A Modest Proposal:
Some Thoughts On The Authenticity
By Alan Gutchess
I am continually amazed by the fervor
that arises every time the word "authenticity" is
used, either in print or in conversation by reenactors. As more events and
individuals tighten their authenticity standards, there are many who are wielding
this word like a club and a few who use it as a shield, while most rest somewhere
in between. What is it about this word that provokes fear, anger, and self-righteous
indignation simultaneously? I believe that the number one cause among 18th
century reenactors, both individuals and units, is the endless variety of interpretations
of both the word, and the larger concepts that it represents. With this premise
in mind, let's examine authenticity and maybe find some definitions and interpretations
we can all live with.
According to the American Heritage
Dictionary, the root word, authentic, means, "Conforming
to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, or belief". Now on the
surface this seems pretty simple to grasp, to be authentic is to be factual,
and thus trustworthy, reliable, or believable. With this in mind, maybe the
real question should be "why does it matter?". Why should we strive
to fulfill this definition?
I believe the best answer to this
question lies in personal integrity and believing in the importance of the
truth. Usually when we think about the truth, we think of the written or
spoken word, but there is also visual truth. When we put on our "historic" garb
and present ourselves to our peers and the public, are we telling the visual
truth? If not, then we are indeed telling a lie. Often this visual lie is
followed by a verbal one, as we try to assure both ourselves and those around
us of the validity of our appearance. Most of us are attracted to this hobby
out of a love for history and a fascination with the lives of those who have
gone on before us. Don't we owe those very same people the minimum respect
of not lying about them, visually or verbally?
And what of lying to our peers,
the public, and ourselves? No one is served by a misrepresentation of the
past. History itself is fixed and immutable, but the perception of it is
always changing. Reenactors have the power to influence this perception,
for the better or for the worse. When we play with history in a disrespectful
manner, we defile both our collective ancestors and ourselves. If I claim
to be dressed for example, as an 18th century Indian warrior, but actually
come closer to, as George Irvin has sometimes expressed, "an
odd cross between Captain Caveman and Bozo the Clown", then have I not
done a great disservice to both those of the past and of the present?
How does one go about portraying
the past in an authentic way? There may be many possible answers to this.
The following proposed "rules" and
accompanying thoughts, while certainly not entirely of my own creation, I leave
here for the consideration of the reader. The first item to discuss is patience.
Rushing in to anything is the best way to do it poorly. The impulse to charge
ahead and buy or make things for a historical impression leaves many, when
confronted about authenticity, scrambling to somehow justify the form of an
object or even its existence. If the time is taken first for documentation,
then buying or making, there is no future clubbing in store, and authenticity
can become a shield.
Rule #1: Get the documentation first, buy, commission,
or make last.
This word, "documentation",
is also a confusing one for many, especially as it relates to authentic historic
recreations. Among some reenactors, sutlers and craftsmen, it is thrown around
with complete recklessness. Most definitions of this word revolve around
proof and evidence. It is easier to think of this concept of documenting
something if you imagine yourself much like the prosecutor in a court case.
It is your duty to convince an impartial jury of the validity of your claim
for an object, based on the weight of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Acceptable documentation can be derived from period accounts, period illustrations,
surviving period objects, and or from archeological evidence. By period I mean
not just to the 18th century, but the more specific era within this you are
representing, ideally no more than a 10 year time span, though under some circumstances
this can be expanded. The first stop should be a library. A search there will
reveal a myriad of books either on hand or available through inter-library
loan on your subject.
For this example we'll use the Eastern
American Indian, though the technique is the same regardless of the topic.
Don't bother with "historic novels",
even those listed as historic non-fiction, except to use their bibliographies
for leads. You want first hand accounts, such as diaries, journals, official
reports, and alike. The people you need to access are the traders, missionaries,
soldiers, Indian captives, travelers, and others who personally may have encountered
and described Indians during the 18th century, not their reinterpreted words
through a 20th century writer. It will take time to assemble, but find as many
descriptions as possible. Then a search through more generalized publications
on the Eastern American frontier, looking for paintings, engravings, and drawings
done during the 18th century, ideally from life. Then onto such things as museum
exhibit catalogs and publications, (maybe even the museum itself), books for
collectors, and auction catalogs, which will show surviving objects. Finally,
a search of archeological reports, detailing excavations of Indian towns, trading
posts, cabins, etc., occupied during the time period by your subject. A notebook
of all the relevant documentation must then be compiled by topic, either with
notes or photocopies. It should include author, title, page numbers, and source
for each reference.
