North American Voyageurs Council Fall Gathering

Some of you are already acquainted with NAVC, but for those that are not here is a look at how history interpreters learn and have fun in the Upper Midwestern US:

NAVC Fall Gathering photo gallery

Enjoy.

A friend reaches the final portage

Most of his friends and acquaintances will have undoubtedly received the news in other forums, but I must also comment here, though I have been remiss in timely postings on other matters.

Mike Ameling, "that grumpy old blacksmith out in the Hinterlands", has died at age 56.

I first met Mike when we took the "Grand Portage Choir Boys" tour van to DeChartres Spring Frolic a number of years ago. The thirty-somethings through fifty-somethings piled into the Timmerman's van (the "Otter" family van for those of you who know Tim and Brenda) and headed south.

It was, to say the least, a rollicking good time, and has been every year since. Although only two of us in that crew could be considered "liberal" or other left-leaning labels, and we definitely did not agree on any number of political issues, we became nonetheless close friends and comrades.

Mike was a blacksmith, and more. Amongst his other skills and areas of knowledge, his study of the firesteel, an integral part of anyone's interpretation of our time period, was comprehensive, spanning Roman times to now. His artifacts were fascinating and his reproductions were amazing. His reproductions now reside in various interpretive centers. Many camps have any number of his fire steels, metal pipes, rat spears, chisels, knives, and more.

Beyond that, Mike was a really nice guy. That "grumpy" epitaph was just a label he liked, I suppose because he really did live in the hinterlands. But he was kind and generous, and like many Midwesterners, ever self-effacing.

Mike, you deserve all the compliments and honors and love your family and friends around the world are pouring out to you.

Godspeed, Mikey, and we'll see you further down the portage.

Ink takes a powder

And so another month has passed; how time flies and how fleeting the enterprises and intentions of man . . .

In the while, though, amongst life's other endeavors your correspondent has found time to continue the exploration of 18th century inks, the creation of ink powders, and the formulations necessary to create a powdered ink suitable for reenactors and others interested in this the task of writing in this time period.

In the past month, I have found my way through at least 4 to 5 works on ink, ink of the 17th and 18th century, and chemical composition of such ink, not to mention other works related to the function of the clerk. I am indebted to a large extent to Jack Thompson of Thompson Conservatory, mentioned in previous postings, for leads to a number of the works--either through his direction or found amidst reading such.

I think I have arrived at a suitable ink which I can render in powdered form and which I will be making available in a period packet shortly.

A few remarks, however, are necessary as a result of the my various readings, especially so given postings regarding inks on other bulletin boards.

1. Iron gall ink, other postings elsewhere not withstanding, is the proper writing ink to be used for our time period of the 18th century. It goes back much further, probably at least to the 9th century though carbon inks were also in use early on. In the class of carbon ink is included the "logwood" or "lamp black" inks. These carbon based ink were not desirable in that they did not meet the test of suitable ink:

To wit, "The requisites of a good black writing ink or black writing fluid require it to flow readily from the pen, to indicate in a short time a black color and to penetrate the paper to an appreciable degree, and more important than all the rest, to be of great durability. When kept in a closed Bessel no sediment of any account should be precipitated, although such will be the case in open ink-wells, and this the quicker the more the air is permitted to get ot it. If it is to be used for record or documentary purposes it must not be altogether obliterated if brought into contact with water or alcohol, and should depend for permanency on its chemical and not on its pigmentary qualities. . . ."

(David Carvalho, "Forty Centuries of Ink", Banks Law Publishing: NY, 1904, p. 132; plus a variety of other authors including Mitchell, "Inks: Composition and Manufacturing", Griffin and Co.: London, 1924; and Barrow, "Black Ink of the Colonial Period" in American Archivist, 11:4 plus the bibliographic references contained in these works).

2. The point made in all the works I have read agree that the image produced by the action of writing with ink is best when the ink penetrates the fibers of the material written upon, not a surface image (which is what carbon inks accomplish). In other words, when you write on paper with iron gall ink, the image is produced not by the application of opaque material upon the page but by the chemical reaction of the gallate tannin in the ink actually absorbing into the fibers chemically and changing its composition and hence color.

This is the reason why the various calligraphy inks and so called "period" inks sold by various companies are inadequate. In the experiments I have done, those little packets sold with or without a quill produce a nice, shiny, black ink that runs, smears, or otherwise is obliterated when wet.

If you examine period writing, especially period fur trade journals which underwent some serious abuse in their time of use, and then later storage, you will not that even under the insult of liquid of various types they are still legible, not having run or smeared.

3. Other inks, such as "India ink" or "Japan ink" are not and were not considered appropriate ink for writing as they "clumped" up or otherwise impeded the use by quill, being better suited to the brush of Chinese and Japanese (and Indian) writing. Such ink was better suited of artistic endeavor.

