Hey Stuart, its been a while... how's things?
I'd be interested to know where you first heard the term 'Bushcraft'?
All the best
I'd be interested to know where you first heard the term 'Bushcraft'?
All the best
A Bold Statement
- Thread starter Stuart
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Hey Will, hope the knife making goes well 
... this is the first Woodlore brochure Ben and I received in 1997 when we attended our first course with Woodlore. Interestingly, bushcraft was once very much referred to as 'Wilderness Bushcraft' ('wilderness' being another very loaded/ complex term) however it seems that we have lost or dropped the emphasis on the 'wilderness' aspect in the UK as the bushcraft scene has developed...
[/IMG]
... this is the first Woodlore brochure Ben and I received in 1997 when we attended our first course with Woodlore. Interestingly, bushcraft was once very much referred to as 'Wilderness Bushcraft' ('wilderness' being another very loaded/ complex term) however it seems that we have lost or dropped the emphasis on the 'wilderness' aspect in the UK as the bushcraft scene has developed...
other than its Australian usage, I first heard it used by Lisa and Ben (woodsmoke).
And you're still surprised? At the outset of any interest or path of learning, you often don't see the full extent of the subject until deeply immersed within it.
Gosh Eddie McGee now, I have had his book on my shelves since time immemorial. Gunnera are big leaves, last time I was anywhere near the west coast of Scotland it seemed to be colonising it, (unless my botany is mistaken and it was Rhubarb after all)
forestwalker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I once heard this comment on the famed Tom Brown Jr; regardless of everything else his success has made more people interested in primitive technology than any other author. Sure, Larry Dean Olsen was earlier, and there were people teaching before he was, but without him I doubt that all the primtiive tech stuff that is out there now would exist. And for that reason alone a lot of people are willing to forgive him slapping a Apache label on a rephrased Black Elk.
It is the same for RM; for kicking off the modern European bushcraft movement I'm willing to forgive any number of cocksure statements.
There is also another issue. Say that someone put me in front of a TV camera and asked us about how to light a match (e.g.). I would explain why I did it my way, but also explain that there are several ways to do it, some better than others, a few that is more than a bit bass akwards, but several that works fine, etc. Ray says "there is a wrong way and a right way, this is the right way" (paraphrased from memory). Which one of us makes the better TV?
The same if I ask a PhD pharamcologist/MD with a deep interest in pharmacognosy about medically usefull wild plants. He'll talk about the what is known, making sure that he covers all the possible ifs, buts and ors, as well as what is not known ("but there are no really good clinical studies, it is mostly anecdotal and suggestive at best"). Then comes media-savy guru type and says "use tansy to cure the common cold". Which one gets across better to the average bloke? As a scientist I respect the formewr more, because it indicates that he's done his homework and is not overreaching his concusions. But I'm a deeply damaged individual, mentally marked by years in a university environment. Joe Blogs notices that one is fuzzy and uncertain, and one of them appears to know what he's talking about.
It is the same for RM; for kicking off the modern European bushcraft movement I'm willing to forgive any number of cocksure statements.
There is also another issue. Say that someone put me in front of a TV camera and asked us about how to light a match (e.g.). I would explain why I did it my way, but also explain that there are several ways to do it, some better than others, a few that is more than a bit bass akwards, but several that works fine, etc. Ray says "there is a wrong way and a right way, this is the right way" (paraphrased from memory). Which one of us makes the better TV?
The same if I ask a PhD pharamcologist/MD with a deep interest in pharmacognosy about medically usefull wild plants. He'll talk about the what is known, making sure that he covers all the possible ifs, buts and ors, as well as what is not known ("but there are no really good clinical studies, it is mostly anecdotal and suggestive at best"). Then comes media-savy guru type and says "use tansy to cure the common cold". Which one gets across better to the average bloke? As a scientist I respect the formewr more, because it indicates that he's done his homework and is not overreaching his concusions. But I'm a deeply damaged individual, mentally marked by years in a university environment. Joe Blogs notices that one is fuzzy and uncertain, and one of them appears to know what he's talking about.
G'day lisa
Kind regards
Mick
I'm interested in hearing your opinion as to why you think this is the case?... this is the first Woodlore brochure Ben and I received in 1997 when we attended our first course with Woodlore. Interestingly, bushcraft was once very much referred to as 'Wilderness Bushcraft' ('wilderness' being another very loaded/ complex term) however it seems that we have lost or dropped the emphasis on the 'wilderness' aspect in the UK as the bushcraft scene has developed...
