Trekking Skillet??

[necchi]

Insult? Man you got thin skin.
Well what do you want?
I'm not going to spend hours searching the web or digging through my library finding, scanning, copying another source of provenance to have handy at your finger tips to review and critique,
I'm not going to do work for you.

If you think rebutting a source someone provides isn't an insult after he's done the work for you and are just,,
Problem is you just want to have someone to argue with. You want to simply dis-prove everyone making yourself the only true source, I've seen this now for years BlackHand.
And my butt wiping point only upsets you because it proves the point of documentation.

 

[Black Hand]

Isn't this the whole point of research? Taking what you know and comparing it to what someone else knows to get a more complete picture?

I was not insulted by what you wrote, just dissappointed you felt you needed to go there to "win".

To paraphrase a e-mail signature I saw:
Without documentation, all you have is an opinion...

 

[Black Hand]

And my butt wiping point only upsets you because it proves the point of documentation.

http://encyclopedia.toiletpaperworld.com/toilet-paper-history/history-of-toilet-paper http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-06-01/news/36827939_1_toilet-paper-joseph-gayetty-scott http://www.toiletpaperhistory.net/
1675 - http://books.google.com/books?id=8...a=X&ei=O6l6UdbpNdDpigL874DYDw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA

1733 - http://books.google.com/books?id=m...d=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=wiping arse&f=false

1671 - http://books.google.com/books?id=D...d=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=wiping arse&f=false

 

[necchi]

You have received "documentation",
You refuse to accept it.
I can't fix that.

Your the documentation hound, but only your documentation counts,

I tried to explain to you that there are several different studies. My interest is not "Mountain man". There are no mountains in Minnesota, yet the "fur trade" existed long before the white man even set foot in the Rocky Mountains.

Both sources of documentation set forth here for you of "fry pans" are from HBC clerks, yet you change the word to "skillet" and question it's use in RMFT, :youcrazy:

You only accept valid sources if they suit you, in your application. And spend a lot of time telling others their sources aren't valid.

 

[necchi]

And my butt wiping point only upsets you because it proves the point of documentation.

http://encyclopedia.toiletpaperworld.com/toilet-paper-history/history-of-toilet-paper http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-06-01/news/36827939_1_toilet-paper-joseph-gayetty-scott http://www.toiletpaperhistory.net/
1675 - http://books.google.com/books?id=8...a=X&ei=O6l6UdbpNdDpigL874DYDw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA

1733 - http://books.google.com/books?id=m...d=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=wiping arse&f=false

1671 - http://books.google.com/books?id=D...AEwAw#v=onepage&q=wiping arse&f=false[/quote]
Your sources don't show they used this practice in the fur trade, as a matter of fact a few are actually in the form of foreign language and very likely European,
Just because Romans used sponges doesn't mean it was done in the specific time period and area of the Fur trade.
(*this is your logic, not mine)

 

[Rod Lassey]

I thought the topic was folding handle skillet/frying pans? At least that's the way it was started?

If you'll notice, Blackhand did NOT say that frying pans weren't used, just that person/era/area needs to be taken into consideration when making the decision to carry one. Voyageurs did indeed carry large communal frying pans, especially into the mid-1800s. The paintings of Frances Hopkins are particularly good for documenting this. Big, long-handled things (like handles 2 1/2+ feet long, see the originals in the Museum of the Fur Trade, or the Museum of Man in Winnipeg---I've been to both to research this stuff)---not little folding handled "trekking" pans.

Smaller pans did indeed exist---again, time, place, person. I've got one myself that I sometimes use---it was one of those infamous folders, I ground the rivets off, forged up a plain handle, and riveted it back on. And yes, this is in a western fur trade context. You milage may vary, I used a quote from William Drummond Stewart to help document mine, obviously you must use what would be appropriate to your era/area.

