Keith
Hunter
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 1,002 
|
Post by Keith on Feb 23, 2020 16:41:40 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Feb 24, 2020 6:28:36 GMT -7
Keith I'm curious since you mentioned it. Have you ever had any experiences with the aboriginal people in your country?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sicilianhunter on Feb 24, 2020 16:34:35 GMT -7
Sounds about right, good read. Many routes to take in getting the results of brain tan but nothing comparable to the real deal. I'm hoping to catalogue the process for everyone this spring. I have multiple hides needing tanned including anither bison which I'm NOT doing again... I've been putting it off until I have a clear schedule to document the details precisely. Relatively easy process if your willing to endure the manual labor, which many shy away from in today's society. Few images of the only tools I use, both I've made. One a smaller fleshing knife I forged from a piece of tool steel. I like mine sharp, some don't as it's easy to cut a hide if you are unfamiliar with fleshing, personal preference. Bone scraper, traditional and works wonderfully well. Also a rare glimpse of yours truly fleshing...     Hawk, Been waiting for your tutorial!! Looking forward to it!! |
|
|
|
Post by spence on Feb 25, 2020 17:37:09 GMT -7
I doubt if the tanning done in "an Hour or two" was intended to be as good as the full process. Those people were just as intelligent as we are, and if the quick and easy way was just as good, they wouldn't have been baking brains cakes for later use. Since Lawson mentioned it in connection with moccasins, it seems reasonable it was to create something better than the raw hides. Speaking of which, that is well documented. Early 18th century among the Scottish Highlanders: Martin Martin, A Description of the Western Isles of Scotland (1703): "THE shooes anciently wore, were a piece of the hide of a deer, cow, or horse, with the hair on, being tied behind and before with a point (lace) of leather. They generality now wear shooes, having one thin sole only, and shaped after the right and left foot; so that what is for one foot will not serve the other." Captain Burt, an English engineering officer, in Inverness, Scotland in 1730, describing Highlanders shoes: "They are often barefoot, but some I have seen shod with a kind of pumps made out of a raw cow hide with the hair turned outward. They are not only offensive to the sight, but intolerable to the smell of those who are near them. By the way, they cut holes in their brogues though new made, to let out the water when they have far to go, and rivers to pass; thus they do to prevent their feet from galling." Among colonial Native Americans: Frontier Memories, John Dabney Shane interview of William Sudduth, event 1786: Chasing Indians who had stolen horses, caught up with them: pg. 129 "They had killed a buffaloe & were busily engaged in cooking & making moccasins of the raw hide." And the 'civilized' white militia: Pension Application of Philip Harless: R4613 www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~vacraig/philipharlessr4613.htmBoutetourt, VA "That in the spring of 1779 he volunteered under the command of Captain John Lucas [pension application W5468] and served from the 1st of April untill the first of October That he took the Oath of fidelity as an Indian Spy to be engaged against the Indians and was stationed in a garrison situated on Sinking Creek a tributary stream of New river in that part of Bottetourt County that is now Giles…….. That he recollects of a party of Indians commiting murder on some of the Inhabitants and that a part of the men from the garrison where he was stationed persued after the Indians to rescue a prisoner and persued on untill some of them become bear footed and was compelled to make Mocquinsans out of raw Deerskins". I'll have mine boiled, please.  Spence |
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Feb 25, 2020 17:53:09 GMT -7
I'll have mine boiled, please. Spence Ah yes, soup for the lean times.... |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Feb 26, 2020 2:27:02 GMT -7
I doubt if the tanning done in "an Hour or two" was intended to be as good as the full process. Those people were just as intelligent as we are, and if the quick and easy way was just as good, they wouldn't have been baking brains cakes for later use. Since Lawson mentioned it in connection with moccasins, it seems reasonable it was to create something better than the raw hides. Speaking of which, that is well documented. Spence
My theory is that boiling the bark for an hour or two would more quickly release the tannins into the water bath. To me, it sounds like they took the "bark soup" off the fire and quickly put the raw hide in it. The heat of the still hot/warm bark soup would then warm up the hide and cause the cells/fiber of the skin to open more and then the tannins could get deeper into the cells/fiber faster than if the bark soup was cold. An hour or two soak might not or probably would not have thoroughly coated the cells/fiber of the skin to completely tan it, but tanned it enough so the leather would not stink and rot and remain supple enough for the rather short time before natural wear wore out the moccasin leather.
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Feb 26, 2020 9:07:08 GMT -7
I'd very much stay away from a hide tanned in an hour or two...