[/IMG]
Kind regards
Mick
When talking to people about bushcraft, I always like to say that there is a distinction between survival and bushcraft. Survival (to my mind) denotes that you have been forced into the situation to have to survive, where-by, Bushcraft is a way of making the outdoors a more comfortable experience without lugging tons of kit around, because you want to be there. I attended one of Ray's lectures a few years ago and I recall he said something similar to what he said at stuarts lecture. I believe what he is saying that prior to his coining the phrase bushcraft, everyone called it survival.
Lisa, You'd have to be marked 80 + for the above abstract alone. I'd love to read more!
I must say that I felt kind of disappointed by the tone at the start of this thread but it has, nevertheless, prompted wonderful discussion.
I'm surprised that no-one seems to have noticed the hesitancy in Mears speech at the crucial moment of his damning statement. If you cast your minds back some months, you'll remember Gordon Brown's fluffing of his lines, leading to his "I have saved the world..." moment, Cameron seized on the remark and before we knew it Brown's name was splattered all over the world's news as he was made a laughing stock. I remember one cartoon with a muscular Brown dressed in a business suit with his underpants over his trousers.
Here's hoping that Cameron's errors are as petty and trivial!
RM doesn't strike me as being someone so arrogant as to have intended what he said as being a definitive statement to the exclusion of all others who have gone before (as the content of some of his programs have shown) and I'm sure he has a fairly comprehensive historical knowledge of his subject.
I don't believe the word "Bush" in this context has an historical British usage and, at an educated guess, would say it probably originated with the Boers in Africa. I can't say whether the term was used in Australia before the Boer War but that is certainly a possible origin, but the origin may be a parallel one.
Being older than Ray Mears, he most certainly wasn't around when I was a child, foraging around coast, wood and hillside for anything edible. My mother used to say "They'll come home when they're hungry.", knowing that it didn't really work like that, as I often came home stuffed with rabbit, trout, pheasant, eggs, stolen or foraged fruit or stinking of fish and covered in salmon scales (Me and half a million others). We eventually graduated from camping in the garden to the beach and woods and my first night out alone in a woodland was when I was 11 years old. Scary but true!
When I was 16 and at Sea School, we had an impromptu 2 day course in survival at sea with Eddie McGee. That was really the first of me dawning that I had a march on others of my age, as I already knew, or could easily adapt to the scenarios he presented and many of the other boys absolutely hated everything about it. McGee was an epiphany to me, as I learned then that everyday objects and materials had a multitude of functions they were never intended for.
Dr Scholl's foot powder + any proprietary brand aerosol with a propellant + a spark = an intensely hot flame which can be fed and will act as a foolproof tinder to anything combustible in any weather! Now that's something every boy should know!
I can't remember who came first, but there were TV programmes presented by Eddie McGee and by Les Hiddins, The Bush Tucker Man (but as Les Marshall says, they called it survival - a semantic difference?). But Ray Mears knows all this! I think it was a mear faux pas.
I'll just get my coat...
I must say that I felt kind of disappointed by the tone at the start of this thread but it has, nevertheless, prompted wonderful discussion.
I'm surprised that no-one seems to have noticed the hesitancy in Mears speech at the crucial moment of his damning statement. If you cast your minds back some months, you'll remember Gordon Brown's fluffing of his lines, leading to his "I have saved the world..." moment, Cameron seized on the remark and before we knew it Brown's name was splattered all over the world's news as he was made a laughing stock. I remember one cartoon with a muscular Brown dressed in a business suit with his underpants over his trousers.
Here's hoping that Cameron's errors are as petty and trivial!
RM doesn't strike me as being someone so arrogant as to have intended what he said as being a definitive statement to the exclusion of all others who have gone before (as the content of some of his programs have shown) and I'm sure he has a fairly comprehensive historical knowledge of his subject.
I don't believe the word "Bush" in this context has an historical British usage and, at an educated guess, would say it probably originated with the Boers in Africa. I can't say whether the term was used in Australia before the Boer War but that is certainly a possible origin, but the origin may be a parallel one.
Being older than Ray Mears, he most certainly wasn't around when I was a child, foraging around coast, wood and hillside for anything edible. My mother used to say "They'll come home when they're hungry.", knowing that it didn't really work like that, as I often came home stuffed with rabbit, trout, pheasant, eggs, stolen or foraged fruit or stinking of fish and covered in salmon scales (Me and half a million others). We eventually graduated from camping in the garden to the beach and woods and my first night out alone in a woodland was when I was 11 years old. Scary but true!