Rule #2: Acceptable documentation should be derived solely
from primary sources.
As you assemble this information keep in mind the three part nature of the
documentation process. The first is finding that initial description, illustration,
or surviving example. But this first step only documents the existence of the
subject. What must be documented next is its commonality. The goal is to document
it several times from a variety of sources, and ideally from different types
of evidence. In other words, you cannot convict on a single shred of evidence.
What we want to document is a "pattern" of use, not the unique exception.
Without the commonality factor, it is possible to have all the individual pieces
of an impression be "documented", in the sense that they all existed
at their own time and place, yet still have the overall effect be false or
misleading. When we think of military reenactors, we know there are uniforms,
gear, and weapons that are all nearly identical from person to person in each
given unit. For non-military personnel, from Indians to missionaries and everything
in between, there may be no uniform, but still a certain uniformity exists.
Now of course there were individualists
then, who's personal appearance stepped outside the norm, but just as today,
they would have been the exception in the population, not the average. Most
people, regardless of time period, are captives of their culture, and subject
to the pressures of fashion, tradition, and conformity. If we all decide
to mimic the extreme edges of 18th century Indian fashion or individuality,
we give a false impression of everyday life. In 200 years, if we are being
reenacted, which would be a better source of documentation for the appearance
and personal adornment of the average American, home videos of families from
around the country, or clips of metal bands from MTV? There is still plenty
of room for individual expression within commonality, but when you can, dare
to be average!
Rule #3: Document for commonality.
Dare to be average!
The final stage is documenting for
appropriateness. This essentially means asking yourself, "is this object
something my character would reasonably have had access to physically or
financially?". At this point, remember
that although almost anything is possible, what you want to represent is what
is probable. An example for the test of appropriateness would be a Damascus
bladed knife carried by an 18th century reenactor. It could pass the first
two tests, as blades of this material can be documented to both exist and to
arguably have even been common, but where? After consulting period documents,
archeological reports, and several leading collectors of American and European
knives and swords, all were in agreement, there was no evidence of any in use
in America before the first quarter of the 19th century. Even if we could prove
a few were in colonial America, would your persona have the financial wherewithal
and the inherent status to afford an object that only the rich were likely
to possess? You may want to remind yourself that the goal is truth, not wishful
thinking.
Rule #4: Document for appropriateness.
This may be a good time to equally
clarify what is not acceptable documentation. Usually it goes something like
this, "I saw a person at the last reenactment
wearing one just like this", "Somebody who knows a lot about this
stuff told me this was correct", "The guy I bought it from told me
this was right", "It said in the catalog it was authentic", "I
saw a picture of one just like this in a book one time, but I can't find it
now", "I read a description of this in a book one time but I can't
remember where", "Of course I have documentation for this, but I
can't show it to you because...", "Trust me, I've been doing this
a long time", "Why, it's common knowledge they had ..."etc.
etc. etc. All of this falls into the category of "phantom" documentation.
Documentation that cannot be produced is hearsay. If our job is to document
beyond a reasonable doubt, hearsay, regardless of the source, is not generally
admissible as evidence.
Rule #5: Avoid all "phantom" documentation.
The ultimate responsibility for
the issue of documentation lies solely on you. Don't ask the harried sutlers
assistant whether that string of beads is appropriate for the F&I war. Don't ask the gunsmith with a mortgage payment
due at the end of the month whether that $3,000 rifle you have in your hands
is correct for your impression. Don't believe that 20th century author who
says, "Indian women always wore...". Don't believe the veteran reenactor
who tells you "all moccasins were made like this". Don't believe
them, unless of course, they can produce the documentation to back up what
they are saying.
Now don't misunderstand me, I'm
not saying any of these people is going to consciously lie to you. But often
their documentation may also be of the "phantom" variety.
Somebody told them that the string of beads, or that rifle, or that statement,
or that technique, was correct, and they pass it along in good faith, but it
still may not be the truth, in spite of a trail of good intentions. It may
take a little more time, but if you can educate yourself even a little about
the topic first, and expect, especially on more expensive purchases, the sutler
or craftsman to be able to produce real documentation, or at least steer you
to where it can be found. If they can't, educate yourself a lot more, so you
know before you purchase whether it is documented, or find someone to buy from
that can. With tongue partially in cheek...