Which brings us to your constant harping on "going back to the RMFT". It may interest you to know that Blackhand doesn't 'do' Rocky Mountain Fur Trade, his interests are earlier and further east. I, on the other hand, have as my primary interest and field of study the fur trade of the west, particularly the Upper Missouri and Rocky Mountains. That does not preclude me from studying ALL aspects of the fur trade, however, it all holds my interest. I find your comments about the RMFT to be somewhat pejorative and mildly insulting--as if this aspect of the fur trade requires less research or diligence?

As for providing documentation, that's what I hopefully have been doing---and I don't mind looking up references and sharing them with others. Mind you, I farm and ranch for a living, so it might take me a bit of time, but I find digging for this stuff to actually be fun. One of the great things about having a microfilm reader in my basement is I can get access to some fascinating records that others can't.

Rod

 

[necchi]

Your right it is about a folding skillet, but someone decided to challenge a source and move it forward.

I find your comments about the RMFT to be somewhat pejorative and mildly insulting--as if this aspect of the fur trade requires less research or diligence?

I'm not concerned how you find it.
The RMFT actually takes a lot of research because there is less written about it and they're still finding stuff.
But not everyone's focus is on that period.
My point is some of the folks we have on this forum seem to spend more time deriding others sources as not enough or even good enough because it doesn't suit their personal belief or preconceived notion whether actual derived or romantic of a time period that they want,,

I've seen it time and again. This documentation thing is important of course, I'm not trying to belittle it at all.
But the attitude of ;
"I found this,,, and it overrides your source"
or
" Your single source isn't enough"

Or flat out your source can't be quantified because it's not in a commonly available book or internet web page.
History Professors have been selectively morphing data for more than a century and their actual sources are buried in University and State Historical Libraries where they can't even be viewed without special permissions,,
We are left to deal with what we can find.
If someone want's to simply say they don't respect a source,, that doesn't automatically make them right and the source wrong.

And the typical reponse is just like your;
"well, Uhm, I guess so,, But,but only in that one place at that one time, with that one person,,

As if only one folding handle fry pan was ever made in the entire history of man kind and it just happened to be mentioned just once by one person as jotted down in a log or memoir.

You've got a source of where Fry Pans where made.
You've got two sources of Fry pans being used and carried and one is of a folding handle fry pan.
Again, I'd ask what more do you want? But it's moot,
There will not be enough to change someone's mind if they don't want it changed.

 

[atki]

This is an interesting read. Kinda like reading a tv script for a reality show: the history buffs of New York.

WB

 

[Black Hand]

Sir (Necchi),
It is very odd, I don't remember saying that you MUST live by my standards. I made it fairly clear that for ME, one source of documentation was not enough.

You appear to have taken this statement as a personal attack and decided you were going to "teach me a lesson". Frankly, I truly don't care what you think you know about me, as in the general scheme of things, your OPINION of me is insignificant.

As you discerned, FACTS & DOCUMENTATION are important to me. However, if you are going to put forth an opinion with no apparent support, you will be asked back it up.

That said, let us continue the discussion on frying pans, as there is much for us to learn.

 

[necchi]

:v
Take it a little easy on the new guys, they may not be used to curmudgeons. :wink:

 

[Trench]

Here's my trekking skillet:

Okay, yes, just joking. :grin: However, I do lug this original 11 lbs beast to certain sites that I frequent with a friend.

 

[Black Hand]

My first few trips, I carried a 6 1/2" Wagners cast iron skillet. Heavy, but it made really nice cornmeal cakes. My light sheet-steel skillet doesn't work quite as well for cornmeal cakes, but cooks bacon and cornmeal mush just fine.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

:surrender: TIME OUT GUYS :surrender:

OK the thread was about carrying a skillet or aka a frying pan, a small one, and because I was talking about a carbon steel one, a light one. The question was how many folks in our community carry one (implying that if one doesn't one uses something else like a trade kettle). Skillets did exists, both as skillet or with legs and sometimes called a spider. I have found that when packing a skillet the handle causes packing problems...

