Long Term Wilderness Survival

[rik_uk3]

If it came to real 18 th century long term wilderness survival, I would prefer to copy from the native indians, rather than the colonials, I can't help thinking ......the colonial's long term was prehaps & wee bit shorter than that of the indian's.
I really dig the colonial clothing though, Indian skills & snappy duds, now theres a combination.

If the local kit was that good how come they traded all they could for blankets, knives, guns and axes etc?

Good to see you back Le Loup

 

[Husky]

Don't you mean in the direction you would prefer it to go ?

No, I meant in the direction that the OP would want it to go. I am happy to read and learn from any posts or discussions.

 

[Lynx]

Where in the world are you Le Loup? I'd love you to do a workshop/lecture at a meet - sounds fascinating.

Am I the only one who can read his location clearly stated for all to see on the right hand side under "location" ? Lol. It says: Wychwood Forest, New England, Australia!

 

[blacktimberwolf]

If the local kit was that good how come they traded all they could for blankets, knives, guns and axes etc?

Good to see you back Le Loup

You've got me there,...... they must have been so relieved when the colonials arrived, having spent thousands of years living & thriving with such duff gear........... I have to bow to your superior knowledge about the numbers of indians that actually traded & what with......... I don't know why you brought up local kit, because I didn't, I was refering more to skills & knowledge , but everyone's free to read into my posts what they choose.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

No, I meant in the direction that the OP would want it to go. I am happy to read and learn from any posts or discussions.

Sorry, how wrong can I be.................I wish I could be in such communion with OP's.

 

[santaman2000]

Too many people try to use kit/gear to replace or make up for lack of experience/knowledge. The classic case is the person who buys the best possible fishing poles/lures/vests/hats/boots, and expects all those "toys" to make them a great trout fisherman - and then get upset when they get out fished by a person with a willow pole/line/hook using a worm...

Ironic choice of examples. In most Southern states fishing with a cane pole from the shore with live bait is so ingrained it doesn't require any kind of license; on the other hand in many Western states fishing with live bait can be illegal.

 

[santaman2000]

If it came to real 18 th century long term wilderness survival, I would prefer to copy from the native indians, rather than the colonials, I can't help thinking ......the colonial's long term was prehaps & wee bit shorter than that of the indian's.
I really dig the colonial clothing though, Indian skills & snappy duds, now theres a combination.

The Op mentioned Australia. I believe the Aboriginals there were not referred to as Indians. But as to comparing the American colonists with Indians you're partially right. The "colonists" were indeed more short term minded as to wilderness "survival"; they were more interested in homesteading. On the other hand by this era the "Long Hunters" were prevalent and they did indeed actually live and trap in the wilds and adopt or adapt many of the Indian skills (and to a lesser extent their clothing as their own wore out)

 

[santaman2000]

After all this time I came across this post I made ages ago. I never did recieve notification of your replies. Hi Mike.
I am living in a forest in New England Australia, but I was born in West Sussex England.
Mike Ameling has I think explained the reasoning behind why 18th century methods & tools are superior, at least in our view. But it is not just the tools & equipment & skills, it is also the attitude, the way you learn to think.
Most of you no doubt have a list of kit that you take with you when you go bush. A part of this kit will be a survival kit. My whole kit in one small knapsack is my survival kit. I can pick up my 18th century knapsack & tools & walk out the door & survive in the wilderness for the rest of my life...

I quite agree on the mindset from the era being better suited but I should point out that in reality they weren't thinking "survival" as we know it. They were thinking "going home" as the wilderness was in effect their home.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

The Op mentioned Australia. I believe the Aboriginals there were not referred to as Indians. But as to comparing the American colonists with Indians you're partially right. The "colonists" were indeed more short term minded as to wilderness "survival"; they were more interested in homesteading. On the other hand by this era the "Long Hunters" were prevalent and they did indeed actually live and trap in the wilds and adopt or adapt many of the Indian skills (and to a lesser extent their clothing as their own wore out)

Thanks for that & yes your right, I thought the Australia bit was a misprint, didn't know there was a New England in aussie, but having googled it there it is.I think a few of us have fallen in that trap!.....doesn't really change much with what I said though, just change aboriginal for indian & the jobs a gooden'...........I'm not an expert of course, but those costumes do look a little pilgrim fatherish of the American colonials, but my knowledge comes from the movies, not the best place I grant you.

