Long hunter brand bags and Knives or the Mystery of Symmetry

 

18th century sporting image. good idea for basic bag shape and size

                 

simple edged bag (possible belt pouch) 

So Lets keep this ball rolling. Keep the Brains working and the ideas flying. The next Long Hunter brand item I’d like to talk about is Knives and bags. I mentioned this a little bit about the penny knife post but to be honest there is SOOOO many bad knives floating around labeled as “long hunter” its tough to know where to begin. Ok so if there was A knife that was common to the virginia longhunters, the market hunters from Fort pitt, Natives, the men of new England and everyone in between it would have to be 100% the Cutteau Knife.  Jim Mullins broke this down some time ago in his blog. https://ofsortsforprovincials.blogspot.com/2013/03/cuttoe-knives-revealed.html

Modern school of knives might have all the same working parts as an original knife (deer parts, cutting edge etc) but that in no way alone makes them 18^th century. By far the go to for most new folks is a woodbury style knife because it “looks old timey”.  You cant swing a dead cat and not come across someone making their version of this knife and labeling it “18^th century” or “long hunter style”. Calling it as it is these knives have way more to do with modern black powder culture then they do the 18^th century.

 antler handled knives are made in the 18^th century in fact everytime this debate comes up someone wll dig up the one with the sheath marked “1758” and proclaim the debate over. Problem is antler handled knives were made by European knife makers (the factories) and they looked very little like the common knife on the modern market. That particular example is more proof of factory made knives then the work of a backcountry smith. Look at Madison Grant’s book on Knives and one detail you’ll notice is that most of the knives have NO attribution apart from “old knife”. Grant was famous for marrying pieces together he thought looked good and using a process that was simply the uglier the item the earlier it had to be. This was due to the fact that obviously anything ugly must have been made on the frontier in a rush because why not. He ignored the crazy amount of ready-made cutlery being shipped to the backcountry because it didn’t fit his mindset. Plus, we cant ignore the amount of research done on the subject since his books were published. A lot of information we have easy access to was simply not available to these early collectors and they often did the best with just what they had on hand.

A lot of this is also the product of the “longknife” idea of 18^th century backcountry folks. I broke this down a number of years ago in a separate posting. The basic run down is that this was the name given to the virginia governor by natives and was then applied to virginians. It has nothing to do with carrying giant knives. Later in the 19^th century this name does start to affect the fashion of “frontiersman” and big knives become a mark of a “frontiersman” so you really see big knives take off.

https://buffalotrace1765.blogspot.com/2011/09/long-knife-described-your-clothes-not.html

The problem with a lot of these knives is like bags there is really no way to date most of them and if Simon Kenton owned a big knife when he was in his 80s and this knife is in a local historical society labeled “simon kenton’s knife” to many this is evidence that it was carried by him in his 20’s. despite the fact the knife’s shape etc is all in line with knives from the 19^th century. You see this a lot as well with rifle’s etc. To put a fine point on this, The coke bottle you drink out of today is not gonna be the same as the coke bottle from 1976.

So just how do you solve this? Ask the maker questions, ask them for documentation. Ken Gahagan and Ken Hamilton are two knife makers I know of that will provide you with a packet of information when you buy stuff from them or at the least will break out a folder of info to show you just why the knife you are interested in is documented. To me this should be the Norm for makers and buyers in this hobbie. If a guy cant provide you with research and just says “ it’s a Long hunter knife”  then maybe you should keep looking for makers and info. great resource for some knife s and knife making images can be found here https://www.scribd.com/document/274582394/Food-Service-Utility-Clasp-Knives

 

18th century antler handled knife...funny I know but this blade shape shows up in the archeology 

So now that ive angered all the knife makers lets go after the bag makers. Often bags are based off just what the current reenactor fab is at the moment. Road kill bags inspired by the Madison grant idea “uglier is earlier” was the norm for a number of years. Now it seems to be the more scrap pieces of leather you can sew together the better. It all needs to be topped off with an angular piece of bark tan that still maintains the nastiest part of the bark tan hide. If that flap is symmetrical then you have obviously failed as a person and your bag is wrong.

