ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/hist_text/archive/v01.n562

Internet Message Format | 2000-05-27 | 37KB

From: [e-mail] (hist_text-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: hist_text-digest V1 #562
Reply-To: hist_text
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


hist_text-digest        Saturday, May 27 2000        Volume 01 : Number 562



In this issue:

-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá MtMan-List: fur trade books
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: RE: Beaver Trapping
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage
-áááááá MtMan-List: "The Patriot"
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: The Great Dutch Oven Debate

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 08:33:03 -0600
From: "Walt Foster" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

Larry,
Apparently you missed the fact that cast iron dutch ovens were documented at
the Fort Union Trading Post which was established 1828.  The Dutch oven and
the kettle both cast iron artifacts were found.  Aho!
Walt
Park City, Montana



From: "larry pendleton" <[e-mail]>Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date:
Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
>   Ya know, I bet if Jim Bridger had of had a DOG in camp he would have fed
> him out of a DUTCH OVEN,


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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 09:54:05 -0500
From: "northwoods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

Don't forget Walt that a dutch oven was also found in the excavations of
Bent's Fort, and attributed to the Bent time period...

northwoods


- -----Original Message-----
From: Walt Foster <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: May 27, 2000 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500


>Larry,
>Apparently you missed the fact that cast iron dutch ovens were documented
at
>the Fort Union Trading Post which was established 1828.  The Dutch oven and
>the kettle both cast iron artifacts were found.  Aho!
>Walt
>Park City, Montana
>
>
>
>From: "larry pendleton" <[e-mail]>Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date:
>Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
>>   Ya know, I bet if Jim Bridger had of had a DOG in camp he would have
fed
>> him out of a DUTCH OVEN,
>
>
>----------------------
>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, 27 May 2000 10:57:23 -0400
From: tom roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

You guys aren't really serious about starting round
two of the dutch oven debacle, are you???

Tom

Walt Foster wrote:

> Larry,
> Apparently you missed the fact that cast iron dutch ovens were documented at
> the Fort Union Trading Post which was established 1828.  The Dutch oven and
> the kettle both cast iron artifacts were found.  Aho!
> Walt
> Park City, Montana
>
> From: "larry pendleton" <[e-mail]>Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date:
> Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
> >   Ya know, I bet if Jim Bridger had of had a DOG in camp he would have fed
> > him out of a DUTCH OVEN,
>
> ----------------------
> 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, 27 May 2000 09:27:03 -0600
From: "Walt Foster" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

No Sir,

The facts have already been established once and for all by the Fort Union
Trading Post.  Cast iron artifacts of both types were present in the
mountain man period.
Walt
Park City, Montana



> You guys aren't really serious about starting round
> two of the dutch oven debacle, are you???
>
> Tom



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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 10:15:05 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

Washtahay-
At 08:33 AM 5/27/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Larry,
>Apparently you missed the fact that cast iron dutch ovens were documented at
>the Fort Union Trading Post which was established 1828.  The Dutch oven and
>the kettle both cast iron artifacts were found.  Aho!
    And don't forget, cell phones were found in Kingston Jamaica--a city
destroyed by an earthquake and fire in 1694!
    Um, well, perhaps the presence of an artifact in a contaminated site
DOESN'T establish its earliest date of use at the site?
LongWalker c. du B.


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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 10:41:15 -0700
From: "larry pendleton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

Walt,
  The point I was making is, if a topic isn't worth fighting over, then
don't.  Opinions are like A_ _ Holes.  Everyone has one.  I just do not see
the purpose, in getting all bent out of shape because everyone doesn't agree
with you or me or anyone else.  Some of the dearest friends I have in the
world disagree with me totally on certain points of history.  We just agree
to disagree.  I think that point of view would serve the folks on the list
very well.  That way, we could discuss a topic, then move on to something
else, rather than hammer and hammer on an issue untill some folks are sick
of it.  There is no excuse for some of the irrate messages that show up
here, and I am certainly gulty of posting such messages when properly
provoked.  That is just my opinion.
Pendleton
- -----Original Message-----
From: Walt Foster <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, May 27, 2000 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500