 

[santaman2000]

Thanks for that & yes your right, I thought the Australia bit was a misprint, didn't know there was a New England in aussie, but having googled it there it is.I think a few of us have fallen in that trap!.....doesn't really change much with what I said though, just change aboriginal for indian & the jobs a gooden'...........I'm not an expert of course, but those costumes do look a little pilgrim fatherish of the American colonials, but my knowledge comes from the movies, not the best place I grant you.

LOL. I didn't know until today that there was a New England in Australia either. I imagine the costumes would have been the same anywhere in the world during the period though. After all they would have been the same clothing the colonists to anywhere would have brought with them from Europe.

I agree with Rik_UK on the equipment issue though. The Indians were quite happy to trade for metal kit (axes, knives, pots and such) as well as woolen goods. We usually think of the Indians as a hunter gatherer existence but it's worth remembering that they were also skilled farmers and had to teach the new colonists how to cultivate the crops discovered in the new World (corn/maize, potatoes, tomatoes, etc.) It's also interesting to note that in Mezo-America and South America the Mayas, Aztecs and Toltecs developed empires to rival Rome and the Incan empire stretched the entire length of the Andes Mountain chain; all this with stone-age tools, no wheel and in the case of the Incas without a written language!

 

[blacktimberwolf]

LOL. I didn't know until today that there was a New England in Australia either. I imagine the costumes would have been the same anywhere in the world during the period though. After all they would have been the same clothing the colonists to anywhere would have brought with them from Europe.

Could be, though prehaps puritans & convicts didn't shop at the same store...LOL......It's .honest of you to admit about a New England in Aus. I think quite a few of us have learnt a bit of geography today.........

 

[blacktimberwolf]

LOL. I didn't know until today that there was a New England in Australia either. I imagine the costumes would have been the same anywhere in the world during the period though. After all they would have been the same clothing the colonists to anywhere would have brought with them from Europe.

I agree with Rik_UK on the equipment issue though. The Indians were quite happy to trade for metal kit (axes, knives, pots and such) as well as woolen goods. We usually think of the Indians as a hunter gatherer existence but it's worth remembering that they were also skilled farmers and had to teach the new colonists how to cultivate the crops discovered in the new World (corn/maize, potatoes, tomatoes, etc.) It's also interesting to note that in Mezo-America and South America the Mayas, Aztecs and Toltecs developed empires to rival Rome and the Incan empire stretched the entire length of the Andes Mountain chain; all this with stone-age tools, no wheel and in the case of the Incas without a written language!

I know about some tribes trading with pale face, I've seen quite a few westerns,........but I think this would have been much later on, after the colonials had killed off most of the game,& cut the forests to make agricultural land. Life would have been much harder & pale face's iron sticks would have given them an edge.. I also believe that those natives living near colonial settlements would have become dependant on white man, especially those that had lost their culture. Pale face's fire water has destroyed many native cultures
True some tribes did farm & may have helped white man plant, but you would have been very ill advised to ask an apache how to prune a runner bean, if you didn't want a part of your anatomy hanging from his belt.
Colonialists were europeans with an attitude problem, considering anyone who wasn't white & christian as inferior to them & the indians were looked upon as animals, as were all native peoples at that time (I think some people still do)

 

[Home Guard]

My whole kit in one small knapsack is my survival kit. I can pick up my 18th century knapsack & tools & walk out the door & survive in the wilderness for the rest of my life. You can't do that with 21st century thinking & equipment.

What does your kit contain? I suppose this was how bushcrafting was first formed.

 

[santaman2000]

I know about some tribes trading with pale face, I've seen quite a few westerns,........but I think this would have been much later on, after the colonials had killed off most of the game,& cut the forests to make agricultural land. Life would have been much harder & pale face's iron sticks would have given them an edge.. I also believe that those natives living near colonial settlements would have become dependent on white man, especially those that had lost their culture. Pale face's fire water has destroyed many native cultures
True some tribes did farm & may have helped white man plant, but you would have been very ill advised to ask an apache how to prune a runner bean, if you didn't want a part of your anatomy hanging from his belt.
Colonialists were europeans with an attitude problem, considering anyone who wasn't white & christian as inferior to them & the Indians were looked upon as animals, as were all native peoples at that time (I think some people still do)

Agriculture, especially squash, pole beans and the aforementioned crop of corn which they taught the settlers to plant together as "the sisters" were extremely important as were crops of potatoes. These were staples of their diet. It should be noted that corn (maize) is the single oldest cultivated plant in the world. It's so old that no version of it still survives as a wild plant (and hasn't for dozens of centuries) None of these crops existed in the old world until after Columbus' 1st voyage. Even the 1st attempts at introducing them to the old world were disasterous; the Europeans 1st tried to eat the potato plants' leaves which were poisonous (it's in the nightshade family) and they didn't understand how to process corn (with lye) to make it digestable.