When I was 16 and at Sea School, we had an impromptu 2 day course in survival at sea with Eddie McGee. That was really the first of me dawning that I had a march on others of my age, as I already knew, or could easily adapt to the scenarios he presented and many of the other boys absolutely hated everything about it. McGee was an epiphany to me, as I learned then that everyday objects and materials had a multitude of functions they were never intended for.
Dr Scholl's foot powder + any proprietary brand aerosol with a propellant + a spark = an intensely hot flame which can be fed and will act as a foolproof tinder to anything combustible in any weather! Now that's something every boy should know!
I can't remember who came first, but there were TV programmes presented by Eddie McGee and by Les Hiddins, The Bush Tucker Man (but as Les Marshall says, they called it survival - a semantic difference?). But Ray Mears knows all this! I think it was a mear faux pas.
I'll just get my coat...
Last edited:
Thanks Pango ;-), some stuff about the word 'bush' from my research so far included below FYI...although I am only beginning this research and reading peoples stories/ influences and backgrounds before and beyond the media and Ray Mears (as appreciative as most of us are for his popularisation) is fascinating and I would certainly love to hear more! I also remember Eddie McGee as being one of the first books I got my hands on...and of course Lofty, but I was city kid and female and was not allowed a knife (ahhh poor me!). Anyway, some stuff about the word 'bush' -
During the settlement of North America, the word bush began to appear in the English language to describe an ‘uncultivated or sparsely settled area, especially widely accepted in America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or Canada’ ( dictionary). The word was used by the Dutch colonies to denote woodland and country covered with natural wood, but extended to usage in British colonies and was applied to the un-cleared or un-farmed districts still in a state of nature, and later used by extension for the countryside as opposed to the town (Ramson, 1966). Ramson (1966: 141) ascribes the first mention of the word bush to Governor Hunter ‘….woods, or bush, as it is called here…’ (Dawson, 1831: 48, taken from Ramson 1966: 141). However Ramson finds it used in Australian literature again just a few years later:
‘…the only convenient way of travelling in the ‘bush’* is on horseback’ (Breton, 1835: 42).
And, as noted in this sentence Breton (1835) makes a footnote to the word ‘bush’, perhaps feeling that its meaning at this time needed to be further defined for his readership. His footnote explains:
‘‘Bush’ is the term commonly used for country per se: ‘he resides in the bush’ implies that the person does not reside in or near a town. It also signifies a forest; and is an expression so well understood, and so much employed in the colonies, that I have often used it for want of better’ (Breton, 1835: 42)
Baker (1981) traces the word through South African English to Dutch and Morris (1898) following the Oxford English Dictionary, proposes the word as being a ‘recent, and probably direct adaptation of the Dutch bosch’ via Afrikaans. Bush and bushranger occur early in America and it is likely that both words are adopted into Australian English from American (Ramson, 1966:141).
In his publication Australian English, Ramson (1966), whilst not mentioning bushcraft specifically, describes how the word bush was used as a prefix or key element in Australian language forming many ‘new’ meanings for otherwise already familiar words. They were not new words as such, but new combinations, which demonstrated the character of nonce words or neologisms. Ramson (1966) provides a few examples of these new word combinations including bushfire, bushman, bush life or bush-ride, the prefix bush being used broadly to refer to anything outside of ‘civilisation’. He further suggests that these types of colloquial new word combinations were used facetiously by the traders and tourists of the late nineteenth century and onwards, who moved freely between America and Australia, plausibly borrowing words from one culture to another (Ramson, 1966:140). Ramson (1966) thus proposes that early Australian usage (pre 1850’s) of the terms bush and bush-ranger (denoting ‘woodsman’ or ‘bushman’ belonged to a small group of related colonial words within the context of ‘surveying land for settlement’ (Ramson, 1966: 135). These terms were borrowed via Whitehall by early British colonial administrators in London who were familiar with American practice in planning settlements in New South Wales, and thereby eventually being spread to Australia where they moved swiftly into common currency (ibid).
The term bushcraft makes its first appearance in 1888, page 75 of a publication entitled The History of Australian Exploration from 1788 to 1888 by Ernest Favenc, in which he writes, “the first native-born explorer to take to the field, was then gaining his bushcraft”, however the word, whilst in currency in Australia does not appear in regular use or wide circulation.
Sorry for the length of this post! And I am not suggesting this research is correct, its just the best I have so far, so please feel free to add if anyone has further insight!
