"Elvenising" my equipment.

[Tadpole]

I think you're overestimating the value of comfort, and you don't see that it can be a narcotic. It can dull the senses and weaken the spirit.

Learning not to care much about a full belly and perfect comfort and being unafraid of hunger and some misery in pursuit of something is one of the steps you make on the road to real living.

Try some adventuresome privation, friend, you'll find you like it.

Been there done that, got the tee shirt. I was homeless for 18 months in my younger days and lived rough, tramped round the south west of England working for cash or food, carrying all my worldly possession in a rucksack. Going without for a month or so, is ok as a holiday. But not as a life style choice, the ‘plucky native’ never gets a chance to swap comfort and security for his hard life.

And as for "certainly all of the greatest adventures -- came about as a result of people who didn't care a whit about whether they were cold or miserable and instead focused on some larger goal"
I stand by my statement that given a choice “the great adventurers” would not choose to do without; it is only the logistics that force them to do so. ‘Way back when’ the great explorers took everything including the kitchen sink and a couple of hundred servants to carry it all.

 

[dogwood]

And as for "certainly all of the greatest adventures -- came about as a result of people who didn't care a whit about whether they were cold or miserable and instead focused on some larger goal"
I stand by my statement that given a choice “the great adventurers” would not choose to do without; it is only the logistics that force them to do so. ‘Way back when’ the great explorers took everything including the kitchen sink and a couple of hundred servants to carry it all.

What you say is simply not true. In fact, it's so wrong historically I barely know where to start...

All of the people who set out for the frontier did so knowing that discomfort and hardship would come their way. Whether we're talking about the people on the frontier in Kentucky or the Amazon or in Ontario the same is true. Where they the "fools" you speak of?

The vikings knew there would be hardships and went anyway. The Romans too. The Mongols too. The Polynesians. Were these people the "fools" you speak of?

Everyone who has ever been a member of the armed forces has made the same choice to accept hardship and danger. Are they the "fools" you speak of?

All the explorers made the same choice. Some left with a lot, but it never lasted long and they knew it wouldn't. From Columbus to Drake the seafarers suffered. Lewis and Clark's entire party were nearly naked when they returned. And they did NOT take scores of servants. They had one change of clothes each. Were they the "fools" you speak of?

At 17, my great, great, great grandfather left a comfortable life in Scotland in 1710 to come to Florida as an indentured servant and he knew that misery would accompany every step. But he had dreams. Within 15 years he owned one of the largest plantations on the coast of Georgia. Was he the kind of "fool" you speak of?

And, about those "natives" that you disdain so quaintly (and so often!)....

The people of the five (later six) nations of the Iroquois had a life expectancy greater than the average European of the time and, by the time the English arrived, the Iroquois had a representative republic that was more than 200 years old and strong. Iroquois women owned land and could veto the wars of men -- to have balance in society, the Iroquois women elected the chiefs. Both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were envoys to the Iroquois and Jefferson used the structure of the five nations to inspire portions of the US constitution. Were the Iroquois the "fools" you speak of?

Tadpole, you should be thankful and respectful to all those "fools" and the natives that you, apparently, dislike so much. You are insulting people who should be respected and admired with the way you're framing your argument.

 

[Tadpole]

Tadpole, you should be thankful and respectful to all those "fools" and the natives that you, apparently, dislike so much. You are insulting people who should be respected and admired with the way you're framing your argument.

Clearly you are under some misapprehension as to my point, either you are deliberately misreading my point, or you have not read my posts. I do not mock the natives, I’m standing up for them, they had no choice, they suffered because they had no choice, and they survived despite having no choice. They thrived and still they had no choice, it was root hog or die. Those people did not live in some bucolic idly, some pastoral Eden, they had hard and brutal often short and pain filled lives, and everyone one of them would swap that, for a life of comfort, and warmth. My respect for them, doing what they did, with the limited options they had, outweighs the respect I have for those people who idolise their "wonderful lives" and thereby lessens their real achievements
You seem to think that the Viking the Romans, the Mongol, and the Polynesians just decided one day to pop out for a bit of exploring, I’d suggest you take a deeper look into history, especially population pressure and politics

I think you should explore the real lives of the people you are viewing through rose tinted eyeshades. Their lives are not as romantic or as fulfilling as you seem to dream it is.