4. Powdered inks, contrary to the surmise of the archivist I quoted in an earlier post, seem to have been made from dehydrated or dried ink rather than a package of the various dry ingredients finely powdered, mixed, and sold to be later constituted with water. In the various reading mentioned, all mentioned this latter to be undesirable, creating a very pale image unsuitable for writing (perhaps if left long enough for the tannin to leach . . .).

At the same time, however, powdered inks were found to be inferior to the ready made ink "from scratch". In the "wet" ink, the pigment is held in the solution while the process of drying and reconstituting takes away this property and holds particles in suspension rather than solution.

I have found this to be the case in comparing my "wet" and reconstituted inks. And yet, the ink from powder, though seeming to be applied as a thin and pale solution to the paper, turns a dark black upon the paper as the ink dries and oxidation takes place (this oxidation being the cause of the dark image on paper created by iron gall ink).

Based upon those considerations, and more, the ink I have formulated meets the tests of readily flowing and penetrating the writing surface fiber to create a permanent, black record.

Given the choice of ink made from ingredients (that is, purchasing "wet" ink) or ink made from powder, I would probably opt for buying a bottle of prepared ink, from my readings and my own experience with making ink.

But, given the mess that carrying around ink prior to use, especially prior to sale, ink powder seems to be a good avenue. The product does not seem to suffer from the drying process, though shininess is not evident any longer. This really doesn't seem to be an impediment as a shiny line doesn't seem to have been a prerequisite of period ink, and ink powder was a common product.

It seems that those wishing a shinier ink can merely add a bit of sugar, or even mix the powder with white wine rather than rain water (both period formulae). Though vinegar is sometimes suggested in period recipes, vinegar has been found to be detrimental to paper.

One other note to this rather long exposition, period recipes call for the boiling or at least use of warm water to process the gall nut. In the course of reading, I have found that the better method, found later (but possibly used by some??), should have been a cold soaking.

Ultimately, the cold water method is what I have ended up using by default and without a thought. After the cold water soaking for a few days, or possibly allowing soaking in the warm sun, I have usually strained and then reduced the concoction by boiling it to half before adding the other ingredients.

I hope to see some of you at the NAVC Fall Gathering at which time I hope to have some sample ink powder packets for perusal. For those of you wondering what is this NAVC Gathering and what goes on, click on this link to see our Fall Gathering Preview newsletter. Having Adobe Reader 9 will provide best viewing of all PDF documents.

Next time.

Back to the countinghouse

After a month hiatus, the Clerk returns. Lest you should think your humble Clerk has been lacking in industry, this past month has been occupied with travel to Grand Portage to participate in the Annual Rendezvous and greet visitors to the post in the countinghouse.

Beyond that trip, the days have been taken up in my "other life" as a puppeteer in performance and in building characters for a company in northern Minnesota.

However, I have returned.

During this period my experiments with ink have continued. I have taken the greater part of the ink I have produced in the past and dehydrated it producing a powdered ink. I had earlier stated that I wasn't enthralled by the produced outcome, the product having much particulate residue and seemingly quite thin.

I was wrong!

After using this reconstituted ink, I found that it worked quite well. The liquid applied quite nicely to the paper. At first contact the ink was quite a faint gray, but within seconds as it dried, the ink took on a dark complexion. This is possibly due to the tannin etching in the paper's linen/cotton fibers, but perhaps the iron sulfate play some part.

I have yet to strain the reconstituted ink to remove the particulates as some instructors of the 18th century advise. They claimed that the particles interfere with the flow of the ink but I have not found that to be the case.

More as it develops.

On a related theme, I have also been exploring what form actual period powdered ink took. In my search, I found the following information which I posted in another forum:

Whilst searching out information on forms of powdered ink, having gone the dehydrated route, I found this series of abstracts from Smithsonian workshops. The particular one that caught my eye was Elissa O’Loughlin's on Powdered Inks.

"Powdered iron gall inks are not reconstituted inks. . . The packets, usually made of paper, allowed the user to carry large quantities of ink without the bulk of the liquid. The ink was mixed with water as needed, and presumably formed a dark writing ink within a short period of time."

Which caused my question about the time element since "a short period of time" was defined.

"Erasmus is said to have carried powdered inks with him on his travels. One could assume that they were in common use when writing materials went “on the road” with officials such as circuit court judges. Colonial American records contain many references to these inks. Benjamin Franklin sold them in his shop in Philadelphia, and the Congress of the United States purchased large quantities of the ink in paper packets."

This is an interesting note on the actual types of the ingredients, as opposed to the commonly used materials:

"One extant sample of powdered iron gall ink in the U.S. National Archives (c. 1830) exhibits some properties which suggest that the form of the iron was chosen carefully. The powder is light brown-gray in color, appears finely divided (not clumped) and the particles of gum are glassy and brittle."