Larry,
Apparently you missed the fact that cast iron dutch ovens were documented at
the Fort Union Trading Post which was established 1828.  The Dutch oven and
the kettle both cast iron artifacts were found.  Aho!
Walt
Park City, Montana



From: "larry pendleton" <[e-mail]>Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date:
Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
>   Ya know, I bet if Jim Bridger had of had a DOG in camp he would have fed
> him out of a DUTCH OVEN,


- ----------------------
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, 27 May 2000 09:35:17 -0600
From: "Walt Foster" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

Larry,
I agree with you that time is to short for BS.
The cast iron artifacts are present at Fort Union.
Walt


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "larry pendleton" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500




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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 09:40:28 -0600
From: "Walt Foster" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

> Um, well, perhaps the presence of an artifact in a contaminated site
> DOESN'T establish its earliest date of use at the site?
> LongWalker c. du B.

Maybe you know something the Chief Historian does not know about the cast
iron artifacts present during the mountain man period at Fort Union?  It is
a long walk.  Maybe you can get there by fall.
Aho!
See you there
Walt
Park City, Montana


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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 10:55:25 -0700
From: "larry pendleton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

One more thing to add to my last post.  Most of you folks would not believe
the tone of some of the personal e-mails Dennis and I received during the
ARTIFICIAL SINEW WAR.  I lost my temper over the AUTHENTICITY NAZI comment,
and made bad matters worse.  just like I did last night over the SNIDE SMART
ASS remark.  For those discretions, I would like to appologize.  Folks this
ain't life and death we're dealing with here.  Let's just express our
opinions and leave the insults out of it.
Pendleton
- -----Original Message-----
From: larry pendleton <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, May 27, 2000 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500


Walt,
  The point I was making is, if a topic isn't worth fighting over, then
don't.  Opinions are like A_ _ Holes.  Everyone has one.  I just do not see
the purpose, in getting all bent out of shape because everyone doesn't agree
with you or me or anyone else.  Some of the dearest friends I have in the
world disagree with me totally on certain points of history.  We just agree
to disagree.  I think that point of view would serve the folks on the list
very well.  That way, we could discuss a topic, then move on to something
else, rather than hammer and hammer on an issue untill some folks are sick
of it.  There is no excuse for some of the irrate messages that show up
here, and I am certainly gulty of posting such messages when properly
provoked.  That is just my opinion.
Pendleton
- -----Original Message-----
From: Walt Foster <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, May 27, 2000 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500


Larry,
Apparently you missed the fact that cast iron dutch ovens were documented at
the Fort Union Trading Post which was established 1828.  The Dutch oven and
the kettle both cast iron artifacts were found.  Aho!
Walt
Park City, Montana



From: "larry pendleton" <[e-mail]>Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date:
Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500
>   Ya know, I bet if Jim Bridger had of had a DOG in camp he would have fed
> him out of a DUTCH OVEN,


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


- ----------------------
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, 27 May 2000 11:38:54 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

Washtahay-
At 09:40 AM 5/27/00 -0600, you wrote:
>> Um, well, perhaps the presence of an artifact in a contaminated site
>> DOESN'T establish its earliest date of use at the site?
>> LongWalker c. du B.
>
>Maybe you know something the Chief Historian does not know about the cast
>iron artifacts present during the mountain man period at Fort Union?  It is
>a long walk.  Maybe you can get there by fall.
    Walt, to date no documentary evidence has been provided that cast iron
cookware was present "during the mountain man period at Fort Union".  To
date, in  more than 1,000 pages of original records, I haven't found
anything to indicate it was--but I have been looking mostly at the records
of manufacturers and jobbers.
    I can tell you how the stuff was made, and why it was made that way; I can
tell you how the name "dutch oven" was arrived at; I can tell you how it
was packaged and shipped; I just can't show it was in use in the
intermontane west prior to 1840.
    Personally, I'd be surprised it it wasn't in use at Astoria--just haven't
bothered to track it down.  If anyone wants to, the cite is "House Document
45, 17th Congress, 2nd Session Jan 27, 1823, pp. 1-80."
LongWalker c. du B.


