having the second bottle of acid blown apart by the ignition of
> the match.
> The first friction matches were invented in about 1829; the first American
> patent was issued in 1836.
> Matches were available in Turnbull's establishment in St. Louis in 1834.
> Any traveler going through St. Louis could pick up a supply, but there were
> good reasons not to. It should be pointed out that they were very
> susceptible to moisture-even high humidity, and did I remember to say they
> were unstable? As in, "shake up a box and watch them ignite"? I tried
> these for a while too, but humidity would kill a box over a summer.
> The earliest mention I have seen of matches in the fur trade-on a list of
> goods to a fort-was 1855. Kurz did comment that none were availabe at Fort
> Union in 1852.
> LongWalker c. du B.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With a little research you'll find "matches" as called today had a counterpart that has been around and in use at the time of Christ, then called "SPALLS" and where referred to as that up through the 20th century.
Early settlers in the 1600's would amaze the local natives, not only here but all over the world with these firesticks of burning sulphur, according to an article written by John Eaton in a Feb. 1978 issue of "Colonial Life" magazine - had a dozen references to the use of these "spalls'.
"To use them a spark is captured on a piece of char, the spall is touched to the glowing char and then will ignite when blown on"..... A candle then could then be lit, and the spall extinguished by being blown out. By doing this a "spall" could be reused many times. "The biggest problem was if shaken when lit, the "spall" may drip hot molton, burning sulphur" - then you may have a real firestick.
I have never read of the use of the "spall" on the frontier, but have seen reference to there use in villages and settlements. One of the old classics, a sea story of sailing ships made reference to "spalls"; the Captain used them in his cabin for lighting his pipe, lanterns, etc.
I think John will agree that if one looks long and hard enought you'll find references to dispute about any discussion.
I have always figured that if you needed to put a spark on char to lit such an animal as mentioned, I would just stay with my flint and steel and not worry about such things as "SPALLS".
Later
Buck Conner
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ AMM ~ Lenni-Lenape Society ~ NRA ~~~~
~~~~ http://pages.about.com/buckconner ~~~
~ http://www.teleport.com/~walking/clark ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AMM Jim Baker Party / Colorado Territory
"meat's not meat until it's in the pan"
Aux Aliments de Pays!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: 27 Feb 2000 05:28:20 -0800
From: Buck Conner <buck.conner@uswestmail.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: metal boat & arrow heads
On Sat, 26 February 2000, "Norman Anderson" wrote:
>
> Frank,
>
> If you look in the Moulton edition of the Lewis and Clark Journals, you will
> find Lewis writing on July 10, ". . . ordered her to be sunk in the water,
> that the skins might become soft in order the better to take her in peices
> tomorrow and deposite the iron fraim at this place . . ." The following day
> he continues, " . . . I now set to work on my boat, which had been
> previously drawn out of the water before the men departed, and in two hours
> had her fraim in readiness to be deposited. had a cash dug and depsited the
> Fraim of the boat . . ." When Lewis returns to the Great Falls area, he
> writes on July 14, 1806, "the iron fram of the boat had not suffered
> materially." What happened after that is not mentioned in the journals. An
> archeologist from Montana State University has spent time in the area the
> past two summers trying to find the Upper Portage Camp and the iron boat
> itself, but with no luck. Since Lewis and Clark ordered nails pulled from
> metal hardware stripped from the canoes and pirogue no longer usable in
> 1806, one might conclude every scrap of iron was taken for possible trade
> down river. It would be a great find to discover the boat's remains, but
> between the nature of the Missouri and their desperate need for trade goods,
> it seems unlikely in either circumstance.
>
> Norman Anderson
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Last year there was an article in "American Science" magazine (not sure that was the correct name of magazine), that told of finding parts of the iron boat and a few issues later talked of find the remains of several large iron kettles, set at 10' points in a line - standard setup for a military unit in those days, along with iron tent stakes, all where found on the Upper Missouri.
Will look for those articles and correct name of magazine, would think these issues would still be available as being published last year.
