Keith
City-dweller
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 990
|
Post by Keith on Nov 1, 2019 16:46:21 GMT -7
Frankly I have never found a need/use for a skillet in the woods, a cook kettle yes, but not a skillet. Meat I usually roast on the end of a pointy stick in front of the fire, it is easy & simple & no special tools required. The kettle gets used a lot, for boiling water for a hot drink or just boiling water to make sure it is safe to drink. I can cook stews in the kettle which is handy if I am not travelling alone. I always carry some foods that do not require cooking, as at times it may not be safe to light a fire. If I want to carry sausage with me, that to can be put on the end of a stick in front of the fire. Baked potatoes go in the hot ashes, bread & biscuit cooked on a hot rock.
Being period correct means being correct for your persona in your chosen period, but I think one has to use some common sense when it comes to carrying various equipment. I am a woodsman, I like to travel light & simple. I see no point in carrying extra weight/bulk when there is no need. I have priorities when it comes to what I carry, priorities based on past experiences. My equipment & supplies never change in my pack, except for food types, but even my food choices remain pretty much the same. I know, it sounds boring, mundane, plain, but that is what it was like for the most part. Some carried bar soap, others did not. Bar soap may have been seen as a luxury, but that bar of soap was perhaps the only luxury.
For me it comes down to when I am travelling alone, which is of most use to me, a skillet or a kettle, because I am definitely not going to be carrying both. History supports this, kettles were widely used by whites & Indians, but rarely have I ever come across a mention of a skillet other than as a household item. Keith.
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 1, 2019 17:22:21 GMT -7
Exactly, Keith. I do very much the same. Venison or chicken roasted on a stick, rabbits or squirrels boiled in a kettle, corn pone cooked on a hot rock or in the ashes, bread baked on a stick, loaf bread brought from home, occasionally sweet or white potatoes bakes in the ashes, apples or other fruit as is, foraged foods whenever possible, rockahominy in case nothing else works, tea or coffee made in the kettle...I find the food plain, simple, sustaining, correct and satisfying. My decision not to carry the folding handle skillet was not because of HC/Pc concerns but simply because a skillet of any kind didn't fit into my practices in the field.
Spence
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Nov 1, 2019 18:19:08 GMT -7
Bacon is period, I like bacon and thus carry a small sheet-steel skillet I made (the kettle is for stew and coffee). Bacon in/with cornmeal is breakfast...
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 1, 2019 21:44:08 GMT -7
Nothing wrong with that, then or now. It's a treat, no matter how it's used.
It's true that bacon is period correct, and the term frequently shows up in the early writings, but the bacon we are familiar with and so fond of now was frequently not what the old boys meant when they said bacon. Although it was apparently always a term for salt-cured pork, the part of the pig used evolved over a period of centuries. It was from the buttock for a while, then the back, then the shoulder. Best I can find, the bacon made from the side of a pig, or pork belly, what the English call streaky bacon, first developed after the middle of the 18th century. Also, the curing process changed with time, country, locality and processor, usually the family. Over the ages it was salted and dried and smoked in a multitude of combinations, still is today.
So, when we see the term bacon in the old literature, it may well have been what we would today call ham, for instance.
Spence
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Nov 2, 2019 16:33:21 GMT -7
It really doesn't matter what part of the pig, I'm all for it. Honestly speaking, if I would have to choose one meat to eat for the rest of my life, it would be pork. So many tastes, textures and possibilities for one creature...