I know I sound like a broken record on certain things but that is one idea I just can’t get over. Its like ok these folks made all their own stuff but they obviously didn’t have access to a straight edge when they were sewing up their bag? If you’re an individual then why does all that stuff look the same? Quit using the frontier as an excuse and dare to be different, dare to use documentation.

These are just a few of the bag images that are out there. As in a very few. Looking at sporting images, trade cards the background of larger paintings are all ready resources for folks looking for images of bags. No they don’t give you construction details and you always need to look at the context of the painting. Is this an 18^th century image? Is this a reworking of another image (this was before copyright laws)?  Do I know of an original bag this basic shape?

Ok to show this in action I'll go to a native bag and an image that pops up quite a bit. Ok so here is a 1770s image of Robert Rogers.

To alot of folks this is now documentation that rogers carried a large native bag and is also documentation for super big native pouches. Except you have to look around and you'll see quickly this image is simply a period rip off of this image.

SO you can see some very clear similarities. Also the bag pictured and used ALOT by Benjamin west does exist and is currently in the brit museum. The problem is the scale of the original bag is way off compared to the bags in the images:

And here is the original and it measures 6.5 inches by 7 inches. So the native wearing that bag would have to have been a super small guy. West took some liberites with scale to show the bags details and the other artist just tried to add the bag to his version of rogers because it looked "american". This is why doing your research and casting a wide net is so important in doing period reproductions. ALl of this was dug up in less then a half hour with some web searches. If you find a piece your interested in Jump in the rabbit hole. Dig, look around, ask questions more often then not you'll learn something in the process. Not always the info you started looking for but its something.

I love using original bags but the problem is with most they have no way of knowing just when they were made and the basic style of shot pouch never really goes away. If you compare some of these 18^th cent images with photographs of black powder shooters from the 20^th century you really don’t see a difference. For example, my favorite original bag that is at the king’s mountain historic site was NOT collected there and has no real connection to the site apart from being an “old” bag. The reason I went with that specific bag was it matched in shape a rev war era sketch of a rifleman.  SO, it’s a guess but its also an educated guess. I could have just stitched together a coverlet and old piece of leather and called it a day but I couldn’t find an original done like that or in an image so…

I used this pouch with the construction of the King's mountain pouch to come up with my take on this shot bag

my take on the kings mountain pouch and the gear I carry in it

Also as with knives you gotta always be aware of the creep of 19^th century items backward into the “surviving” examples. With the number of frontiersman who lived into the 19^th century  there are a number of bags out there attributed to someone BUT is very clearly made for them later in life. Super fringed bags, cut outs, double bags etc. while they might be great for the shooting match do they really belong at an 18^th century event?

Larger bag in this image. Just a dutchman frustrated with shooting

    Ok so everyone is good and riled up. There will be many harumphs and groans reading this post. This

 is what happens when I spend way to much time in the hotel so you have the railroad to blame. Now 

that I’ve done a few negative-ish posts I'll be jumping back into stuff on the helpful side. maybe a few 

how to's and some camp craft. I’ve also asked a few makers if they’d be up for Q&A's on their gear to 

help folks find some quality stuff. I'm now going to try and weave while keeping the threads away 

from a puppy. Levi is a ball of chaos that has been keeping me on my toes but he already has a small 

wallet for dog food with his name on it for treks and he’s pretty pumped about that..

 

Oh and some shameless  promotion for the Altoona Rifle and pistol clubs " Rifle Frolic"  its a great event put on by some amazing folks. A great time to just get out and shoot.

Avoiding the "Long Hunter" Brand name Trap (garter weirdness)

     

Heddle loom made by Matt stein based off original works great for making bartlett sash things

Linen tape, wool tape and buffalo wool tape made on the loom all used for garters for a very long time now

        When starting an 18^th century  back country Kit its really easy to quickly just become overwhelmed by ideas and information from vendors and just start buying everything labeled “longhunter”. Quite honestly it drives me nuts that this has become a brand name. “longhunter shirt”, “longhutner hat”, “longhunter knife”, “longhunter bag” and some “longhunter toilet paper” and you are ready for a trek. All in various shades of brown or “rustic” and off you go.

