Securing Corked Bottles 2. Another Way.

Cover the cork with a piece of cloth or light leather & tie around the neck of the bottle.

18th Century Tin Kettles.

“GYPSIES” by J. Harris, London 1788.

In a previous post on this blog you will find a list of Indian trade goods, and in that list it states: "Brass & tinn Kettles large & Small". But of course these sizes are relative. The large tin kettles are almost as big as a water pail, so the small tin kettles are simply small in comparison to a pail, but not necessarily small enough to carry in a knapsack.

There are modern tinsmiths selling small tin kettles which they say are "based" on examples found in museums. By this they mean they are made to look roughly the same as the example in the museum. They may not be made of the same material, and they are often not the same size or shape.

Extant Tin Kettle This Early Specimen was Recovered From a Well at Fortress Louisbourg Smaller Size : 6” Tall by 8 3/4” Wide 3 Panel Body Construction with Single Riveted Flat Ears for Attaching the BaleCapacity: 1 Gallon, 1 Pint c. 1719 - 1768(Fortress Louisbourg NHS, Parks Canada)

This tin kettle is dated 1719-1768, but note that it is wider than it is tall. 6 inches tall is fine, but it is almost 9 inches wide. 

Tin Kettles or Pails with Flat Rectangular Crimped Dog Ears Found at Fort Ligonier & Reconstructions of the Same As Pictured in Neuman and Kravic’s “Collector’s Encyclopedia of the American Revolution” Heights Excluding Bales and Ears: 9 1/4” and 7 1/4” (Fort Ligonier Collection).

These look basically the same as ones being sold now, but again, look at the sizes. In this instance the width is not mentioned and it can be difficult to judge the width by the depth.

A Small Post Revolution British Tin Kettle Round Double Riveted Tin Ears, Iron Bale, and Tin Cover Sporting an Iron Ring Handle Provenance : 1st Foot Guards c.1800-1810(Armémuseum, Stockholm Sweden)

A smaller tin kettle that we are more used to seeing, but look at the date, it is 19^th century.

Brass Sheet Metal Kettle, Likely FrenchFrom the Wreck of the Machault Sunk in the 1760 Battle of Restigouche in the Bay of Gaspé in Quebec Provincec. 1755 - 1760(Parks Canada)

So, if your period pre dates the American revolution, and you are looking for a small kettle to carry in your knapsack, I suggest you use one of the tin lined brass or copper kettles being offered by some of the present day traders.

A modern made tin lined brass cast trade kettle. Not the best example of what is available today, but it is closer than using the wrong size of tin kettle.

RECOVERING THE TINSMITH’S ART Tin artifacts are among the most fragile items from the site, but substantially perfect replicas can be copied from the scraps, using historic craft skills.

http://deldot.gov/archaeology/bloomsbury/pdf/19_recovering.pdf

If anyone finds any more primary documentation in regards to pre American Revolution tin kettle sizes & shapes, I would be very pleased to hear from you.

Keith.

Carrying Water in The 18th Century. Glass Bottles.

Carrying Water in The 18^th Century. Glass Bottles.

To date I have found no evidence that glass bottles or saddle flasks were ever carried in a leather harness. Leather, wooden & ceramic water bottles with built in loops for straps & cordage are well known, but not so glass bottles. This is not to say that no one ever attached cordage or leather to a glass bottle in order to carry it slung from the shoulder, only that no primary documentation of this has been found to date. 

Glass wine bottles are believed to have been reused as water bottles & for carrying vegetable oil, but I must assume that these were either carried in the hand, or they were carried in a pack such as a knapsack, haversack, snapsack or market wallet. The name “saddle flask” given to a certain type of flat sided glass bottle suggests that it was carried in saddle bags or packs.

Pennsylvania German wooden costrel with strap lugs.

Leather costrels with carry strap lugs dated 1730.

A ceramic water bottle with carry strap lugs, 1601-1700 ad.