Rule #6: Trust no one born after
1800.
Before going further, there are admittedly some items that will escape being
fully documented, but still may be acceptable. There is room for speculation,
but it needs to be done with logic and tact. Speculation can be used where
documentation is insufficient to give a clear picture. If you choose this path,
try to minimize both the speculation and its repercussions.
An example can be found in the appearance
of 18th c. Native American women. There is currently no documentation for
what kind of bags or pouches they may have carried personal items in. For
Native American men, illustrations and written descriptions give great detail
in the style of bags, size, and even contents, but for women, nothing. If
you portray a Native American woman, and you want or need a bag, unless more
documentation becomes available, you have two options, make do without, or
speculate. If you choose the latter, reasonable speculation might be to pick
a style of men's pouch that is documentable to your time and place, ideally
as small as can be practicable, and leave the replica undecorated. It should
then be carried in the least obtrusive and visible manner possible. Most
important, as with all objects of this type, if questioned about it, make
it clear that it is indeed speculative! Don't be responsible for the next "phantom".
Speculation is a last resort, where there is an acceptable substitute, try
to use it instead.
Rule #7: Avoid speculation if you
can, and where you must, minimize the effect.
After you have established a base
of acceptable documentation, the next step is to finally acquire the various
elements of your appearance. The next mistake often occurs here. There is
a common misconception about reenacting that usually is stated something
like this, "What a great hobby, I can make everything
myself". This notion is fostered and even promoted in some groups of reenactors.
Its source seems to lie in the false notion that our individual forbearers
equally made "everything" themselves. The premise is that if they
needed shoes, a gun, clothes, a powder horn, or any other necessity, they just
made them. This is simply not true for the vast majority of colonial Americans,
Red, White, or Black. Trades in the period were highly specialized affairs.
Even the Indians clearly had a large amount of specialization of labor. If
a person was not specifically trained in a particular craft or trade, attempting
to make their own axe, shirt, hunting pouch, or any other object, would have
been the rare exception, not the rule. It is fine that many of us have taken
time to be skilled in a particular area of historic replication, but too often
an individual becomes the proverbial "jack of all trades and master of
none". Don't lessen the validity of an otherwise good impression with
poor accessories of your own making.
Rule #8: Know the limitations of
your own skills and abilities.
For most of us it is best to find
a skilled craftsman and have them produce a documented object, or purchase
a documented object from a sutler. Whenever possible, try to buy items that
have been made with period techniques and materials. If this is not physically
or financially possible, choose a substitute that comes as close as possible,
or go without until one is attainable.
Rule #9: Whenever possible, obtain
objects produced with period techniques and materials.
If you are already fully decked
from head to toe, maybe it's time to sit down and reevaluate your appearance.
Can you document it, or are you just fooling yourself? This process of reevaluation
should be an ongoing one for all of us, and really should neither frighten
or intimidate. There is no shame in admitting errors and correcting them,
but I personally think there should be some shame in living with them in
denial. New documentation comes to light continuously, and as living historians
we should always be in search of it. Some of the saddest looking reenactors
today are the ones who ten years ago were on the cutting edge, but they stopped
searching and learning, and today stand firmly behind research that has now
been proven obsolete.
Rule #10: Be willing to periodically
reevaluate your appearance and make corrections accordingly.
If you take time to acquire real
documentation and then put it to use in your own appearance, what next? Make
it available to others! Have it published here or in other mediums, sell
it, or give it away, do anything but play "I've
got a secret". We all benefit as the standards of the hobby rise.
Rule
#11: Don't hoard documentation, make it available to others.
Isn't the pursuit of truth and honoring
those from the past that we are trying to emulate, reasons enough to both
strive for authenticity and to use all of the physical and financial resources
at hand to come as close as possible to grasping it? The quest for authenticity
can lead us to a more complete understanding and respect for both their lives,
and our own.
Rule #12: Have some serious fun!
©2000-2008 Alan
Gutchess. The above article is copywritten by Alan Gutchess and appears on this
web site with the kind permission of Alan Gutchess, and is not the property of
The Muzzleloading Forum.