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Feb 26, 2020 9:20:18 GMT -7
I'd very much stay away from a hide tanned in an hour or two... Why? Spence |
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Feb 27, 2020 9:33:38 GMT -7
I'd very much stay away from a hide tanned in an hour or two... Why? Spence I honestly cannot see the process working in a two hour period. Allowing the brain solution (lecithin) to soak and penetrate into the hide is very important to the finished product. That working time certainly plays a roll into the hide staying supple even when wet. Some hides even require more brain slurry to be added, I've had to apply up to three brain solutions on a hide at times. Maybe I'm wrong saying it can't be done in two hours, however my experience with tanning in general leaves me sceptical about the end quality of the hide. Maybe the bark method is more concentrated but I'm not familiar with veg tanning. My dad and I tried tanning a deer hide with a modern chemical that claimed brain tan results without the extra time and smoking. It came in an orange bottle and likely may not be made anymore. Long story short it didn't work, even after breaking the hide multiple times we never could get the results we wanted. Ended up washing out the hide and turning it into rawhide. From start to finish I can get a deer hide done in about five days if everything goes right. With the amount of work involved I make sure to do it right the first time as I've been taught. |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Feb 27, 2020 14:25:43 GMT -7
Something I'm not sure about was how they boiled the pieces of bark for an hour or two and then put the hides into the "bark soup."
I realize this may sound silly, but that would have required a fair size Iron or Copper Pot, wouldn't it? I realize they had metal pots large enough and much larger in the period than that. I'm not sure if they had clay pots large enough and that they could boil the water and bark that long in clay pots? IOW, this sounds like something that was done near their cabin or at a settlement on the frontier and not something done "on the trail?"
I also imagine they broke up the bark into little pieces and put as much of them as possible into the "bark soup?"
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Feb 27, 2020 14:39:54 GMT -7
I understand the general process of brain tanning. I fooled with bark tanning a bit years ago, so I have a cookbook knowledge of the time and labour involved in tanning of any sort. Full tanning, that is. It seems to me that's not what the NAs Lawson described were doing. What he says is that the quick procedure made the leather so it didn't get hard when wet or dirtied. I agree with Gus, it's possible they were making leather good enough for short lived moccasins, better than raw hides but not like the real deal.
I notice that those in this conversation who are skeptical didn't pick up on the fact that in both references, Lawson and Schoepf, the brains were cooked. I don't remember seeing that described as part of modern brain tanning. If it's not, why did no one call foul on that?
Shedding my 21st-century mind set is the hardest part of the hobby, for me. I tend to assume what I know about a subject is the modern, enlightened understanding and must be better than what the old boys knew. Is it possible that is happening here? John Lawson is praised for his accurate descriptions of plants he collected for botanist, and is said to have left the best description from the day of the now extinct Carolina parakeet. Johann Schoepf was a trained botanist, zoologist and physician who spent two years studying the culture, flora and fauna of this country. I think of the writings of both as high quality primary documentation, and I wonder what qualifies as such if these don't.
Both were describing the methods used by people for whom brain tanning was a way of life, and probably practiced for thousands of years. I believe it's possible there are things about it that we no longer know.
As I said earlier, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'll assume they were telling it like it was.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Feb 27, 2020 14:56:38 GMT -7
I have read in modern literature for braintanning of cooking the brains. As a matter of fact, when I did my first hide, the brains were simmered in water, blended and a little Neatsfoot oil added. Not certain if this addresses the issue, but whether the brains are cooked or not doesn't seem to be significant for the end product.
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Feb 27, 2020 15:08:00 GMT -7
The way I've tanned is how my Northern ancestors have done it for a multitude of generations. Cooking the brains has been done through the ages by various tribes including the Anishinaabe, I however have never felt the need to do so on smaller hides. From what I was told by an elder, the heating process allows the fatty oils to become more soluble in the water which helps alter the protein structure of the hide when the emulsion is applied. This then prevents the hide from forming back into rawhide. I have witnessed this procedure done on larger and thicker hides such as elk and moose which required multiple application sessions of the solution.
I'm certainly not sceptical of the mentioning of cooking the brains. I am of completely tanning a hide in two hours, I'm very curious at what quality of hide this may yield. Only way to find out is by doing one myself. However I don't like playing trial and error with hides, to valuable of a resource. I have multiple squirrels needing tanned, one will be a candidate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Feb 27, 2020 16:45:19 GMT -7
Maybe this is a variation of the "half-tan" mentioned. I don't doubt the original authors described what they saw. As moccasins were disposable, any treatment that helped the leather remain somewhat supple would be an advantage. Ultimately, tanned or quick-tanned moccasins would wear out and if you have other pairs without much time invested, then it seems like you are ahead...
|
|
Keith
Hunter
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 1,002
|
Post by Keith on Feb 27, 2020 17:03:38 GMT -7
Keith I'm curious since you mentioned it. Have you ever had any experiences with the aboriginal people in your country? Some whilst travelling around Australia in the 70s, & I lived on an Aboriginal reserve in Arnhem Land for two months. Quite an experience. Keith. |
|