The Apache weren't encountered until around the 1800s. The early English and French colonists (1500a-1600s) encountered the Eastern nations (not tribes, that's an insulting term for the family bands) and traded extensively with them. The Indians also taught the early settlers how to make beer from the local ingredients although it was much weaker than the European versions. European diseases played far more havoc on native populations than anything else. During the F&I wars the British commander deliberately traded blankets to the Indians that were infected with Yellow Fever (or maybe it was Typhoid; my memory isn't the best on the fine point)

The French in particular were much more excepting of the Indian culture often intermarrying with them. The early (and I do mean early) English settlers such as the Pilgrams were usually very co-operative (if wary of) the local peoples. As they began to outnumber them and move farther West they began to regard them with disdain. The Spanish alternately adopted some nations while obliterating others with no discernable pattern.

Don't pay to much attention to the Westerns. If you believe them it would seem that hunting buffalo from horseback was an integral part of the Plains Indians culture. That would be impossible as they never saw horses until the Europeans brought them over. Their pre-Columbian culture was indeed dependent on the buffalo but their hunting methods were highly dependent on setting fire to the plains & stampeding the buffalo over a cliff. Hardly the stuff of Westerns.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

Agriculture, especially squash, pole beans and the aforementioned crop of corn which they taught the settlers to plant together as "the sisters" were extremely important as were crops of potatoes. These were staples of their diet. It should be noted that corn (maize) is the single oldest cultivated plant in the world. It's so old that no version of it still survives as a wild plant (and hasn't for dozens of centuries) None of these crops existed in the old world until after Columbus' 1st voyage. Even the 1st attempts at introducing them to the old world were disasterous; the Europeans 1st tried to eat the potato plants' leaves which were poisonous (it's in the nightshade family) and they didn't understand how to process corn (with lye) to make it digestable.

The Apache weren't encountered until around the 1800s. The early English and French colonists (1500a-1600s) encountered the Eastern nations (not tribes, that's an insulting term for the family bands) and traded extensively with them. The Indians also taught the early settlers how to make beer from the local ingredients although it was much weaker than the European versions. European diseases played far more havoc on native populations than anything else. During the F&I wars the British commander deliberately traded blankets to the Indians that were infected with Yellow Fever (or maybe it was Typhoid; my memory isn't the best on the fine point)

The French in particular were much more excepting of the Indian culture often intermarrying with them. The early (and I do mean early) English settlers such as the Pilgrams were usually very co-operative (if wary of) the local peoples. As they began to outnumber them and move farther West they began to regard them with disdain. The Spanish alternately adopted some nations while obliterating others with no discernable pattern.

Don't pay to much attention to the Westerns. If you believe them it would seem that hunting buffalo from horseback was an integral part of the Plains Indians culture. That would be impossible as they never saw horses until the Europeans brought them over. Their pre-Columbian culture was indeed dependent on the buffalo but their hunting methods were highly dependent on setting fire to the plains & stampeding the buffalo over a cliff. Hardly the stuff of Westerns.

Thanks for taking the time to type all that. I would like to offer my apologies to the Indian nations for calling them tribes.
I'm a bit disappointed about indians shooting tatonka on horseback is a myth, Kevn Costner is a downright lyer. Please don't tell me John Wayne wasn't a real cowboy.
You were right about the blankets, but I think they were infected with smallpox,....you didn't mention the wars against the indians led sucessively by the french, english & americans, I think we can safely call it a genocide.While I prefer the picture you paint of co-operation between colonialists/ settlers & indians, this may have been an exception rather than the rule.
In the future, I'll try & see westerns as fictive entertainment & not as historical documents.....I did have my doubts about Clint Eastwood's hair style, even I know cowboys didn't walk around looking like Californian hairdressers..........thanks again.

 

[Corso]

I can pick up my 18th century knapsack & tools & walk out the door & survive in the wilderness for the rest of my life. You can't do that with 21st century thinking & equipment.

I'm sorry what?

I'm as interested as anyone in the old ways but to suggest they were better times is crazy unless your planning a short and challenging 'rest of your life'.