Some Thoughts On The Authenticity
By Alan Gutchess
I am continually amazed by the fervor
that arises every time the word "authenticity" is
used, either in print or in conversation by reenactors. As more events and
individuals tighten their authenticity standards, there are many who are wielding
this word like a club and a few who use it as a shield, while most rest somewhere
in between. What is it about this word that provokes fear, anger, and self-righteous
indignation simultaneously? I believe that the number one cause among 18th
century reenactors, both individuals and units, is the endless variety of interpretations
of both the word, and the larger concepts that it represents. With this premise
in mind, let's examine authenticity and maybe find some definitions and interpretations
we can all live with.
According to the American Heritage
Dictionary, the root word, authentic, means, "Conforming
to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, or belief". Now on the
surface this seems pretty simple to grasp, to be authentic is to be factual,
and thus trustworthy, reliable, or believable. With this in mind, maybe the
real question should be "why does it matter?". Why should we strive
to fulfill this definition?
I believe the best answer to this
question lies in personal integrity and believing in the importance of the
truth. Usually when we think about the truth, we think of the written or
spoken word, but there is also visual truth. When we put on our "historic" garb
and present ourselves to our peers and the public, are we telling the visual
truth? If not, then we are indeed telling a lie. Often this visual lie is
followed by a verbal one, as we try to assure both ourselves and those around
us of the validity of our appearance. Most of us are attracted to this hobby
out of a love for history and a fascination with the lives of those who have
gone on before us. Don't we owe those very same people the minimum respect
of not lying about them, visually or verbally?
And what of lying to our peers,
the public, and ourselves? No one is served by a misrepresentation of the
past. History itself is fixed and immutable, but the perception of it is
always changing. Reenactors have the power to influence this perception,
for the better or for the worse. When we play with history in a disrespectful
manner, we defile both our collective ancestors and ourselves. If I claim
to be dressed for example, as an 18th century Indian warrior, but actually
come closer to, as George Irvin has sometimes expressed, "an
odd cross between Captain Caveman and Bozo the Clown", then have I not
done a great disservice to both those of the past and of the present?
How does one go about portraying
the past in an authentic way? There may be many possible answers to this.
The following proposed "rules" and
accompanying thoughts, while certainly not entirely of my own creation, I leave
here for the consideration of the reader. The first item to discuss is patience.
Rushing in to anything is the best way to do it poorly. The impulse to charge
ahead and buy or make things for a historical impression leaves many, when
confronted about authenticity, scrambling to somehow justify the form of an
object or even its existence. If the time is taken first for documentation,
then buying or making, there is no future clubbing in store, and authenticity
can become a shield.
Rule #1: Get the documentation first, buy, commission,
or make last.
This word, "documentation",
is also a confusing one for many, especially as it relates to authentic historic
recreations. Among some reenactors, sutlers and craftsmen, it is thrown around
with complete recklessness. Most definitions of this word revolve around
proof and evidence. It is easier to think of this concept of documenting
something if you imagine yourself much like the prosecutor in a court case.
It is your duty to convince an impartial jury of the validity of your claim
for an object, based on the weight of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Acceptable documentation can be derived from period accounts, period illustrations,
surviving period objects, and or from archeological evidence. By period I mean
not just to the 18th century, but the more specific era within this you are
representing, ideally no more than a 10 year time span, though under some circumstances
this can be expanded. The first stop should be a library. A search there will
reveal a myriad of books either on hand or available through inter-library
loan on your subject.
For this example we'll use the Eastern
American Indian, though the technique is the same regardless of the topic.
Don't bother with "historic novels",
even those listed as historic non-fiction, except to use their bibliographies
for leads. You want first hand accounts, such as diaries, journals, official
reports, and alike. The people you need to access are the traders, missionaries,
soldiers, Indian captives, travelers, and others who personally may have encountered
and described Indians during the 18th century, not their reinterpreted words
through a 20th century writer. It will take time to assemble, but find as many
descriptions as possible. Then a search through more generalized publications
on the Eastern American frontier, looking for paintings, engravings, and drawings
done during the 18th century, ideally from life. Then onto such things as museum
exhibit catalogs and publications, (maybe even the museum itself), books for
collectors, and auction catalogs, which will show surviving objects. Finally,
a search of archeological reports, detailing excavations of Indian towns, trading
posts, cabins, etc., occupied during the time period by your subject. A notebook
of all the relevant documentation must then be compiled by topic, either with
notes or photocopies. It should include author, title, page numbers, and source
for each reference.
