From: owner-hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com (hist_text-digest) To: hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: hist_text-digest V1 #476 Reply-To: hist_text Sender: owner-hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk hist_text-digest Saturday, February 26 2000 Volume 01 : Number 476 In this issue: -       Re: MtMan-List: kettle, was Dutch Ovens? -       Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens? -       MtMan-List: metal boat & arrow heads -       Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens? -       Re: MtMan-List: kettle, was Dutch Ovens? -       Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens? -       Re: MtMan-List: Cast iron pots/Miller print -       Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens? -       MtMan-List: Proof of Dutch ovens -       Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Oven Original Period Source !!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 23:58:41 -0800 From: "John C. Funk, Jr." 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 To: 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 > > > > ---------------------- > 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: bcunningham@gwe.net (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 To: hist_text@lists.xmission.com 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_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 > John T. Kramer, maker of: Kramer's Best Antique Improver >>>It makes wood wonderful<<< >>>As good as old!<<< mail to: - ---------------------- 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" 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 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!<<< mail to: =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 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 - ---------------------- 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" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Dutch Ovens? I knew this kind of bullshit would crop up. JD - ----- Original Message ----- From: John Kramer To: 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!<<< > > > > mail to: > > > ---------------------- > 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: SWcushing@aol.com 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" 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" 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: JONDMARINETTI@webtv.net (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 "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe hist_text-digest" in the body of the message.