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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 13:03:25 -0500
From: "northwoods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: May 27, 2000 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

> And don't forget, cell phones were found in Kingston Jamaica--a city
>destroyed by an earthquake and fire in 1694!
> Um, well, perhaps the presence of an artifact in a contaminated site
>DOESN'T establish its earliest date of use at the site?
>LongWalker c. du B.


In the report made on the excavations at Bents Fort it clearly states (to me
anyway) that a Dutch oven was found in "Bents" well, along with material
from when the fort burned. The well had been "capped" with debris from a
later time period, which would exclude all possibilities of the well
contents having been contaminated with debris  from a later date. Apparently
your interpretations of the report lead you to believe otherwise, which is
certainly okay, although I don't understand why if you wouldn't be surprised
that they were used at Astoria you find it so hard to believe that they were
at Bents Fort especially considering the evidence which is at hand. I sent
my report, (which is the original report that was made for the U.S. Park
Service) to Lanney to read. Anyone else who wants to read it for themselves
just contact me, you can be next after Lanney.

northwoods


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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 12:30:02 -0600
From: "Walt Foster" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

> Walt, to date no documentary evidence has been provided that cast iron
> cookware was present "during the mountain man period at Fort Union".

Aho!
Longwalker, as I posted earlier this year 2 types of cast iron cookware were
present during the American Mountain Man era 1825-1840 at Fort Union.  I
also provided the National Park Service Chief Historian phone number so that
anyone on the list could verify what I had to say about what my research
discovered on the subject of the 2 pots of cast iron.

It is 250 miles from here to  Ft. Union and further to the site of the 1837
rendezvous attended by Jim Bridger who left from here.  Jim Bridger was a
teenager using the date of 1823.  Ft. Union was established 1828.  As you
know the rendezvous period started in 1825 but the mountain man period was
already established by John Colter 1807.

The Astorians passed through here 1811, 1812.

Everybody knows that the Dutch controlled the New York area cast iron
industry at one time.  I for one would be interested to know if evidence can
be found of Astorian use.  As evidence has been found at Ft. Union.

Check it out this fall at the gathering at Ft. Union many on the list have
been mentioning attending or give the Ft. Union historian a call to verify
for yourself.  I do not know what better documentation you could ask for
than the documention of the artifacts located at Fort Union during the time
of the rendezvous period of the American mountain men.
Walt


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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 13:51:28 -0500
From: "northwoods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: fur trade books

I just received one of my most favorite things in the mail today, and that
is used books. I picked up some interesting looking ones, but have only
gotten a chance so far to give them a cursory examination. Titles include:
"John Ball, member of the Wyeth expedition to the Pacific Northwest, 1832,
an Autobiography", "The Men of the Lewis And Clark expedition, A
Biographical Roster of the 51 Members and a Composite Diary of Their
Activities From  All Known Sources",here is a neat old one"The Columbia
River, Or Scenes and Adventures During A Residence of Six Years On the
Western Side of the Rocky Mountains Among Various Tribes of Indians Hitherto
Unknown, Together With a Journey Across the American Continent"1832, and "
The Life and Adventures of George Nidever". It sure is enjoyable to read
about the fur trade time period.

northwoods


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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 14:19:52 -0500
From: "northwoods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: RE: Beaver Trapping

- -----Original Message-----
From: Mike Moore <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: May 27, 2000 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: RE: Beaver Trappin

>>I've seen guys take a hour to get a hide off the animal. But the good
skinners can do it right quick!>>

One of the guys I used to sell my furs to had his teenage daughters working
in the fur shed. They could skin a muskrat in less than a minute, and skin
and flesh a beaver faster then most grown men. No doubt this was because
they had a lot fo practice, and I do mean a lot. I have read more than once
that the Rocky Mountain trappers would often skin the beaver on the spot,
and thenm return to camp where it was someone elses job to flesh and stretch
the pelts. I think there is a picture of this in Firearms Traps and Tools
of the Mountain Men.