Rule #2: Acceptable documentation should be derived solely
from primary sources.
As you assemble this information keep in mind the three part nature of the
documentation process. The first is finding that initial description, illustration,
or surviving example. But this first step only documents the existence of the
subject. What must be documented next is its commonality. The goal is to document
it several times from a variety of sources, and ideally from different types
of evidence. In other words, you cannot convict on a single shred of evidence.
What we want to document is a "pattern" of use, not the unique exception.
Without the commonality factor, it is possible to have all the individual pieces
of an impression be "documented", in the sense that they all existed
at their own time and place, yet still have the overall effect be false or
misleading. When we think of military reenactors, we know there are uniforms,
gear, and weapons that are all nearly identical from person to person in each
given unit. For non-military personnel, from Indians to missionaries and everything
in between, there may be no uniform, but still a certain uniformity exists.
Now of course there were individualists
then, who's personal appearance stepped outside the norm, but just as today,
they would have been the exception in the population, not the average. Most
people, regardless of time period, are captives of their culture, and subject
to the pressures of fashion, tradition, and conformity. If we all decide
to mimic the extreme edges of 18th century Indian fashion or individuality,
we give a false impression of everyday life. In 200 years, if we are being
reenacted, which would be a better source of documentation for the appearance
and personal adornment of the average American, home videos of families from
around the country, or clips of metal bands from MTV? There is still plenty
of room for individual expression within commonality, but when you can, dare
to be average!
Rule #3: Document for commonality.
Dare to be average!
The final stage is documenting for
appropriateness. This essentially means asking yourself, "is this object
something my character would reasonably have had access to physically or
financially?". At this point, remember
that although almost anything is possible, what you want to represent is what
is probable. An example for the test of appropriateness would be a Damascus
bladed knife carried by an 18th century reenactor. It could pass the first
two tests, as blades of this material can be documented to both exist and to
arguably have even been common, but where? After consulting period documents,
archeological reports, and several leading collectors of American and European
knives and swords, all were in agreement, there was no evidence of any in use
in America before the first quarter of the 19th century. Even if we could prove
a few were in colonial America, would your persona have the financial wherewithal
and the inherent status to afford an object that only the rich were likely
to possess? You may want to remind yourself that the goal is truth, not wishful
thinking.
Rule #4: Document for appropriateness.
This may be a good time to equally
clarify what is not acceptable documentation. Usually it goes something like
this, "I saw a person at the last reenactment
wearing one just like this", "Somebody who knows a lot about this
stuff told me this was correct", "The guy I bought it from told me
this was right", "It said in the catalog it was authentic", "I
saw a picture of one just like this in a book one time, but I can't find it
now", "I read a description of this in a book one time but I can't
remember where", "Of course I have documentation for this, but I
can't show it to you because...", "Trust me, I've been doing this
a long time", "Why, it's common knowledge they had ..."etc.
etc. etc. All of this falls into the category of "phantom" documentation.
Documentation that cannot be produced is hearsay. If our job is to document
beyond a reasonable doubt, hearsay, regardless of the source, is not generally
admissible as evidence.
Rule #5: Avoid all "phantom" documentation.
The ultimate responsibility for
the issue of documentation lies solely on you. Don't ask the harried sutlers
assistant whether that string of beads is appropriate for the F&I war. Don't ask the gunsmith with a mortgage payment
due at the end of the month whether that $3,000 rifle you have in your hands
is correct for your impression. Don't believe that 20th century author who
says, "Indian women always wore...". Don't believe the veteran reenactor
who tells you "all moccasins were made like this". Don't believe
them, unless of course, they can produce the documentation to back up what
they are saying.
Now don't misunderstand me, I'm
not saying any of these people is going to consciously lie to you. But often
their documentation may also be of the "phantom" variety.
Somebody told them that the string of beads, or that rifle, or that statement,
or that technique, was correct, and they pass it along in good faith, but it
still may not be the truth, in spite of a trail of good intentions. It may
take a little more time, but if you can educate yourself even a little about
the topic first, and expect, especially on more expensive purchases, the sutler
or craftsman to be able to produce real documentation, or at least steer you
to where it can be found. If they can't, educate yourself a lot more, so you
know before you purchase whether it is documented, or find someone to buy from
that can. With tongue partially in cheek...