During the settlement of North America, the word bush began to appear in the English language to describe an ‘uncultivated or sparsely settled area, especially widely accepted in America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or Canada’ ( dictionary). The word was used by the Dutch colonies to denote woodland and country covered with natural wood, but extended to usage in British colonies and was applied to the un-cleared or un-farmed districts still in a state of nature, and later used by extension for the countryside as opposed to the town (Ramson, 1966). Ramson (1966: 141) ascribes the first mention of the word bush to Governor Hunter ‘….woods, or bush, as it is called here…’ (Dawson, 1831: 48, taken from Ramson 1966: 141). However Ramson finds it used in Australian literature again just a few years later:
‘…the only convenient way of travelling in the ‘bush’* is on horseback’ (Breton, 1835: 42).
And, as noted in this sentence Breton (1835) makes a footnote to the word ‘bush’, perhaps feeling that its meaning at this time needed to be further defined for his readership. His footnote explains:
‘‘Bush’ is the term commonly used for country per se: ‘he resides in the bush’ implies that the person does not reside in or near a town. It also signifies a forest; and is an expression so well understood, and so much employed in the colonies, that I have often used it for want of better’ (Breton, 1835: 42)
Baker (1981) traces the word through South African English to Dutch and Morris (1898) following the Oxford English Dictionary, proposes the word as being a ‘recent, and probably direct adaptation of the Dutch bosch’ via Afrikaans. Bush and bushranger occur early in America and it is likely that both words are adopted into Australian English from American (Ramson, 1966:141).
In his publication Australian English, Ramson (1966), whilst not mentioning bushcraft specifically, describes how the word bush was used as a prefix or key element in Australian language forming many ‘new’ meanings for otherwise already familiar words. They were not new words as such, but new combinations, which demonstrated the character of nonce words or neologisms. Ramson (1966) provides a few examples of these new word combinations including bushfire, bushman, bush life or bush-ride, the prefix bush being used broadly to refer to anything outside of ‘civilisation’. He further suggests that these types of colloquial new word combinations were used facetiously by the traders and tourists of the late nineteenth century and onwards, who moved freely between America and Australia, plausibly borrowing words from one culture to another (Ramson, 1966:140). Ramson (1966) thus proposes that early Australian usage (pre 1850’s) of the terms bush and bush-ranger (denoting ‘woodsman’ or ‘bushman’
belonged to a small group of related colonial words within the context of ‘surveying land for settlement’ (Ramson, 1966: 135). These terms were borrowed via Whitehall by early British colonial administrators in London who were familiar with American practice in planning settlements in New South Wales, and thereby eventually being spread to Australia where they moved swiftly into common currency (ibid). The term bushcraft makes its first appearance in 1888, page 75 of a publication entitled The History of Australian Exploration from 1788 to 1888 by Ernest Favenc, in which he writes, “the first native-born explorer to take to the field, was then gaining his bushcraft”, however the word, whilst in currency in Australia does not appear in regular use or wide circulation.
Sorry for the length of this post! And I am not suggesting this research is correct, its just the best I have so far, so please feel free to add if anyone has further insight!
True - most of 8000er attempts are still siege style but my point was that a lot more alpine-style attempts go on these days than did 50 years, when alpine-style attempts were extremely rare.
Just a quick comment which I guess supports Lisa's definition in a broad way. I was on the phone to a bank the other day and their call centre was clearly overseas. I couldn't place the accent but, as overseas call centres don't bother me in the slightest, I didn't really want to ask in case it sounded a little bit rude. Anyway, I can't remember how we got onto the subject but I ended up telling him what I'd done at the weekend (bit of camping, skills, etc) and I described it as 'bushcraft'. The guy said he was based in Indonesia and what I'd just described was basically, well, normal life! However, the term 'bushcraft' was new to him. He said that he'd grown up with all of those types of skills and thought it was great that people in the UK were interested in them and were learning. I'd have stayed on the line chatting for ages but he'd probably have been sacked!
Anyway, my point is that bushcraft is something that is a very wide and varied 'church', with a history as long as mankind itself has been around. What we discuss on this forum as something we generally do in our leisure time is a normal part of daily life for other cultures. The guy I spoke to had no word for what we think of as 'bushcraft' because, as part of normal daily life, it doesn't need one - it's just 'living'.
Anyway, my point is that bushcraft is something that is a very wide and varied 'church', with a history as long as mankind itself has been around. What we discuss on this forum as something we generally do in our leisure time is a normal part of daily life for other cultures. The guy I spoke to had no word for what we think of as 'bushcraft' because, as part of normal daily life, it doesn't need one - it's just 'living'.