Northwoods





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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:33:49 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

Walt, Forgive me if I'm having a senior moment <G> but IIRC the previous
discussion was not whether cast iron was in use during the mountain man
period, but whether the design of the dutch ovens we use today was correct.
There was definitely cast iron pots being made and traded from and through
Africa prior to the period, but nothing has been presented to establish that
the straight-sided, three-legged version so common at Rendezvous today was
present.    Barney

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 13:55:46 -0600
From: "Walt Foster" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

> Walt, Forgive me if I'm having a senior moment <G> but IIRC the previous
> discussion was not whether cast iron was in use during the mountain man
> period, but whether the design of the dutch ovens we use today was
correct.
> There was definitely cast iron pots being made and traded from and through
> Africa prior to the period, but nothing has been presented to establish
that
> the straight-sided, three-legged version so common at Rendezvous today was
> present.    Barney

Hi Barney,
The evidence of that cast iron cookware does exhist at the Fort Union
Trading Post.  Both styles exhist.  The other being the one pictured by
Miller. The artifacts at Ft. Union include the same pattern.  Bottom, sides
and top.  Fort Union has a lot more information than just this topic of
discussion.  The Fort Union historian is on call during regular work days.
Dig into the Fort Union documentation.  You might like it.
Walt with his own senior moments VBG.



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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 18:32:01 -0400
From: tom roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage

Anyone have experience (positive and negative)
with transporting a powderhorn in checked
baggage?   It will surely fail a sniff test.

Tom


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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:51:26 -0700
From: Frank <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage

Don't worry...bagage handlers are too busy beating the crap out of your
baggage to smell it!
A call to the airline you plan to travel with will answer your question.

Frank

tom roberts wrote:

> Anyone have experience (positive and negative)
> with transporting a powderhorn in checked
> baggage?   It will surely fail a sniff test.
>
> Tom
>
> ----------------------
> 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, 27 May 2000 19:03:22 -0400
From: tom roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage

Frank,

Due to a high volume of international traffic (which presumably incurs
higher risk) at my airport (Orlando), I am told that 4 legged sensors
routinely
scan baggage for explosives (which I presume includes black powder)
and that baggage failing the test is destroyed.  I agree that the airline
should/will have the final say but I have gotten conflicting information
there also.   Was wondering whether anyone else had actually flown
their used horns with or without success.   It may turn out simpler
to just leave it home.

Tom

Frank wrote:

> Don't worry...bagage handlers are too busy beating the crap out of your
> baggage to smell it!
> A call to the airline you plan to travel with will answer your question.
>
> Frank


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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 16:09:12 -0700
From: Frank <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage

Hi Tom,

Yes, I agree.  The airline can tell you the regulations involved though.
I suspect that it would be quite an ordeal!  I imagine registration and
special containers etc.
Still, they can tell you if it can be done.
Maybe send your horn ahead via Fed Ex or something?

Grace and peace, Frank

tom roberts wrote:

> Frank,
>
> Due to a high volume of international traffic (which presumably incurs
> higher risk) at my airport (Orlando), I am told that 4 legged sensors
> routinely
> scan baggage for explosives (which I presume includes black powder)
> and that baggage failing the test is destroyed.  I agree that the airline
> should/will have the final say but I have gotten conflicting information
> there also.   Was wondering whether anyone else had actually flown
> their used horns with or without success.   It may turn out simpler
> to just leave it home.
>
> Tom
>
> Frank wrote:
>
> > Don't worry...bagage handlers are too busy beating the crap out of your
> > baggage to smell it!
> > A call to the airline you plan to travel with will answer your question.
> >
> > Frank
>
> ----------------------
> 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, 27 May 2000 19:15:14 -0700
From: "Paul W. Jones" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage

Other than being an express violation of federal law, you should find no
difficulty in this endeavor.  Unless caught.

