Bullet boards, patch knives, and priming horns
Aug 23, 2012 11:17:27 GMT -7
Post by Chuck Burrows on Aug 23, 2012 11:17:27 GMT -7
These subjects have often been discussed and argued over at times to death, but here is my take........
re: the origin of priming horns aka day horns, patch knives aka bag knives, and bullet boards the following is MY OPINION, but it is opinion based on over fifty years of researching the subject in depth based on the currently known and verified historical record.
Based on this existing historical record, the latter day hunting scenario as posted below was IMO the most likely origin of bullet boards - they were not purpose designed as speed loaders, but rather were a convenient way to carry a few patched balls that could be easily carried in one's pocket or even around ones neck. FWIW - The earliest well provenanced bullet board I have seen is one from a western buffalo hunters rig circa 1859. Yes Grant's book on pouches (and others) does show some boards, but his dating is not always the best so one needs to keep that in mind and cross reference as much as possible.
Again based on the historical record the dedicated patch knife is apparently a 20th Century innovation or at earliest a very late 19th century one. Earlier, so-called patch knives were not specifically used for cutting patches as is often done today, but were rather a small general purpose knife for various usages. Think in these terms - as this country became more settled and game (especially larger game) became less available, you had more townies and local farmers hunting with generally smaller bores, so there was no real need for large horns or large knives. A small day horn (or a powder flask) and a small knife were all one really needed for hunting game such as squirrel and rabbits and for that matter even deer. Both items could be easily carried in one's pocket without having the bulk of a large horn or shooting pouch, although the latter did exist as well. All three items were originally a matter of convenience for those hunters who no longer needed a full blown hunting rig.
Like so-called priming horns, patch knives were apparently so named by 20th century collectors rather than by period users.
While it is true that we all have the "right" to use what we choose, IMO there is also the "responsibility" of one to give as an accurate portrayal of history as possible based on the known and existing historical record when doing public information - it all depends on the venue. Unfortunately historical myths and untruths or half truths are constantly offered up by less then well researched books, TV, and movies or by being based on old info that has been found to be less than absolute fact after further research. When I do wear/use less than well researched gear while doing public offerings or when a neophyte asks, I am upfront and tell them the facts based on the current research. On the other hand in those public venues I have found it's easiest to wear/use what can be verified for who, when, and where.
As regards the "coulda had it' argument, it's a spurious one at best since it is based on no valid evidence. On the other hand I also believe one must not get overly dogmatic and keep an open mind when new and verified information is discovered - which is almost daily these days. Yes there is the caveat about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" that my history profs beat into my head lo those many years ago, but it is a caveat regarding not becoming dogmatic in one's view, but it is not a license to use anything just because they coulda.
My own way of keeping an open mind and dealing with less than well verified items is the item period possible - not only were the materials, but also the technology available when and where, but period possible is then heavily tempered with, was the item period probable, and that is where researching the historical record comes in - i.e. even if the item in question is period possible, if there is no absolute facts to make it probable based on the records, then using it is at best speculative.
And while yes there are a few (VERY few) so-called stitch counters/Nazis/et al, that I have encountered in the 45+ years I have actively been doing living history, I have found there is generally no need to get in their face - experience has shown it's just plain counter productive and a waste of MY energy.
On the other hand if one goes to a public event that only allows well researched gear one should not show up dressed like something out of a poorly researched movie and when told no get their nose bent out of joint - that IMO is just as bad as an obnoxious stitch counter. Both are akin to going to visit someone in their home and telling them they are living "wrong". Respect is the watchword and it goes both ways.
Again it's all about the bonafide research, the venue, and respect...use what you choose, but understand the differences in not only in whether it's a verified object or what the venue is.
re: the "famous/infamous" 1757 bullet board - I have yet to see any chemical or spectograhic testing done on the patina which is currently the best way to date such objects. Dating via the tree rings is fraught with problems: an object can be made using old would cut down in the past and thus the test would only prove the wood was old, but not necessarily the object itself. This method is common practice amongst artifakers - both the bonafide honest ones but also the scammers.
