|
|
Post by spence on Mar 3, 2020 9:53:57 GMT -7
One of the most difficult things about the BP/living history hobby for me is getting into the colonial mind set. One way I try to make that a little easier on myself is sort of a total emersion approach. When I’m doing the ‘thing‘ I try to wear appropriate clothes, carry an appropriate gun, its gear, fire kit, fishing gear, etc.. For me the food is included in that, and I usually carry and/or cook foods I’ve found some documentation for. Cooking modern foods on an outing snatches me right back to modern times. I don’t do scenarios, scouts or such, but if I do the things they did using the gear they had, eat the same food they did, maybe my experience will be in the same ballpark.
An aspect of this emersion which is important for me but doesn’t seem to be so much for others is the language. I don’t mean that I think we should try to speak at all times as they did, as first-person re-enactors do, but more that it would be good if we used the proper period terms for the gear. Fowling piece instead of fowler, for instance, cock instead of hammer, and shot bag or shot pouch instead of shooting or hunting bag or pouch.....and, please let it be so, never “possibles bag.”
It hasn’t been a lot of years since I first saw “possibles bag” used for the shot pouch, but if you search for that term now you will find dozens of pictures of shot pouches. I assume some newbie was confused about the term, used it incorrectly, someone else with little knowledge picked it up, and here we are. The term is well entrenched and in common, incorrect, use with a lot of people. And it’s like Whack-A-Mole, you can’t kill it. Still, evidence is about the only thing which has a chance, so, how about some?
I’ve never seen the term “possibles” used as a noun in colonial literature. I believe it to be a slang term, jargon, of the western fur trade era, probably no earlier than about 1830. I’ve managed to find a few examples from that time period.
Life in the Far West, by George Frederick Augustus Ruxton: 1846-47
“For many years after he had deserted his home, La Bonté had cherished the idea of again returning to his country. During this period he had never forgotten his old flame, and many a choice fur he had carefully laid by, intended as a present for Mary Brand; and many a gâge d’ amour of cunning shape and device, worked in stained quills, of porcupine and bright-colored beads---the handiwork of nimble fingered squaws---he had packed in his possible sack for the same destination, hoping a time would come when he might lay them at her feet.”
William Drummond Stewart's fictional book "Edward Warren", published in 1854 but based on his several years of Rocky mountain experiences during the 1830's, "...my gaudy cottons having confronted the glorious sun until sunk from the contest, were ready to be re-consigned to the possible sack."
And the really important one, with the term used six times and defined by the author in a footnote, page 111.
Wah-to-yah, and the Taos Trail: Or, Prairie Travel and Scalp dances, with a look at Los Rancheros from muleback and the Rocky mountain camp-fire, (1846-47), by Lewis Hector Garrard
pg. 111 On the 8th, we packed our robes, and “possibles”**, and, by eleven o’clock, the wagon, with its two yoke of half-famished oxen attached, ready for a start, was on the top of the hill.
**Personal property
pg. 48 Without saying a word, or going in the lodge first, we unsaddled in front of it, putting our “possibles” in the back part, the most honored and pleasant place, for there is no passing by, or other annoyance.
pg. 81 The foibles and virtues of mutual acquaintances in St. Louis, were freely descanted upon, during the discussion of some cigars, found, unexpectedly, among my “possibles” at the Fort, as we crossed our legs on the ground that night before the cottonwood logs.
pg. 144 Considering his neighbor's “possibles” “on the prairie” with him--- his own at their entire disposal; and. though coffee. sugar. tobacco, and other luxuries are high-priced, and often purchased with a whole season's trapping, the “black water” is offered with genuine free-heartedness. and the last plug of tobacco subjected to the rapacious knife of the guest, as though it were plenty as the rocks around.
pg. 288 Putting my “possibles” in a wagon, I received my amount of coffee, sugar, etc., from the affable Doctor Hampstead.
pg. 306 Smith, who had been showing, in private conversation with me, a fear of losing his hair, gave notice of leaving with this train, which stopped while he collected his possibles.