Rule #6: Trust no one born after
1800.
Before going further, there are admittedly some items that will escape being
fully documented, but still may be acceptable. There is room for speculation,
but it needs to be done with logic and tact. Speculation can be used where
documentation is insufficient to give a clear picture. If you choose this path,
try to minimize both the speculation and its repercussions.
An example can be found in the appearance
of 18th c. Native American women. There is currently no documentation for
what kind of bags or pouches they may have carried personal items in. For
Native American men, illustrations and written descriptions give great detail
in the style of bags, size, and even contents, but for women, nothing. If
you portray a Native American woman, and you want or need a bag, unless more
documentation becomes available, you have two options, make do without, or
speculate. If you choose the latter, reasonable speculation might be to pick
a style of men's pouch that is documentable to your time and place, ideally
as small as can be practicable, and leave the replica undecorated. It should
then be carried in the least obtrusive and visible manner possible. Most
important, as with all objects of this type, if questioned about it, make
it clear that it is indeed speculative! Don't be responsible for the next "phantom".
Speculation is a last resort, where there is an acceptable substitute, try
to use it instead.
Rule #7: Avoid speculation if you
can, and where you must, minimize the effect.
After you have established a base
of acceptable documentation, the next step is to finally acquire the various
elements of your appearance. The next mistake often occurs here. There is
a common misconception about reenacting that usually is stated something
like this, "What a great hobby, I can make everything
myself". This notion is fostered and even promoted in some groups of reenactors.
Its source seems to lie in the false notion that our individual forbearers
equally made "everything" themselves. The premise is that if they
needed shoes, a gun, clothes, a powder horn, or any other necessity, they just
made them. This is simply not true for the vast majority of colonial Americans,
Red, White, or Black. Trades in the period were highly specialized affairs.
Even the Indians clearly had a large amount of specialization of labor. If
a person was not specifically trained in a particular craft or trade, attempting
to make their own axe, shirt, hunting pouch, or any other object, would have
been the rare exception, not the rule. It is fine that many of us have taken
time to be skilled in a particular area of historic replication, but too often
an individual becomes the proverbial "jack of all trades and master of
none". Don't lessen the validity of an otherwise good impression with
poor accessories of your own making.
Rule #8: Know the limitations of
your own skills and abilities.
For most of us it is best to find
a skilled craftsman and have them produce a documented object, or purchase
a documented object from a sutler. Whenever possible, try to buy items that
have been made with period techniques and materials. If this is not physically
or financially possible, choose a substitute that comes as close as possible,
or go without until one is attainable.
Rule #9: Whenever possible, obtain
objects produced with period techniques and materials.
If you are already fully decked
from head to toe, maybe it's time to sit down and reevaluate your appearance.
Can you document it, or are you just fooling yourself? This process of reevaluation
should be an ongoing one for all of us, and really should neither frighten
or intimidate. There is no shame in admitting errors and correcting them,
but I personally think there should be some shame in living with them in
denial. New documentation comes to light continuously, and as living historians
we should always be in search of it. Some of the saddest looking reenactors
today are the ones who ten years ago were on the cutting edge, but they stopped
searching and learning, and today stand firmly behind research that has now
been proven obsolete.
Rule #10: Be willing to periodically
reevaluate your appearance and make corrections accordingly.
If you take time to acquire real
documentation and then put it to use in your own appearance, what next? Make
it available to others! Have it published here or in other mediums, sell
it, or give it away, do anything but play "I've
got a secret". We all benefit as the standards of the hobby rise.
Rule
#11: Don't hoard documentation, make it available to others.
Isn't the pursuit of truth and honoring
those from the past that we are trying to emulate, reasons enough to both
strive for authenticity and to use all of the physical and financial resources
at hand to come as close as possible to grasping it? The quest for authenticity
can lead us to a more complete understanding and respect for both their lives,
and our own.
Rule #12: Have some serious fun!
©2000-2008 Alan
Gutchess. The above article is copywritten by Alan Gutchess and appears on this
web site with the kind permission of Alan Gutchess, and is not the property of
The Muzzleloading Forum.