                I’m not big on blanket statements but here’s one for new folks…If it’s got the label “longhunter” attached to it, don’t buy it. I’d say 99% of the time you’ll be avoiding a mistake. SO since the last post about gear got such a response I thought I’d go a little more into it.

      So Garters are an item that has developed into its own thing in the “longhunter” uniform. Often its simple a piece of woven material with leather tabs on each side, these then tie with a leather thong on the back. The info on these existing is sketchy at best. Garters in the 18^th century came in a wide variety from leather with small buckles to hand embroidered silk strips of material.

 What I think most of us are trying to focus on is what you may have found on folks in the backcountry. You often find “garters or “gartering” being sold at stores. This was strips of wool/linen that was woven on intricate looms a little outside of just what can be made on modern inkle looms. You can see some done with stars, lettering etc.  Examples of this can be found in surviving swatch books from the 18^th century.

Examples of 18th century "gartering"

So, what does that leave us with? Well one go to is a simple worsted wool tape garter. We know this stuff matches some period items out there is relatively inexpensive and is carried by a number of vendors. This has been my go-to for a while because even though I finger weave and own a tape loom its an example of the cobbler’s kids. Every time I make a set I end up selling them. Its sad at this point I only own a sash because I burned a hole in it when I was sleeping in a hearth at Prickets fort. Yeah, you read that right I was sleeping IN the hearth…Long story.

The other Fix for the backcountry is tape loomed garters. Examples of these exist in period archaeological contexts from lower class people. In eastern Pennsylvania there are examples of tapes being sold to local merchants in exchange for goods. A decent number of period tape looms and heddles exist. It was something that could be made at home with relatively simple looms. For years myself and other guys from the ACM purchased tapes from Judy the resident weaver at Pricket’s fort.

The Mifflin family and a tape loom

The other great thing about tape looms is the tape can be used for many different functions. From women’s apron strings, powder horn straps, tying up blanket rolls, ties for food pouches I mean the list is endless. It’s an item easily available to lower class people over a wide geographic area. For folks really into the “we made everything” mindset about the frontier if they were spinning their own wool and linen and weaving their own cloth why wouldn’t they made their own garters in pieces larger then 12 inches long?

Our boy doddridge was a weaver himself:

I was possessed of an art which was of great use. It was that of weaving shot-pouch straps, belts and garters. I could make my loom; and weave a belt in less than one day. Having a piece of board about four feet long, an inch auger, spike gimlet, and a drawing knife, I needed no other tools or materials for making my loom;. ...

                While not much better then “in the common fashion” of a description you get an idea of what he could weave. To me he could be describing making a rough rigid heddle loom that you is basically a tape loom without the nice little winder.  However, it does point that it was not an inkle loom as they did not exist yet.

                Ok next question I’ll get is going to be “what did an 18^th century sash made by a white guy look like”.  The simple answer is, we do not know 100%. An educated guess however would be something akin to the linen tape being woven on the tape looms. Doddridge mentions making garters on his loom and we know what woven garters looked like ergo why would the sash look different then this?

Bartlett sash thing 1 7/8 inch wide by 9 feet long

One possible example is the Nathaniel Bartlett sash/strap thing. This was collected with a powder horn and was formerly in the Guthman collection. The item is 1 7/8 inches wide by 9 feet long and was woven on a heddle. The letters/numbers are made by dropping/picking up certain threads as you weave.  Its narrow by our modern standards of sashes but 9 feet is a lot of wraps around a waist. Once again though the idea we have in our head is based off modern preconceptions of just what a sash looks like our buddy bought from a vendor selling his take on 18^th century white guys sashes.

So hopefully I gave you something new to think about and I cant stress enough for new folks to avoid the “Long Hunter” brand items.  For anyone looking for tape Besides Judy at Pricket’s fort I’d recommend Stonehousehistory.com. Update on the 15 yard tomahawk throw after a few crazy tosses I zeroed in on a release point and am starting to stick my hawk in the block on a semi regular basis. Also I have a new trekking buddy and member of the family. His name is Levi, he’s a 9 week old mountain cur and he’s a little ball of chaos running the show in my house right now. He’s taken away any excuse I had before about getting up and just taking a walk. 

Levi our new spokesmodel

Levi my anti Dutchman dog