So, in the fur trade era the term “possibles” was used for one’s personal property, and the term “possibles sack” or “possibles bag” was appropriate, but it was never used for the shot pouch. And it shouldn’t be, today.
If anyone has other instances of the use at any time in our period of interest, I’d like to add them to my collection.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Mar 3, 2020 10:42:51 GMT -7
...but it was never used for the shot pouch. And it shouldn’t be, today. Spence I agree wholeheartedly - it is an awkward term. I use the term "gun bag" most often. But the Buckskinner jargon is tenacious... |
|
|
|
Post by lenapej on Mar 3, 2020 11:01:40 GMT -7
Another one I run across a lot is people calling a farmer's smock a "longhunter shirt" Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Mar 3, 2020 11:32:13 GMT -7
Very well put together post. The small details such as simple jargon can make a big difference. Well done as usual!
|
|
coot
City-dweller
Posts: 156
|
Post by coot on Mar 3, 2020 11:58:46 GMT -7
Sadly you are so correct. "Possibles bag", "longhunter", "fowler", etc have taken on a life of their own. Too many fail to realize that not only will they not turn up these terms in historical documents but that when they do find a term, that the meaning in the 18th c may be different from how the term is used today.
|
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Mar 3, 2020 12:12:35 GMT -7
Thank you Spence. I was just steaming about this one while reading a thread on that other forum. It happens to have become a huge pet peeve of mine.
Your provided quotes also help prove out another idea I have had on the subject for quite some time. That is, that while a "possibles bag," is not/was not/won't be, a bag for carrying the things needed to make the shot, and the next shot, it might be for carrying the other things one might need while afield. Fire kit, spare socks/stockings, salt horn, cone of sugar, jerky, parched corn, handkerchief,,, you get the idea. And while the term does not appear to have been used pre 1830, I would not object to it so much if this is what people would use it for. It would make a lot more sense to call the bag used for the stuff to make ones gun capable of firing a shot, a shot pouch, and a bag with ones assorted sundries they might possibly need, a possibles bag.
Nah, those two words together now annoy me.
I do make a huge effort to use fowling piece instead of fowler. Autocorrect doesn't like either. It wants to capitalize fowler and make fowling, Dowling. Or capitalize it,, grrrrr
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Mar 3, 2020 12:18:25 GMT -7
Autocorrect on a phone can be a bit of a pain. It's not always correct...
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Mar 3, 2020 12:30:08 GMT -7
I feel like terminology is a double edged sword. Surely it has its place, which in my mind is in front of the public when engaged in interpretation. 18th c English can seem like a foreign dialect at times, one that's seen considerable study with room for improvement. I'm all for experimental archeology, but I've seen many get too carried away to the point that they constantly correct others on social media about cocked hats not being tricorned despite tricorned being at least a 140 year old term for the very same thing.
Most of our coloquialisms are probably stemming from the 19th c. We've come a long way from the 18th or even 19th centuries. In fact we've come so far, that we talk about them in the 21st century using computers on the internet with electricity; which ironically is the method most employed by those seeking to correct everyone else instead of writing letters.
But yeah, I think possibles comes from the rendezvous crowd of 70s. I wish it would go away, which rhymes with huzza.
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Mar 3, 2020 13:13:48 GMT -7
Thank you Spence. I was just steaming about this one while reading a thread on that other forum. It happens to have become a huge pet peeve of mine. My other pet peeve has been going on even longer, but now may...may...be showing signs of fading away. Ever since I got into the hobby more than 40 years ago people have been using the name "swan shot" for failed Rupert shot with curvy tails. They sometimes look like a swan's neck, so some wag decide that when he saw the term "swan shot" in the old literature it had to be those. It soon became obvious to me, after just minimal research, that swan shot are molded shot, not dropped shot, and that once again the graybeards had led me down the primrose path. I still see it used that way, but much less frequently, and usually by some older fellow still following what he was taught decades ago. Spence |
|
|
|
Post by spence on Mar 3, 2020 13:50:52 GMT -7
I feel like terminology is a double edged sword. Surely it has its place, which in my mind is in front of the public when engaged in interpretation. I agree that it's important for interpreters to get it right, but that's not what it's about, for me. I not only don't interpret, all my activities are solo. My main interest is in the personal experience, and using correct terminology improves that. Spence |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Mar 3, 2020 13:51:24 GMT -7
Spence,
I'm right with you on preferring to use the correct terms for the time period one is doing. BTW, your quotes have been excellent sources of period correct terms and I appreciate it very much.