Paul

- ----- Original Message -----
From: tom roberts <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 3:32 PM
Subject: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage


> Anyone have experience (positive and negative)
> with transporting a powderhorn in checked
> baggage?   It will surely fail a sniff test.
>
> Tom
>
>
> ----------------------
> 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, 27 May 2000 20:11:56 -0400
From: "Fred A. Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MtMan-List: "The Patriot"

The Patriot
http://www.spe.sony.com/movies/thepatriot/splash.html

A new period movie. Frank House made Mel Gibson's rifle.

Fred

- --
It said "Needs Windows 98 or better". So I installed Linux...

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 19:24:47 -0700
From: "Paul W. Jones" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage

I was not trying to be "flip" with my immediate response.  It is an express
violation to carry any nature of an explosive on a plane, whether by person
or in your luggage.  Even bullets, when someone is taking a firearm as
packed luggage, have to be specially marked.

Many of us have taken powder horns, but empty and as clean as the baby's
butt.

This is a very sensitive area, and to make a mistake would only be one more
example for our friends at the other end of the firearms spectrum, to use as
they agitate to have black powder and black powder firearms subject to even
more restriction.

Paul
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Paul W. Jones <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage


> Other than being an express violation of federal law, you should find no
> difficulty in this endeavor.  Unless caught.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tom roberts <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 3:32 PM
> Subject: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage
>
>
> > Anyone have experience (positive and negative)
> > with transporting a powderhorn in checked
> > baggage?   It will surely fail a sniff test.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > ----------------------
> > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
>
>
> ----------------------
> 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, 27 May 2000 17:56:34 -0700
From: Randal J Bublitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage

Tom, Whenever I travel by air, I ship UPS my firearm and powder horn.  I
send the items to whoever is picking me up, or will be at the event I'm
traveling to.  hardtack

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 23:04:23 -0400
From: tom roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage

Paul,

Thanks for your first reply, which was good for a laugh, and especially for
your second reply which had substance.    There's no question of
the foolishness of attempting to bring explosives on board an aircraft, checked
or otherwise. Please be sure I intend to empty it first, however, what I've
learned
about dog's noses is that even the residue in the pores of the wooden stopper
could be smelled.   I have continued to contact my chosen airline and I finally
connected with someone who recognized the term "smoothbore" and "flintlock".
They told me it would be no problem provided that I empty it, seal it in a
rubbermaid
(or equivalent) container, declare it, fill out some form, and be prepared to
show it to
an inspector.  Sounds like a long line with lot's of dialogue to me.   I sure
can't blame
them.

Tom


"Paul W. Jones" wrote:

> I was not trying to be "flip" with my immediate response.  It is an express
> violation to carry any nature of an explosive on a plane, whether by person
> or in your luggage.  Even bullets, when someone is taking a firearm as
> packed luggage, have to be specially marked.
>
> Many of us have taken powder horns, but empty and as clean as the baby's
> butt.
>
> This is a very sensitive area, and to make a mistake would only be one more
> example for our friends at the other end of the firearms spectrum, to use as
> they agitate to have black powder and black powder firearms subject to even
> more restriction.
>
> Paul
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul W. Jones <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage
>
> > Other than being an express violation of federal law, you should find no
> > difficulty in this endeavor.  Unless caught.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: tom roberts <[e-mail]>
> > To: <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 3:32 PM
> > Subject: MtMan-List: Powderhorn as airline baggage
> >
> >
> > > Anyone have experience (positive and negative)
> > > with transporting a powderhorn in checked
> > > baggage?   It will surely fail a sniff test.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------
> > > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
> >
> >
> > ----------------------
> > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
>
> ----------------------
> 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, 27 May 2000 22:17:26 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

Washtahay-
At 01:03 PM 5/27/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Apparently
>your interpretations of the report lead you to believe otherwise, which is
>certainly okay,
    Actually, I don't have enough information on which to base a sound opinion.