Wandering off in to the woods on a three week vacation, with a knife a kettle and a blanket is ok, as a holiday, a short stop, knowing full well that you’re a day or two walk from a road and civilisation. but it's nothing like the real thing

 

[Bravo4]

Amundsen
Scott

I never read Tolkien and only know of the Keebler Elves and their yummy snacks. I read of explorers as a kid and I suppose those stories served as my mythology. Sort of a revelation for me coming from a thread I thought was going to be about pointy shoes.

The myth from my childhood that I relate to the most, one I have studied as an adult, is the story of Amundsen and the story of Scott. One man "Elvenized" his equipment so to speak, which involved quite a bit more than the mere acquisition of kit. It invovled learning from people who lived the life, the elves themselves.

So much of 'comfort' is mental. Physical hardship can be a demon that gets the best of us. So often the second time I experience a difficult situation, it seems silly how tough I remember the first time to be. Time and again my own experience shows me it is my attitude which determines to some extent how cold I am or how tired or thirsty. Three times I have been too long without water, to the point where I was concerned for my well being. Long stories all, but each time my physical suffering was greatly alleviated the moment I "knew" with certainty I would reach water and when. The dehydration was for real but much of the discomfort was only in my mind.

Survivors of the shipwrecked 'Medusa' went cannibal after three days without food. These folks were pretty far out of their comfort zone, but come on, 3 days? This tells me it has to be of the mind not of the body.

Back to elves.....I came across the description of a Ghillie Dhu and think I am possibly related...dark hair, long arms and fingers, sometimes clothed in leaves and moss, active at night, prefers trees to people but kids are ok,,,, then something about coming over to the states with Scottish fur trappers??? Other than the obvious google search, can anyone point me to more info on a Ghillie Dhu?



.

 

[Dunk]

Have you tried my bannock?

whats your recipe and cooking method John? or is it secret?

 

[Wallenstein]

whats your recipe and cooking method John? or is it secret?

http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19276

I've used a variation on this recipe and it's really, really good.

I cooked it on a flat scandianvian cast-iron griddle... over embers but kept the heat reasonably low and turned every 45 secs or so. Bit more labour intensive but gave a much more even cooking result.

By the time it had gone round the campfire once there wasn't much left. It's a really yummy version of it.

 

[Bravo4]

Lewis and Clark
Burkes and Wills

Two other examples that come to mind. (not for bannock but that's probably there too) One key difference between these 2 expeditions as I see it, just one.

Holy moly, I gave away my copy of Alan Moorhead's "Cooper's Creek" (the Burkes and Wills expedition) and there are hardcovers selling for $86us on Amazon:yikes: , geez I don't feel so good
http://www.amazon.com/Coopers-Creek-Alan-Moorehead/dp/0848805933

 

[dogwood]

Clearly you are under some misapprehension as to my point, either you are deliberately misreading my point, or you have not read my posts.


Wandering off in to the woods on a three week vacation, with a knife a kettle and a blanket is ok, as a holiday, a short stop, knowing full well that you’re a day or two walk from a road and civilisation. but it's nothing like the real thing

I don't believe I have misread your posts. Your point, consistently, is that people who deliberately put themselves in a position of privation are foolish.

It's as if you view the entire story of history as the search for comfort. And while that's an element of history, it's not the backbone of it in the grand sweep of things.

And my point is that history is replete with examples of people who willingly and knowingly set comfort aside to try something different for goals that you might find elusive, but are valid nonetheless.

Heck, the entire story of the New World is defined by just that choice, whether you're talking about Europeans 500 years ago, Simon Kenton in Kentucky or Mexican immigrants today.

And you're *not* defending the "plucky natives" (your words, not mine) by suggesting that their background was filled with suffering and darkness and misery until (presumably) European comfort arrived to save them. Your viewpoint -- couched in the sneering references to "rose-tinted glasses" -- is a classic failure Euro-centrism. Comfort above all! Our style of comfort!

Your idea of the "plucky native" living in squalor and yearning to be set on the path to central heating simply was not the case with huge swatches of native people -- including most in the New World. That's not to say some of their lives weren't hard, but many were not (particularly in the context of their cultures). Your cultural bias is showing.

Besides you muddy the water by co-mingling observations about poverty with observations about native people. Poverty is a different issue -- some natives were well off and some poor and yes, the poor ones did year for a change. And that change generally involved choosing, for some period of time, to endure privation.

What we're talking about here is being willing to set aside comfort in order to accomplish other things in life. That's a choice many have made and for reasons both noble (and, yes, sometimes greedy) throughout history. But it is not foolish nor naive and it should be respected.