ewoaf,
I love doing first person, but I've found one has to do it so the general public can follow it AND be careful of using some terms so modern folk don't take it the wrong way, especially at places like Colonial Williamsburg. I often begin by telling visitors I will begin by doing first person, so they can experience the language of the period, but I will follow it with a "modern day" explanation so they might better understand.
Something proved quite popular with visitors was I would make a point to address and gather up a group of kids, by saying to them something like, "Does anyone wonder what is going on here when Soldiers are wearing Short Skirts?" That usually got a laugh and by interesting the children, the parents came along and other adults did as well, but I always welcomed the kids in front of the group by saying the Lads and Lassies should be in front. Then I told them in "my Gaelic" they are called "Wee Bairns" meaning they were small and not yet full grown and Bairns meant more than just children, the best translation was/is "Beloved Child." Needless to say that goes over well with the parents as well, though sometimes there is a jovial crack from the crowd.
Of course one has to be especially careful with some period terms and especially around children:
For example, when I held up my Whisk and Prick and since I was usually doing a Private Soldier in the Major's Coy of the 42nd RHR; I would quickly add that I found Colonials often refer to it as a Whisk and Pick. Then I would go on to show and explain its use. I usually don't mention the term "Pricking Iron" when talking about period leather working, unless only adults were around.
When going over parts of the lock, I point to the Cock, name it and quickly say it may have gotten that name from the way a Cock Rooster pecks the ground, though there are some other period explanations.
When pointing out the Uniform Items names and when I got to it, I would say, "Now I think you have been wondering why we wear skirts? Actually, it is not a skirt at all, but rather a True Piece of Manly Clotheing called a Philabeag or the term sometimes used by Colonials is Short Kilt." I would add the colour and pattern are not a Clan Tartan Plaid (pronounced Played) but rather the "Government Sett" for his Majesty's Highlanders.
Gus
|
|
Keith
Hunter
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 1,002 
|
Post by Keith on Mar 3, 2020 13:53:20 GMT -7
Thank you Spence. I was just steaming about this one while reading a thread on that other forum. It happens to have become a huge pet peeve of mine. My other pet peeve has been going on even longer, but now may...may...be showing signs of fading away. Ever since I got into the hobby more than 40 years ago people have been using the name "swan shot" for failed Rupert shot with curvy tails. They sometimes look like a swan's neck, so some wag decide that when he saw the term "swan shot" in the old literature it had to be those. It soon became obvious to me, after just minimal research, that swan shot are molded shot, not dropped shot, and that once again the graybeards had led me down the primrose path. I still see it used that way, but much less frequently, and usually by some older fellow still following what he was taught decades ago. Spence As far as I am aware, swan shot & goose shot are the same as modern day buckshot. Keith. |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Mar 3, 2020 13:58:10 GMT -7
Thank you Spence. I was just steaming about this one while reading a thread on that other forum. It happens to have become a huge pet peeve of mine. My other pet peeve has been going on even longer, but now may...may...be showing signs of fading away. Ever since I got into the hobby more than 40 years ago people have been using the name "swan shot" for failed Rupert shot with curvy tails. They sometimes look like a swan's neck, so some wag decide that when he saw the term "swan shot" in the old literature it had to be those. It soon became obvious to me, after just minimal research, that swan shot are molded shot, not dropped shot, and that once again the graybeards had led me down the primrose path. I still see it used that way, but much less frequently, and usually by some older fellow still following what he was taught decades ago. Spence Spence, I have to admit I was guilty of that for years, because I didn't know better, even though I purchased a copy of "Colonial Guns" by Hamilton back in the early 1980's. I purchased the book thinking I would learn more about period Trade Guns, but what I didn't realize for another decade or so, was how much there is about period shot, flints, etc. etc. in that book. For example, I didn't realize the term "Best Quality French Flints" didn't just mean they came from France, but more importantly it meant the SHAPE of the flints. Gus |