>although I don't understand why if you wouldn't be surprised
>that they were used at Astoria you find it so hard to believe that they were
>at Bents Fort especially considering the evidence which is at hand.
    Astoria received a vast quantity of iron stock, tools, and supplies via
ship--the schooner Tonquin.  I do realize a lot of stuff got to Bent's
Fort--the pool table, for example--but if anyone was going to have cast
iron at a fort I think it is likely that Astor would have sent it to
Astoria.  It was his namesake, after all.
    Astor filed a claim with congress for the equipment and stock at
Astoria--if cast iron cookware was there, it would probably be listed.
    Whether or not there was cast iron cookware at Bent's Fort prior to 1840
isn't a matter of "belief" to me.  The documentation we discussed
previously is not clear to me, and is apparently unclear to the National
Parks Service.  To quote from HBC's post of 3/1/00, regarding a
conversation with the curator at Bent's:
"...Ayway, to continue,
there were at least 22 layers of strata in the well backfill below the
rocky cap.  There were pieces of porcelain found within layer 22, which is
a BSV layer in the well backfill, and they are positively from BSV.  The
dutch oven fragments (and we know they were dutch ovens from the
configurations and descriptions in the report) found on the site were found
at subsurface levels within the well.  The question is whether they were
found above the 1860 cap or below."
    According to HBC, the curator was planning a study of the field notes to
see if mention was made of the layer in which the dutch oven fragments were
found.
LongWalker c. du B.


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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 22:18:28 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:59:45 -0500

Washtahay-
At 12:30 PM 5/27/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Everybody knows that the Dutch controlled the New York area cast iron
>industry at one time.
    Often, what "everybody knows" is wrong or irrelevant.  The item in
question was known as a "dutch oven" prior to the Dutch having much of an
interest in the iron business.  The term dates back even further, referring
to a ceramic container the form of which we would all recognize.  The
earliest foundry-related reference I have found refers to "dutche ovens of
iryn".

>I do not know what better documentation you could ask for
>than the documention of the artifacts located at Fort Union during the time
>of the rendezvous period of the American mountain men.
    How about written references?  Not opinion, not hearsay, but field notes
or photographs showing the fragments having been found in a layer
indicating that they were discarded prior to 1840, or were found in
association with artifacts used prior to that date but not after.  You
know, that unpleasant "science" question.
    I sent a letter (still unanswered) to Fort Union asking those questions
like "What evidence is there regarding the use of cast iron cooking vessels
at Fort Union prior to 1840?"
LongWalker c. du B.


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

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 21:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jerry & Barbara Zaslow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: The Great Dutch Oven Debate

Well looks like you guys want to get into the Dutch Oven authenticity stuff
again.  Maybe you should think about logic also.

I've said this before (and let me make it clear that this is ONLY my
opinion) but what would an average mountaineer have carried?  A Dutch Oven,
a brazier or any other kind of heavy shit like that?  Well if I were there
back then, that would be the last thing I would carry with me.  Sure some of
it was out there and available during the time period, but so was a
submarine, hot air balloon and a bunch of other stuff that would not be
appropriate in the mountains.

My view is, just because you can document something only proves it was
there, not that it was common.  I can document a lot of stuff that William
Drummond Stewart took to Rendezvous in 1837.  Does it mean if everyone wants
to have something at Rendezvous that he brought, which was uncommon, it
would be OK?  Only if you think it would be OK for half the people at
Rendezvous to portray Stewart.

I cook with stuff as simple as possible.  That means with sticks over the
fire, a small tin boiler and maybe a small folding steel frying pan.  I also
bring as little as possible.  I've learned that less is more and my horse
agrees.

Just my 2 cents.

Best Regards,

Jerry (Meriwether) Zaslow #1488
________________________________________________________________________________


>No Sir,
>
>The facts have already been established once and for all by the Fort Union
>Trading Post.  Cast iron artifacts of both types were present in the
>mountain man period.
>Walt
>Park City, Montana
>
>
>
>> You guys aren't really serious about starting round
>> two of the dutch oven debacle, are you???
>>
>> Tom
>
>
>
>----------------------
>hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html
>


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

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

End of hist_text-digest V1 #562
*******************************

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