18^th century wine bottle.

A 16^th century glass costrel covered in embossed leather. This one I would have expected to have leather carry strap lugs included, but no sign that I can see. Research continues on this one.

American 18^th century leather covered saddle flask.

18^th century saddle flask.

18^th century leather saddle flask with what appears to be a leather carry strap attached that has been folded & pushed into the spout.

One of two modern glass bottles the author covered in leather to replicate saddle flasks.

The author’s haversack that he may use to carry his two saddle flasks.

The author’s knapsack with his market wallet secured under the flap closure. A water bottle or flask could also be carried in this market wallet & one in the knapsack, but they would not be easily accessible on the trail.

The author’s snapsack. If the top were to be left untied, then this too would be a good way to carry water bottles or flasks.

Early American glass. The first factory in what is now the United States was a glass plant built at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1608. The venture failed within a year because of a famine that took the lives of many colonists. The Jamestown colonists tried glass making again in 1621, but an Indian attack in 1622 and the scarcity of workers ended this attempt in 1624. The industry was re-established in America in 1739, when Caspar Wistar built a glass making plant in what is now Salem County, New Jersey. This plant operated until 1780. http://www.texasglass.com/glass_facts/history_of_Glass.htm

http://historical-american-glass.com/hilltown-glass-works-bucks-county-pennsylvania-1751-1766.html

http://historical-american-glass.com/glass-house-whimseys-1750-to-1880.html

http://historical-american-glass.com/wistarburgh-glass.html

Equipment, Comfort and Weight. Historical Trekking and Survival.

Equipment, Comfort and Weight.

Historical Trekking and Survival.

Choosing the equipment you need to match your persona takes time and research. It has to be within your period, or earlier. Any items out of character need a good story to back up its use. Then on top of all this, you have the need to keep it as light as you can. But within these factors is the function of survival. So the items you choose for Historical Trekking, must be practicle, useful.

How much did an 18^th century woodsrunner carry in the woods? Well if he was just hunting close to home, very little except possibly a belt pouch and a shot pouch. But longer journeys taking them further from home would require more equipment and probably some trail foods. Some I have no doubt carried very little, perhaps a blanket and some food in a haversack. These woodsrunners chanced to luck that nothing would befall them, and that they would be able to find plenty of game to keep them alive. Bread could be made from flour and water, mixed right in the flour bag. Meat could be skewered on a pointed stick and cooked in front of the fire.

For the woodsrunner who chose to travel light, survival was a gamble. If they should get sick, or wounded in some way, with no simple medical supplies their lives were at risk. With no kettle to boil water, no cloth strips to cover a wound. No water canteen and perhaps no water nearby. In wet and cold weather they had only their blanket to keep them reasonably dry. Making a fire would be important, and I doubt any would travel anywhere without flint, steel and tinderbox. Would they have carried fishing tackle in their belt pouch? Some would, some would not.

Whilst researching we may come across period accounts mentioning various items a particular person may have carried, Daniel Boone for instance once stated in his journal “leaving me by myself, without bread, salt or sugar”. So from this comment we can assume that Boone carried bread and or flour, and also salt and sugar. Salt I carry, sugar never. I don’t take sugar with anything, and from experience, I know that sugar carried in a wilderness pack is likely to attract ants when in camp. But obviously Boone thought sugar to be an important item, which brings us to the subject of “comfort”.

Most of what I carry in my pack can be said to be comfort items. Those of you that like me live in the woods, will have much the same skills that I have. We know that should we lose all our equipment whilst away from home, that we can survive, it just won’t be comfortable. Experience is our guide, and it may direct us to carry some items that others would not carry. Having had my gun fail me many years ago, I now carry tools and spare lock parts just in case it should ever happen again. But as I get older, I am aware of more physical limitations, old wounds come to plague me and the weight of my pack slows me down. I can use my Flintlock Fusil even if the lock should break, so I am considering removing these tools and spare parts from my pack to lighten my load.