|
Keith
Hunter
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 1,002
|
Post by Keith on Mar 3, 2020 13:58:46 GMT -7
Spence, I'm right with you on preferring to use the correct terms for the time period one is doing. BTW, your quotes have been excellent sources of period correct terms and I appreciate it very much. ewoaf, I love doing first person, but I've found one has to do it so the general public can follow it AND be careful of using some terms so modern folk don't take it the wrong way, especially at places like Colonial Williamsburg. I often begin by telling visitors I will begin by doing first person, so they can experience the language of the period, but I will follow it with a "modern day" explanation so they might better understand. Something proved quite popular with visitors was I would make a point to address and gather up a group of kids, by saying to them something like, "Does anyone wonder what is going on here when Soldiers are wearing Short Skirts?" That usually got a laugh and by interesting the children, the parents came along and other adults did as well, but I always welcomed the kids in front of the group by saying the Lads and Lassies should be in front. Then I told them in "my Gaelic" they are called "Wee Bairns" meaning they were small and not yet full grown and Bairns meant more than just children, the best translation was/is "Beloved Child." Needless to say that goes over well with the parents as well, though sometimes there is a jovial crack from the crowd. Of course one has to be especially careful with some period terms and especially around children: For example, when I held up my Whisk and Prick and since I was usually doing a Private Soldier in the Major's Coy of the 42nd RHR; I would quickly add that I found Colonials often refer to it as a Whisk and Pick. Then I would go on to show and explain its use. I usually don't mention the term "Pricking Iron" when talking about period leather working, unless only adults were around. When going over parts of the lock, I point to the Cock, name it and quickly say it may have gotten that name from the way a Cock Rooster pecks the ground, though there are some other period explanations. When pointing out the Uniform Items names and when I got to it, I would say, "Now I think you have been wondering why we wear skirts? Actually, it is not a skirt at all, but rather a True Piece of Manly Clotheing called a Philabeag or the term sometimes used by Colonials is Short Kilt." I would add the colour and pattern are not a Clan Tartan Plaid (pronounced Played) but rather the "Government Sett" for his Majesty's Highlanders. Gus Gus, I have seen the term pricker used in period writings, is your term whisk referring to the pan brush, is pan brush the wrong term? Keith. |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Mar 3, 2020 14:12:20 GMT -7
My other pet peeve has been going on even longer, but now may...may...be showing signs of fading away. Ever since I got into the hobby more than 40 years ago people have been using the name "swan shot" for failed Rupert shot with curvy tails. They sometimes look like a swan's neck, so some wag decide that when he saw the term "swan shot" in the old literature it had to be those. It soon became obvious to me, after just minimal research, that swan shot are molded shot, not dropped shot, and that once again the graybeards had led me down the primrose path. I still see it used that way, but much less frequently, and usually by some older fellow still following what he was taught decades ago. Spence As far as I am aware, swan shot & goose shot are the same as modern day buckshot. Keith. Keith, You may be interested that Hamilton in "Colonial Frontier Guns" documents the French here ordered the additional sizes of shot from France in 1733: Bustard shot, Duck Shot, Wild Pigeon or Royal Shot, half-Royal Shot Also, he gives the sizes to a degree - "Cast Shot, Buck and Swan, 471" to .350", Rupert Shot .215" to .087" This from documentation and actual excavations all over the Colonies. Gus |
|