|
|
|
Post by Sicilianhunter on Nov 3, 2019 7:31:50 GMT -7
I recently purchased a mess kit from Early American tin Lighting. www.earlyamericantin.com/reenactmenttinware.html The set consists of a kettle, cup and lid that has enough of an edge around the circumference to act as a plate or serve as a frying pan sans handle. I must agree with Black Hand on the bacon affection, I have a side I cured cut into 2 pieces hanging in the garage that need one more week in the eaves before they are done. I used this as a video tutorial : www.youtube.com/watch?v=esjrQWDoxmM&t=25s should anyone be interested. I plan on testing both the mess kit and its versatility as well as my bacon curing skills on an upcoming trek
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Nov 15, 2019 5:22:48 GMT -7
Madison Grant has this photo of a folding handle skillet in his book The Kentucky Rifle Hunting Pouch, pg. 197. He says it was used throughout the Revolutionary War by a man from Berks County, Pa, It is the skillet George Ainsley, Prairie Elk Forge, used as a pattern for the one I pictured above. Spence I had to pull out my copy of the book, as I never noticed that before. The author described it as "a mess kit...….which could hold what was ladled out of the kettle or to be used as a frying pan in it's own right." It was also described as being "6 1/4 inches in diameter and 2 1/4 inches in depth." By at least the time of the FIW, the British Army operating here in the Colonies (as elsewhere) assigned Soldiers into a "Mess" of 8 men and were issued one kettle per mess to cook their rations. The mess kettles were either carried in wagons or "humped" by one of the soldiers in the mess, when going on long campaigns. The British Army HATED food cooked by roasting/broiling/frying as they believed it was "injurious to the health of the Soldiers" and had standing orders that all cooked food would be boiled in Kettles. Though I have not found a period reference for it, I assume they wanted the food boiled because it would take care of some raw food that would inevitably begin to turn bad in the field. (They also had strict protocols for the numbers of times that salt pork or salt beef would be soaked in water during the day before it was cooked that night, though I imagine that was more likely done in garrison or semi permanent camps.) However, I don't know if bowls or plates were issued, as they had to be purchased by the Colonel of each Regiment. It seems no individual utensils, not even a spoon, was issued to the Soldiers. Since the American Army (and especially many of the Senior Officers) of the AWI had served in or with the British Army in the past, many things were done the same. However, it does not seem to have been recorded if kettles for each 8 man Mess were issued to the American Army during the AWi and they well may not have been. I was especially interested in the size of the original piece, as I used a similar size "cold handle" frying pan when I was the Assistant Scoutmaster of a High Adventure Boy Scout Troop. I found that by mixing flour and water for bread first, then alternately cooking meats and vegetables, it was plenty large enough for a hearty appetite. Gus
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Nov 15, 2019 16:09:44 GMT -7
From what others have posted, Mr. Grant is/was known for accepting word-of-mouth "provenance" and his dating is/was "fluid" (see previous comment). As such, I accept that such a piece exists/existed but I am far more hesitant to accept the claims, especially when it comes to assigning a piece to a particular place in history. Also, as only one such piece exists, it is already on shaky ground with me...
On the other hand, he does have images of some interesting items.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Nov 15, 2019 21:35:53 GMT -7
As I mentioned earlier, I would like to see Mr. Grant's provenance for the folding skillet being of AWI origin, as I agree there is a good deal of fluidity in his dating of objects.
I've been doing 18th century since the mid 1970's and remember folding skillets being offered in G. Gedney Godwin's catalogue during those years, but never bought one, as I already had cast iron gear to cook with. I thought even then a folding skillet would have been very uncommon for AWI use and might well have only been used by some Officers. There were and are plenty of period items that can be well documented to the period, but lower ranking enlisted soldiers and many/most militiamen would never have had them.
I always looked at a folding skillet as being an item that would be obtained by someone who did a lot of traveling and had some kind of horse or mule transportation to tote things. I was glad to see Spence's quote about it being used by someone who traveled a lot by canoe, as it goes along with the transportation theory.
Could a folding skillet have been in the packs on the horses that brought supplies with the Longhunters? Maybe, but there has to be period documentation for me and even if there was, that doesn't mean when the Longhunters broke into smaller groups to hunt, they would have bothered with them even if they were available. There was a lot of gear that remained back in the main camps even of Longhunters.
There were also items that were used on long military campaigns, that don't show up in the records for civilians. For example, haversacks and canteens were not commonly used by civilians, just to name a couple of articles.
I salute Spence asking for earlier documentation than he already has and look forward to seeing if anyone has run across earlier documentation; though honestly even if earlier documentation does come to light, I don't believe a folding skillet would fit into a period impression I do.
Gus
|
|