Agriculture, especially squash, pole beans and the aforementioned crop of corn which they taught the settlers to plant together as "the sisters" were extremely important as were crops of potatoes. These were staples of their diet. It should be noted that corn (maize) is the single oldest cultivated plant in the world. It's so old that no version of it still survives as a wild plant (and hasn't for dozens of centuries) None of these crops existed in the old world until after Columbus' 1st voyage. Even the 1st attempts at introducing them to the old world were disasterous; the Europeans 1st tried to eat the potato plants' leaves which were poisonous (it's in the nightshade family) and they didn't understand how to process corn (with lye) to make it digestable.

The Apache weren't encountered until around the 1800s. The early English and French colonists (1500a-1600s) encountered the Eastern nations (not tribes, that's an insulting term for the family bands) and traded extensively with them. The Indians also taught the early settlers how to make beer from the local ingredients although it was much weaker than the European versions. European diseases played far more havoc on native populations than anything else. During the F&I wars the British commander deliberately traded blankets to the Indians that were infected with Yellow Fever (or maybe it was Typhoid; my memory isn't the best on the fine point)

The French in particular were much more excepting of the Indian culture often intermarrying with them. The early (and I do mean early) English settlers such as the Pilgrams were usually very co-operative (if wary of) the local peoples. As they began to outnumber them and move farther West they began to regard them with disdain. The Spanish alternately adopted some nations while obliterating others with no discernable pattern.

Don't pay to much attention to the Westerns. If you believe them it would seem that hunting buffalo from horseback was an integral part of the Plains Indians culture. That would be impossible as they never saw horses until the Europeans brought them over. Their pre-Columbian culture was indeed dependent on the buffalo but their hunting methods were highly dependent on setting fire to the plains & stampeding the buffalo over a cliff. Hardly the stuff of Westerns.

very interesing can we get some references re this

 

[santaman2000]

I'm sorry what?

I'm as interested as anyone in the old ways but to suggest they were better times is crazy unless your planning a short and challenging 'rest of your life'.




very interesing can we get some references re this

The Dept. of the Interior's registry of Indian nations; every museum of Indian culture (there are 3 within a day's drive and another half dozen out West I've taken instruction in); The lectures given at every Pow-Wow (they're annual celebrations of Indian culture with an educational theme); every history textbook written and accepted in class since the 1980s; every documentary that's aired in the last 20 years and the verbal traditions told to me by at least 3 of my Indian friends. The agriculture part goes back to every textbook accepted since well before the 1900s.

 

[santaman2000]

Thanks for taking the time to type all that. I would like to offer my apologies to the Indian nations for calling them tribes.
I'm a bit disappointed about indians shooting tatonka on horseback is a myth, Kevn Costner is a downright lyer...

Don't misunderstand. I wasn't trying to be demeaning and just as importantly I wasn't trying to say these things didn't happen. I was trying to say that since they occurred at such a late time in history (after horses and guns were introduced by whites) I'm not sure if they can actually be considered as true "Indian" culture. Wouldn't that more propperly be their culture as it was in the Pre-Columbian era?

 

[santaman2000]

...you didn't mention the wars against the indians led sucessively by the french, english & americans, I think we can safely call it a genocide.While I prefer the picture you paint of co-operation between colonialists/ settlers & indians, this may have been an exception rather than the rule...

I didn't mean to downplay the genocide or any of the conflicts. Just trying to set them to the propper time period. The early settlers were in no position to wage such atrocities. The Pilgrims were alone, poorly armed (the firearms of the period were slow loading, unreliable and inaccurate) and isolated among a vastly numerically superior native population that almost completely depended upon. They stole from the Indians (they took some seed corn they believed was abandoned) and desecrated some of their burial grounds (supposedly unknowingly) They then had to make amends and satisfy the Indians that it had indeed been accidental. Perhaps they would have committed the atrocities if they had been in a position of strength (later waves and generations of settlers of all nationalities certainly did) But my point is the period under discussion was before they were in sufficient numbers or strength. They had no choice but to live amicably.

The encounters you mention with the Apaches was over 2 & 1/2 centuries later.

 

[sandbender]

"...Agriculture, especially squash, pole beans and the aforementioned crop of corn..."

very interesing can we get some references re this

You might enjoy reading through 'Buffalo Bird Woman's Garden - Agriculture of the Hidatsa Indians: An Indian Interpretation'.

Full text available here.