The transition from English born country boy to New World woodsrunner has been a long one. As I gained experience, my pack became lighter in some areas, and heavier in others. Eventually I got to the stage in my elder years where I considered I had achieved the right choice of equipment, a compromise between minimum weight, and maximum self-reliance. Now though with more skills under my belt, and a body that can no longer take the punishment it used to, I am having to lighten my load even further. I will have to abandon the method of “what if” in lightening my load, or I will end up putting it all back in my pack again. I must now gamble that I will never need those items that made me feel more secure in my travels.
But comfort in my latter years is something that I will not completely abandon. I will still carry my oilcloth for use as a shelter, tea I will brew in my tin cup instead of carrying a kettle. With the brass kettle gone, plus the gun tools and spare lock parts; that may be enough. I must wait and see. But if ever I should have to move from this place with my family, then survival and security must take precedent over the perceived ability to carry a heavier load again, and I must do the best I can and carry my share.

Take care out there.

Keith.

Snapsack or Havresac? More Research.

Snapsack or Havresac? More Research.

I thought I had it all worked out, I thought I knew the difference between a haversack & a snapsack, but take a close look at the image below, & you will se the word havresac written on what we have come to know as a snapsack or sausage bag.

Another name for a Haversack is scrip, but now I have to wonder if the term “scrip” was originally used for the sausage bag. It also seems that there is more than one type of snapsack, the other being a bag which attaches at the waist on a person’s side but is much larger than a pouch. See the image below.

The term “Havresac Double” also appears on this back pack from Diderot. See below.

So could the bag below also be a Double Havresac?

This pack below also appears to have the same strap attachment at the top, but, the lower strap seems to simply go round the pack & is not attached. If this is the case then this should probably be correctly termed as a "Pack".

This image below is my Haversack, but I am now thinking that this version is a later version. If the terms "snapsack" and "haversack" are interchangeable, then this would make more sense.

The term haversac or habersac or haversack go way back before the 16th century, and refer to a bag that carried horse feed. Later it was to carry food for people. But I had always assumed that this term applied to the bag shown above. But if in fact it refered to the sausage bag, or what we now call a snapsack, then it would lend more credence to what someone recently called "a double snapsack". Could this also refer to information stating that haversacks were sometimes altered to be used as a knapsack?

This could get or has now got slightly confusing, because some historians think that the term knapsack developed from the term snapsack. Clearly the knapsack as we know it, is different from the sausage bag, but then when you look at Diderot's sketch of a double haversack (below) compared with my knapsack (below), you can see the similarities.

So in conclusion, perhaps we should stop using the term snapsack, & start using the term haversack for both single & double strap types, making sure to call the double strap version a double. It may be difficult to determine when the actual change in shape took place, because clearly the rectangle and square types of haversack were in use earlier than the mid 18th century, and were perhaps at that time referred to as a "scrip". Time, place and language obviously play their part in the history of these bags, so perhaps we should not concern ourselves too much with which is which, rather than accept the fact that all were used in the early to mid 18th century.
Keith.

Ferdinand Kobell, travellers with a knapsack 18th century.

François Boucher  1753.

Jacques Callot, Beggar  1648.

1672-1708 BEAR LEADER

Beggar-on-his-crutches-from-behind-Jacques Callot 17thc

Further Reading: The 17th Century Snapsack By Al Saguto. PDF.
http://webpages.charter.net/apples/costume/snapsack-Saguto.pdf

 

What To Carry and Reasons Not To.

What to Carry and Reasons Not To.

Time and time again throughout history we read about a common person who neglected to carry one piece of equipment or another and how they managed to survive without it. In most cases this survival was touch and go. The ones that did not survive were not able to tell their tale. All the reading and research I have done over the years has lead me to several conclusions, one of those is that the average common woodsrunner was not a very smart person. So maybe we should not be trying to emulate the average woodsrunner, perhaps we would be better off learning from our own experiences and just be ourselves.