So..., The second part of my thread was modifying the skillet (maybe) to have a folding handle. I was thinking more of something historically inspired, for they did have bolts and wing nuts, and I was thinking using such. If I was going to use something documentary, I'd have to use a hinged handle.

I wasn't sure about the hinged style folding skillets currently sold, as being all that correct either..., and they cost a pretty penny too. Some folks pointed out that a hinged skillet was used by Romans..., whether it existed since then or was re-invented after 1800 is a good question.

The folding question was for two reasons. One easier packing, and two, I have a large cast iron pot, rather thin sided so not too heavy, and I am experimenting on using it also as a dutch-oven. I have no lid, and a larger version of one of the carbon steel skillets works great as a lid, but for safety I was thinking a skillet of hot coals setting on top of an iron pot with this metal handle sticking out might be a bad idea... hence the folding question.

It IS well documented that some pots in Europe had detachable handles..., and that is another way to go, if I went that way at all.

OK so much for that....,

Now as to documentation, we get into problems when we use words that are absolutes. Never, always, didn't, couldn't, impossible and others, gets one into trouble. For when one asserts something "didn't exist" then all that is needed to refute that assertion is one example, and it doesn't have to be an extant example. One does not need to have an original artifact when there is an illustration in Diderot, or a painting done in the time period. (Ver Meer has a great many paintings showing material items of his period btw)

Black Hand, though, does have a point. There is question of commonality. For some folks the fact that Sir John, Barron of Doe, had a piece of gear is good enough that anybody can have such, even when playing the part of a dirt farmer. For others, they need more than the single example, and it needs to show different levels of economic status too. Would the illiterate market hunter carry an elaborate nautical compass and sundial ?

A prime example in the military reenactment realm is the use of lanterns. They had candles, they had lanterns..., it's all well documented as far as the items are concerned, but the documentation of privates using candle lanterns shows they used them on a very few number of sentry posts, in a very limited manner. Otherwise, no. Military reenactment camps full of candle lanterns is simply not correct. But the alternative is a bunch of near sighted old guys, some in their cups, falling down and getting injured when trying to find their tents at night...., so the items are allowed.

So folding handled skillets are pretty rare, as far as we know, and they are therefore probably overused, based on what we have so far, and folks wanting to pack a skillet and at the same time be very close to historically correct, should pack one with a solid handle, if they pack one at all.

LD

 

[Rod Lassey]

Exactly the point I was trying to make, LD. Often, it's not necessarily whether an item was around at any given time period, but whether it was in use by a particular group of people, or even available to them.

I know I've mentioned it before, but I've always liked Rex Norman's notation about availibilty----just because steam locomotives were available during the 1830s doesn't mean they should be at a fur trade rendezvous. Granted that's an extreme example, but the point he was making was that we should always ask ourselves what would be appropriate for our chosen eras/areas/personas.

The candle analogy is a good one. I also am involved in 1860s-70s Indian Wars military era. As I recall, the amount of candles issued per company per month works out to be about 3 candles per night [any sort of oil lamps were forbidden throughout the 1870s]. The camp or barracks would be pretty dark with that amount, so admittedly we fudge on those numbers a bit.

Rod

 

[Loyalist Dave]

The numbers are even lower in the 18th century, and oil lamps and rush lights being more common, especially the rush lights with the lower income folks, BUT..., oil lamps and rush lights are a bit less safe than a candle in a tin lantern..., historic sites like Colonial Williamsburg can't have guest going up in flames. "Looks bad in the newspapers and upsets civilians at their breakfast." (to coin a phrase)

LD

 

[Rod Lassey]

:haha: :haha:

Too true! Grease lamps were common in the 1870s army, especially in the kitchen where the grease was located and very early mornings were required. When we furnished the reconstructed barracks at Ft. Buford, we put grease lamps in the kitchen, but have never used them. An unenclosed flame would give the officials of the State Historical Society down in Bismarck an apoplectic fit!

Rod