|
Post by paranger on Mar 30, 2024 13:03:37 GMT -7
Para, I think you're close to the mark.
18th century castings were three piece molds, two on each side and the bottom was similar to a bowl. The castings lines on the sides go past the spot where a two-sided mold would meet at the bottom. Note that the lines on the two sides are parallel to and don't line up or connect with the "casting gate" on the bottom, which they would do if this was a two-sided casting.
What I suspect is going on with this one, a mold of another pot was made as a model for this one. The first pot was a two piece casting. A mold was made from it and the new mold was not cleaned up with the side marks completely removed, and a "casting sprue" mark added to the new mold to make the cauldron look older than it really is. The actual casting for this may have been from the rim down. The legs or feet look a little rough compared to the exterior elsewhere on the pot, and there doesn't appear to be any trace of internal casting seams along the rim or inside the bowl.
I could be wrong on how this was made but that's my gut take on this one.
Makes perfect sense - well reasoned, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by straekat on Apr 12, 2024 9:35:00 GMT -7
Cauldrons have several features that make it possible to give them a tentative date and place of manufacture. The same thing is not easy to say about "kettles"...not the hot water tea making type the word brings to mind in modern usage. Period kettles are straight sided, with large openings suggesting these are used for cooking or working on bulky items. They may be small, or quite large.
The three-legged version with a bail to hang over a fire looks very similar throughout the 18-19th century, with two ears on opposite sides of the rim, and for the feet, their shape and location on the bottom of the kettles.
The example here has legs that are relatively straight, under the pot, with d-shaped ends. The ears are integrally cast with the body of the pot. This one may date to the last half of the 18th century, or very early 19th. Later examples may have splayed legs and smaller or more rounded ends of the feet.
As an aside, collectors usually pass these by. They are relatively common and modestly priced compared to cauldrons. For reenactors/living historians and others, they are easy to find, easy on the wallet, and are also period-correct.
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Apr 12, 2024 19:44:03 GMT -7
So cauldron = round sides and, kettle = straight sides. Correct? Other than "bulky items" (laundry maybe?) in a kettle, we're they generally used for the same purposes? Was there an advantage to the cauldron for any uses?
|
|
|
Post by straekat on Apr 13, 2024 3:41:49 GMT -7
So cauldron = round sides and, kettle = straight sides. Correct? Other than "bulky items" (laundry maybe?) in a kettle, we're they generally used for the same purposes? Was there an advantage to the cauldron for any uses?
Good questions and what the differences are may be how the user thinks of the two items. If you ever collected coins, stamps or other items at one time, "typology" or seeing form and function differences becomes part of the way items are categorized by collectors or people who originally used the stuff.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest form and function are part of why tools or things that seem similar may have different names.
Browning meat is easier in a cooking vessel that has a wide mouth and relatively flat bottom compared to a small mouth rounded pot. Small kettles and cauldrons can be used for similar cooking methods (soups and stews), but large cauldrons were used for more than laundry and included processing fully grown pigs, making large amounts of apple butter, etc.
A rounded cauldron with it's smaller opening might be good for making soups/stews, and better shaped to cut down on splashes when stirring or adding items to the mix. The downside to a cauldron would be cleaning up the insides after making a thick porridge that burned or stuck to the inside surface.
Trade kettles made from sheet copper and tin are almost always made with flat sides and wider mouths. So far, I haven't run across any references to sheet metal copper or tin cauldrons in North America, although sheet metal ones are known from the archaeological and ethnographic record elsewhere in the world.
|
|
|
Post by straekat on Apr 13, 2024 3:53:06 GMT -7
Brass, bronze and copper cooking vessels were made and used in both Europe and North America. Now that I've posted an example of an early iron kettle, here's an unfinished bronze one that came out of central Ohio. When and where it was made aren't known. It has three legs, and as such, is different from the mid and late 19th century brass apple butter buckets.
It was cast and has a large round sprue on the bottom, not the large gate mark usually seen on 19th century ironware.
|
|
|
Post by straekat on Apr 13, 2024 4:04:15 GMT -7
Nock, you asked about the advantage of a cauldron vs kettle.
Removing intact baked items from a cauldron would be very difficult, but not in a straight sided vessel with a wide mouth.
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Apr 13, 2024 4:18:43 GMT -7
Thank you. I am a bit confused and hoping is just a typo, or maybe I just haven't had enough coffee yet... The highlighted statements seem opposed to eachother. Based on the narrower mouth of the rounded cauldron, I thought a kettle would be better for, "processing a fully grown pig," and other such tasks. By the way,,, the pig example is fantastic, something I'm sure a lot of people don't think about. Which begs the question, when does our large straight sided kettle become a vat?
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Apr 13, 2024 4:25:38 GMT -7
Nock, you asked about the advantage of a cauldron vs kettle.
Removing intact baked items from a cauldron would be very difficult, but not in a straight sided vessel with a wide mouth.
Well you did also mention the advantage of a cauldron of reducing splash when adding things to hot liquid, something I certainly never thought of. Makes me wonder about maybe using one for deep frying to reduce splatter... Deep frying and when it became "a thing" being another subject.
|
|