Now I know I have mentioned this incident before, but the reason I use it is because it is so typical and yet surprising at the same time. I am referring to the time when Gist and Washington were travelling together in winter with only one blunt hatchet between them. With this blunt hatchet they cut enough timber to make a raft so they could cross the Allegheny River. By all accounts they got the job done, but can you imagine how hard the work would have been? This incident poses several questions for me, one, why was this hatchet blunt? The easy answer to this question is surely that gist was not carrying a whet stone. So then I ask myself why he was not carrying a whet stone. The answer to this one has to be because he did not want to carry the extra weight. Can we assume that he intended to use a creek stone for sharpening? Maybe so, but he didn't did he! So his work was made all that much more difficult.

Washington's Crossing (Allegheny River)

Frankly it does not really matter what the reasons are for not carrying a particular item, it is up to us to review each item and make up our own minds as to what is needed and what is not. If not carrying something means that you intend to make it when you need it, then consider this; making an item will cost you time, and once you have gone to the time and trouble to make this item, be it a bone needle or a bone awl, or a whet stone etc, are you likely to discard this item after making it? If your answer is no, then you may just as well equip yourself with this item in the first place and save yourself the time and trouble of making one.

Some packs are going to be heavier than you would have liked, but you have to compromise between maximum self-reliance, and minimum weight. Think about your trekking scenario, you may only be trekking to the bottom of your back yard, but how far would you really be travelling if this trek were real? How long are you likely to be away? Have you taken into consideration that things may not go as planned and you could be away for a lot longer?

To me, my equipment is very basic. I have lived an 18^th century lifestyle for over 20 years, & used this same type of equipment for over 30 years. Yes I have questioned the 20 LBS of weight in and tied onto my knapsack many times, but each time I have reviewed my knapsack contents critically, I end up putting it all back in again. Probably the heaviest piece of equipment in my knapsack is my brass trade kettle. Now obviously I know that I can make do without this item, I can roast meat, and I could use my tin cup to boil water, but making stews would not amount to much, I could not boil much water to replenish my canteen, I could not catch as much rain water in my cup as I can in the kettle. So the kettle stays in my pack.

The heaviest item on my knapsack is probably my blanket roll, but there is only one blanket, and in winter I consider this a necessity. Think realistically. There will be nights when it is not safe to make a fire, how will this affect you? You will have to rely on what you carry to keep you warm, if not warm then at least alive! You will have to be content with eating foods that do not require cooking; you will be drinking water and not tea. If you have to leave camp quickly in the night, will your gear allow you to do that without leaving items behind? Leaving items behind is a sure way to let people know you have been there. This is the problem with carrying your gear in a blanket roll instead of a bag. In order to use the blanket, you have to take out all your gear. For a similar reason I no longer roll my blanket up in my oilcloth, because if it rains on the trail, I would have to untie my blanket roll from my pack and all the time getting wet. As it is, I simply grab the oilcloth & throw it over me and my equipment and sit it out. Or I can make a quick shelter.

I hope this short article will give you something to think about, we are all individuals, and therefore have our own needs and ideas of what should be carried and what should not. Experience is a great teacher, so get out there and test yourself and your equipment and set yourself a realistic scenario whether you are in your back yard or out in the woods for an overnighter. Think about how it would really be like.

Keith.

The Knapsack and Knife of TwoTongues.

Two Tongues is a member of our group, and he has kindly given me permission to show the knapsack and knife that he has made recently.

Showing three deer antler buttons securing the flap closure. Some neat work, and it looks just like I would expect a self-made knapsack to look like.

A great looking knife, good blade shape for skinning and butchering. TwoTongues tells me that this is an Abanaki design knife.

These images and the short posting are also available at:

http://eighteenthcenturylivinghistory.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=828

Thank you Two Tongues.

Keith.