And if you think it was population pressure that lead the Vikings to set sail or the Mongols to ride, you're utterly mistaken... The main point is (for the purposes of the discussion at hand), that they willingly set aside the comfort you so vigorously guard because they had other goals (sometimes booty, sometimes simply curiosity) in mind.

Comfort is not the supreme expression of the human story, it's simply a nice side benefit.
But it is one that can be over rated.

 

[dogwood]

Eeek, I just looked at the length of my posts.

Sorry folks for going on so.

I'll keep any further responses to three lines or less.

 

[Tadpole]

I don't believe I have misread your posts. Your point, consistently, is that people who deliberately put themselves in a position of privation are foolish.
.

Not worth bothering with the rest of your post as your first line proves you do not read my posts.

 

[British Red]

Hmmm tempted to chime in on this one...but worried that its getting heated!

I do think there is a huge difference in the midset of European explorers and colonisers, original indiginous people and ealier colonisations, invasions and migrations. To simplify it into a mind set that have or had the same motivations strikes me as an oversimplification.

Colonisers / invaders and settlers were not I feel "in the main" on an expedition for its own sake. The privations they put themselves through were real, however the motivation was often acquisition.

Lets look at cases. "Viking" is a verb not a noun. Lets not beat around the bush - Viking was raiding - an expedition of raiding for profit. Of course there were also settlers from the Danes and other nations. Expeditions for conquest, gain and good farmland.

The views of many Roman soldiers are still there to be read on Hadrians wall - but agan empire, goods, grain and conquest were the motivation. The privations were suffered by legionaries (often of course from other conquered states), but the motivation in sending them was aquisitive.

Now the simpler and perhaps less mercenary motivations of "first nations" people are a different matter - be the Maori or Cherokee. They were the invaded. Often their lands were removed by force and "assimilate or die" was the order of the day. Did some enjoy some of the aspects of the assimilated lifestyle (or even seek it out)? Sure. But many others died resisting the conquest and assimilation.

I rather suspect that in all nations and cultures there are those who want a comfortable life with luxury, those who adore simplicity and tradition and those who are thrill and adventure seekers. However I also think that, looking back over history, most explorers and travellers were motivated by more than simple wanderlust.

Red

 

[John Fenna]

whats your recipe and cooking method John? or is it secret?

Search "Bannock" and you will find my recipe and a LOAD of varients/comments etc
I will not claim a secret - some varients are much better than my version!

 

[big_swede]

Hehe, I knew I would upset some. But I think these kind of discussions are really important. Especially when we get argument from different cultural contexts. I think dogwood has said a lot of interesting stuff here. I think it time to realise that we in the western world are comfort addicts, and it isn't dangerous to once in a while step out of our comfort zone, specially not if we are learning and devoloping as persons in the process.

I think that tadpole is, for some reason, taking a defensive stand here, and I can not understand why? I'm sure you are happy when camping, and dry and fed and warm and all that, but why are you doing it? What can you possibly learn sitting in a tent? I thought this forum was about primitive skill?

Personally I have nothing against putting my personal momentarily comfort to the side. That way I get better feedback, I feel more connected to the reality I'm currently in (which is the forest). I definitely feel more alive out there, when I know I'm at risk, rather then being just at home away so to speak (tent, gas stove, super comfy princess-and-the-pea-air-down mattress). I sincerely don't think a guy who wish to 'elvenise' or primitivise his kit you be put of. And wether the 'natives' would swap their free life in nature with being marginalised and poor in cities has nothing to do with it. This is about building skill, not a socioanthropologic study.

And BR, I'm afraid viking is a noun. It could surely work as a verb to in some contexts.

And lets not forget that discussions are the base of a forum, if there were no different opinions it would be pretty boring, eh?

 

[British Red]

I'd like to read some etymological substantiation on that one big_swede. I'm open to being convinced, but have heard arguments on both sides and in my own view the use of it as a description of an activity rather than a race of class of peoples makes far more sense.

Red

 

[big_swede]

I'd like to read some etymological substantiation on that one big_swede. I'm open to being convinced, but have heard arguments on both sides and in my own view the use of it as a description of an activity rather than a race of class of peoples makes far more sense.

Red

I've heard a lot of different explanations. They discussed this on a quite recent tv-show that was only about etymology. Although they aren't sure about the origins of the word, most sources indicate that it would mean people coming from bays (vik), in scandinavian languages that would be viking. But there are a lot of different theories, one for instance was that it would originate from the latin viscus (trade) via the anglosaxon (Englisc) wík since most vikings infact were merchants, not raiders. The main problem with these discussions is that it's a pretty long timeperiod with vikings coming from quite different cultural settings. The swedish guys going east were not the same people as the danish going to Britain. And in icelandic sagas the word viking displays a wide spectrum of meanings.