Respectfully and let's hear some discussion......
re: the origin of priming horns aka day horns, patch knives aka bag knives, and bullet boards the following is MY OPINION, but it is opinion based on over fifty years of researching the subject in depth based on the currently known and verified historical record.
Based on this existing historical record, the latter day hunting scenario as posted below was IMO the most likely origin of bullet boards - they were not purpose designed as speed loaders, but rather were a convenient way to carry a few patched balls that could be easily carried in one's pocket or even around ones neck. FWIW - The earliest well provenanced bullet board I have seen is one from a western buffalo hunters rig circa 1859. Yes Grant's book on pouches (and others) does show some boards, but his dating is not always the best so one needs to keep that in mind and cross reference as much as possible.
Again based on the historical record the dedicated patch knife is apparently a 20th Century innovation or at earliest a very late 19th century one. Earlier, so-called patch knives were not specifically used for cutting patches as is often done today, but were rather a small general purpose knife for various usages. Think in these terms - as this country became more settled and game (especially larger game) became less available, you had more townies and local farmers hunting with generally smaller bores, so there was no real need for large horns or large knives. A small day horn (or a powder flask) and a small knife were all one really needed for hunting game such as squirrel and rabbits and for that matter even deer. Both items could be easily carried in one's pocket without having the bulk of a large horn or shooting pouch, although the latter did exist as well. All three items were originally a matter of convenience for those hunters who no longer needed a full blown hunting rig.
Like so-called priming horns, patch knives were apparently so named by 20th century collectors rather than by period users.
While it is true that we all have the "right" to use what we choose, IMO there is also the "responsibility" of one to give as an accurate portrayal of history as possible based on the known and existing historical record when doing public information - it all depends on the venue. Unfortunately historical myths and untruths or half truths are constantly offered up by less then well researched books, TV, and movies or by being based on old info that has been found to be less than absolute fact after further research. When I do wear/use less than well researched gear while doing public offerings or when a neophyte asks, I am upfront and tell them the facts based on the current research. On the other hand in those public venues I have found it's easiest to wear/use what can be verified for who, when, and where.
As regards the "coulda had it' argument, it's a spurious one at best since it is based on no valid evidence. On the other hand I also believe one must not get overly dogmatic and keep an open mind when new and verified information is discovered - which is almost daily these days. Yes there is the caveat about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" that my history profs beat into my head lo those many years ago, but it is a caveat regarding not becoming dogmatic in one's view, but it is not a license to use anything just because they coulda.
My own way of keeping an open mind and dealing with less than well verified items is the item period possible - not only were the materials, but also the technology available when and where, but period possible is then heavily tempered with, was the item period probable, and that is where researching the historical record comes in - i.e. even if the item in question is period possible, if there is no absolute facts to make it probable based on the records, then using it is at best speculative.
And while yes there are a few (VERY few) so-called stitch counters/Nazis/et al, that I have encountered in the 45+ years I have actively been doing living history, I have found there is generally no need to get in their face - experience has shown it's just plain counter productive and a waste of MY energy.
On the other hand if one goes to a public event that only allows well researched gear one should not show up dressed like something out of a poorly researched movie and when told no get their nose bent out of joint - that IMO is just as bad as an obnoxious stitch counter. Both are akin to going to visit someone in their home and telling them they are living "wrong". Respect is the watchword and it goes both ways.
Again it's all about the bonafide research, the venue, and respect...use what you choose, but understand the differences in not only in whether it's a verified object or what the venue is.
re: the "famous/infamous" 1757 bullet board - I have yet to see any chemical or spectograhic testing done on the patina which is currently the best way to date such objects. Dating via the tree rings is fraught with problems: an object can be made using old would cut down in the past and thus the test would only prove the wood was old, but not necessarily the object itself. This method is common practice amongst artifakers - both the bonafide honest ones but also the scammers.
Respectfully and let's hear some discussion......