Lisa, stunning stuff. Don't worry about the length of the posts, it's a delight to read such curiosities.
Mikey P, "The guy I spoke to had no word for what we think of as 'bushcraft' because, as part of normal daily life, it doesn't need one - it's just 'living'."
Ha, ah, ha! Brilliant!
Mikey P, "The guy I spoke to had no word for what we think of as 'bushcraft' because, as part of normal daily life, it doesn't need one - it's just 'living'."
Ha, ah, ha! Brilliant!
Absolutely Mike...and love that you ended up chatting to this guy about bushcraft ;-)...
‘Bushcraft’ in Britain currently represents a practice in which certain knowledge and skills are applied within a ‘natural’ setting. Whereas for most of the history of mankind much of this ‘nature-life’ (Henderson) skill would have been learned at an early age at the familial level within a local environment, nowadays often the only way to receive a practical grounding in these ‘traditional’ skills is to attend a ‘bushcraft course’. In addition the 'traditional ecological knowledge' of 'indigenous' peoples would have been learned and applied within a specific local environment and respond to the seasonal patterns and variations of that particular place. In contrast 'bushcraft' may be considered very much less environmentally specific and arguably seeks to achieve a globally effective skill/knowledge base to support a ‘go anywhere’ wilderness adventure ambition or attitude.
I guess I really should actually get back to writing more, but its great to share bits of research and ideas!
‘Bushcraft’ in Britain currently represents a practice in which certain knowledge and skills are applied within a ‘natural’ setting. Whereas for most of the history of mankind much of this ‘nature-life’ (Henderson) skill would have been learned at an early age at the familial level within a local environment, nowadays often the only way to receive a practical grounding in these ‘traditional’ skills is to attend a ‘bushcraft course’. In addition the 'traditional ecological knowledge' of 'indigenous' peoples would have been learned and applied within a specific local environment and respond to the seasonal patterns and variations of that particular place. In contrast 'bushcraft' may be considered very much less environmentally specific and arguably seeks to achieve a globally effective skill/knowledge base to support a ‘go anywhere’ wilderness adventure ambition or attitude.
I guess I really should actually get back to writing more, but its great to share bits of research and ideas!
For me here in Australia it was Les Hiddins who popularized what we might consider 'Bushcraft' and until I discovered this forum I hadn't heard of Ray Mears and to my knowledge he's never been shown on TV here. A good summary of what 'Bushcraft' might be can probably be summarised by this quote from the back of Richard Graves' 'The 10 Bushcraft Books'.
Out of interest do you have 'bush' in the UK? I ask in all seriousness as here it is a term in common usage eg 'heading out bush', we've got bushfires and we've had bushrangers but I have never heard anyone refer to the bush in the UK context.
Out of interest do you have 'bush' in the UK? I ask in all seriousness as here it is a term in common usage eg 'heading out bush', we've got bushfires and we've had bushrangers but I have never heard anyone refer to the bush in the UK context.
Cagola...thats perfect! I have his books, but have to admit its been a long time since I have read them and I don't remember noticing that quote .
.
Led Hiddins is fantastic! Judging from the odd comment on these forums, I think there's a bit of a Les following here in the UK. Great, natural presenter; clearly passionate and knowledgeable about his subject; interesting and informative programmes. Did you know that in his book and TV Series ('Ray Mears Goes Walkabout'), he spent a whole episode with Les Hiddins? I wonder why they haven't shown the series down under...?
Cagola, I was hoping some others might jump in and respond to this question, but I think it might get lost and its a very interesting one so hopefully some others will also express their views. For myself I find this both easy and difficult to answer...the none academic me says no, no-one here really refers to 'going bush', we may say that we're heading for the countryside or the country, we may say more specifically that we're heading for the woods or even that we are heading into wilderness...but not really bush? Of course, it follows that we then have to raise the question what is 'bush', 'wilderness', 'countryside' and so on...
The academic in me wants to know, what do Aussies generally mean by bush? do you think of semi arid scrub or would you also refer to rainforest as 'bush'? Do you use it as generally refering to anything outside of 'civilisation' or does it refer to a specific type of landscape?
Words such as the largely American use of the term 'wilderness' have been critisized for the common reference to lands empty of human habitation or untouched by human hands...and yet we now recognise of course that many First Nations peoples live and have lived in these 'wilderness' areas far longer than we have been writing about 'wilderness'! And have shaped the land 'untouched' by humans...just as the Aborigines in Oz...
Similar threads