 

[dogwood]

Lets look at cases. "Viking" is a verb not a noun. Lets not beat around the bush - Viking was raiding - an expedition of raiding for profit. Of course there were also settlers from the Danes and other nations. Expeditions for conquest, gain and good farmland.

Red, I don't dispute for a moment that the hope of gain and conquest was an important factor in exploration.

But it was not the only important factor -- the frontier experience is defined by people who accepted hardships to see what they could make of the world, not just to see what they could take from it. Staying at home was almost always the faster route to wealth, incidentally, but they chose the other route.

And that's what I find fascinating: for every one person who decided to step foot on a whaler or strike out to the frontier or climb on that horse and head over the hill, there were 1,000 who decided to stay home. The 1,000 who stayed had a surer path to wealth, the 1 who goes is driven by something else.

So what motivated those who took the risks and headed out? Something different than the average person -- maybe wanderlust, maybe vision. Something

 

[dogwood]

Personally I have nothing against putting my personal momentarily comfort to the side. That way I get better feedback, I feel more connected to the reality I'm currently in (which is the forest). I definitely feel more alive out there, when I know I'm at risk, rather then being just at home away so to speak (tent, gas stove, super comfy princess-and-the-pea-air-down mattress).

Amen, Big Swede!

The idea of going without comfort in order to learn about the world and oneself is ancient and valuable.

It's worth noting that throughout history and in almost all cultures there is a notion that one achieves wisdom and self-understanding and mastery by going without -- from Native American vision quests to aboriginal walkabouts to monks in monasteries to Spartans.

In some cases it was a limited duration privation, in others it was a lifestyle, but the idea achieving wisdom this way appears in so many cultures, it can't be avoided.

 

[Matt.S]

I'm not too clear on the period definitions and etymology but the academic convention is that 'viking' is a verb and shouldn't be used as a noun or adjective. Whether this means 'trading', 'raiding', 'settling' or 'exploring' is an area of debate.

What a thread veer!

 

[British Red]

So what motivated those who took the risks and headed out? Something different than the average person -- maybe wanderlust, maybe vision.

Well now I'm not so sure about the vision, take the USA as a case in point, in many if not most cases the motivations for seeking out "The New World" can be found in what people were running from, as much if not more as to what they were running to.

The Mayflower - religious opression,The Irish emigres - the potato famine, The East India Company - commercial gain. In all enterprises there are those that will run risk for profit - or to escape something worse.

Columbus himself was hardly just sailing around for the joy of adventure.

The "working colonisers" seem to me to generally escaping poverty or opression, the foundations, companies and financiers are after a return on investment.

Prosaic - but how I see it. Of course individuals, the free spirits, thrived under the simple and unregulated conditions, and I'm sure it suited some. However when you come right down to it - personal betterment is the prime motivation in most colonisation and conquest.

Red

 

[dogwood]

The Mayflower - religious opression,The Irish emigres - the potato famine, The East India Company - commercial gain. In all enterprises there are those that will run risk for profit - or to escape something worse.

True, in the case of the three instances you cite. But along with those specific cases there were literally hundreds of thousands of people who came because they simply wanted to see what they could make in the world.

Columbus himself was hardly just sailing around for the joy of adventure.

No he wasn't. His crew for the first voyage was 87 people. They didn't expect to become wealthy or powerful. And yet they went on an incredibly risky voyage when they *could* have stayed in familiar waters. My point is this: the people who do such things are different than most. They could have stayed home. They did not.

The "working colonisers" seem to me to generally escaping poverty or opression, the foundations, companies and financiers are after a return on investment.

This is certainly not the case for the *majority* of people on the various American frontiers. That's not to say that *some* weren't escaping poverty or oppression, but most were not.

Prosaic - but how I see it. Of course individuals, the free spirits, thrived under the simple and unregulated conditions, and I'm sure it suited some. However when you come right down to it - personal betterment is the prime motivation in most colonisation and conquest.

Agreed that betterment was a significant motivation. However, history convincingly demonstrates that the fastest path to wealth and betterment tends to come from staying at home.

And that's the point -- leaving aside outright persecution, which generally results in only minor migrations -- throughout history some people have chosen the *harder* route to betterment by heading to the frontier.

And contemplating why these people made this choice is a good thing.

But then again, I'm a descendant of people who made exactly that choice, so it's natural that I would feel it's special