Later
Buck Conner
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ AMM ~ Lenni-Lenape Society ~ NRA ~~~~
~~~~ http://pages.about.com/buckconner ~~~
~ http://www.teleport.com/~walking/clark ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AMM Jim Baker Party / Colorado Territory
"meat's not meat until it's in the pan"
Aux Aliments de Pays!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: 27 Feb 2000 05:34:05 -0800
From: Buck Conner <buck.conner@uswestmail.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: fish line
On Sat, 26 February 2000, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>
> Way before the fur period time, Issac Walton used horse hair ( I believe
> mainly from the tail) in order to fish with artificial flies.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Butler <Larry@fun-a-fair.com>
> To: hist_text@lists.xmission.com <hist_text@lists.xmission.com>
> Date: Saturday, February 26, 2000 6:47 PM
> Subject: MtMan-List: fish line
>
>
> >I have read and enjoyed this list for a long time. There has been lots of
> >accounts of fish hooks being traded for almost every thing but what did
> >they use for fish line.
> >Thank You Larry
> >
> >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Jones of: "Braddock's Trace Mercantile" 9306 Roxanne Drive, Austin, TX 78748 - makes and carries braided horse line, period flys, and about anything a period fisherman from Thomas Jeffereson to Jim Bridger would want.
I have a complete fishing set made by Paul, nice workmanship that will "shine" in any camp.
Later
Buck Conner
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ AMM ~ Lenni-Lenape Society ~ NRA ~~~~
~~~~ http://pages.about.com/buckconner ~~~
~ http://www.teleport.com/~walking/clark ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AMM Jim Baker Party / Colorado Territory
"meat's not meat until it's in the pan"
Aux Aliments de Pays!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 08:01:55 -0600
From: "northwoods" <northwoods@ez-net.com>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Proof of Dutch ovens
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jim Colburn <jc60714@navix.net>
To: hist_text@lists.xmission.com <hist_text@lists.xmission.com>
Date: February 26, 2000 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Proof of Dutch ovens
> Actually, what you have found is that the items were found at a place once
>visited by mountain men. The fort was abandoned long after 1840-and no
>doubt many things came in later.
Chittendonin his work American Fur Trade says It began operation in1829 was
at the height of operation in 1843 and was destroyed in 1852.
> By the logic of "if it was found at Bent's Fort, the mt. men had them", we
>could allow pooltables (actually at the fort around 1840), cartridge rifles
>(empty cartridges were found on site, both during the survey and during the
>dig), aluminum cookware, coke bottles, coins from the 1900s, etc.
Archeological digs are not just willy nilly random searches for junk lying
around. The entire purpose of excavating the fort was to determine what
types of items were used there,and at what time. Why? For people like you
and me to be able to use the information and get an accurate idea of what
the past may have been like.
Also, the question just begs to be asked, what would you consider to be
adequate evidence? Kinda tough when you say reference to the name "dutch
oven" can't be used. And there just aren't that many drawings of any types
of pots. I wonder how many items were used and never mentioned in first hand
accounts? I would venture to guess many. I'm not taking sides either way on
the issue. I only was trying to present some more facts so people would have
more info to base there decisions on. Seems like some folks have there minds
made up and aren't open to new possibilities.
As for now, I have to get out to the woods as it has been very warm this
week. Frost is going fast... I'll scan the photos and get all of the
pertinent info from the manuscript I have when I get back. Doesn't anyone
else have the book on the dig at Bents Fort?
northwoods
- ----------------------
hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 08:11:54 -0800
From: "John C. Funk, Jr." <J2Hearts@norcalis.net>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Cast iron pots/Miller print
I'm curious....how can you look at a shape and call it "cast iron"? Is it
totally impossible to fabricate such an item from sheet iron, brass,
copper....? I think that's the issue......we're looking at "shapes" and
ascribing a material to their fabrication!!
John Funk
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <SWcushing@aol.com>
To: <hist_text@lists.xmission.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 4:49 PM
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