Apparently, rather than the ferrous sulfate (iron sulfate) obtainable from chemical houses (school supply warehouses), the type used possibly used was pure heptahydrate, not hygroscopic and so does not readily oxidize in air.

Another thread to pursue.

Pointed question

I received a recent inquiry regarding the use of "points" on blankets and whether they related to weight or thickness of the blanket. I thought the reply might be of use to you:

Blankets, from the reading I've done on English manufacture, were indeed produced by weight (and sometimes, consequently, length of the complete piece, many many yards) as the completed blanket fabric was taken to the guild hall for weighing and approval. Various widths of fabric were produced which pertained to the ultimate size of the blankets to be manufactured.

However, the weight referred to does not refer to the individual blanket, rather the total piece which would be later cut up into pairs. The thickness of the knap and the quality of the fabric were more a function of the maker and were not indicated, as far as I have been able to determine, by the points (weight could vary from country to country, by manufacturer or weaver; the guild was the ultimate arbiter of whether the fabric was of good quality). The use of points, when they were used and not everyone used actual points apparently, were for indicating size. They would be especially useful as a handy tool for finding the right blanket at a glance.

The "point" is sort of a matter of contention. According to the HBC blanket historian, Harold Tichenor, the "point" may have evolved from French useage in the 16th century. However, there was never a consistent standard for a "point", per Tichenor, until the 19th century when HBC set a standard. In reading about blanket manufacture in Witney and Oxfordshire, there seems to have been an understood set of sizes, though they may have varied from guild hall and manufacturer (remember all work was piece work sent out to individuals and groups by the blanket company). From the use of the "point" in inventories, etc. there must have been a common understanding as to the sizes, or relative sizes each appellation indicated ( 2 point, 2 1/2 point, etc).

And yet, when the point sizes are compared by manufacturer they vary. This site (I may have already passed this on to you) has a messed up page, but toward the bottom there is a comparison of sizes to various companies late 18th into the 19th centuries: http://hrd7.tripod.com/hbc/hbc.html

Off to Grand Portage next week.

Blankets, one more time

Since there was a question about sizes, this page about Point Blankets is a good, quick reference, especially if you can't get a hold of other books. Remember to double the length indicated to derive the "pair of blankets" size. Ex. the one point at 46 inches long is about 8 feet as a pair or double.

You can figure the half point as in between the point sizes.

Contact me for some bibliographic references on blankets and weaving in England (Witney, Oxfordshire, etc).

Blankets, pelts, and costs: a clarification

I recently received an email requesting more information and a clarification on my previous posts. I thought it might be helpful to post my reply here, also, in case I was unclear or others might desire an encapsulation:

First, a bit of a correction. The 2 1/2 point blanket is sized more along the size of a modern twin bed blanket. I'll check the actual dimensions and send, but I'm sure you have a number at the fort (can't remember if you have Rob Stone's among your blankets; his are well sized and used by many of us). So they aren't 12'x12'. They were woven, by individual weavers (some with multiple workers), on looms in varying overall sizes depending upon the type and size of blankets being called for. The Alfred Plummer books, "The Blanket Makers 1669-1969: A History of Charles Early & Marriot (Witney) Ltd" and "The London Weavers' Company, 1600-1970" are two good resources, among a number of others I have used.

The blankets were taken in large batches (I forget the term) to the Hall for guild approval before being cut for shipping, usually into double lengths of the blanket size ordered. The blankets were shipped in the double lengths, hence the term "pair of blankets". The whole sale price (which I am trying to track down from mill to sale) is based upon this double blanket (price paid to weavers was on overall length woven or weight).

On the price, 8s. is indeed an "average" wholesale price for an individual blanket (one half of the double blanket sent as a "pair"). This is based upon the Grand Portage inventory, the Grant Campion invoice, and other price documents. The 8s. is considered the "cost" (wholesale plus overhead--canoes, men, food, etc) to get that blanket to Grand Portage, and most likely by extension Fort William, though the price and cost was higher by the time period you portray there.

On the plus, I thought I had included some of the documentation sources. Mainly, the references used had to be secondary (Innis "The Fur Trade in Canada", and Parker's "Emporium of the North") because I don't have access to the records they have/had. Those that were at the MN Historical Society have disappeared.

However, the primary documentation they cite seem to agree both on the varying price structure for the time period I am viewing (1780s to around 1800) and weight of the pelt itself. Ross was one of the cited primary sources. The actual prices varied widely (and wildly) in this time period making comparisons that much more exciting.

Using the records compiled by Harold Innis “The Fur Trade in Canada” and James Parker “Emporium of the North”, beaver brought 8/6 to 10/2 (1784), 15/6 (1789), 1802-5 average 14/. A. Henry in 1806 mentions a beaver pelt being worth 10/ Halifax.

Two pounds for the weight of a pelt seems to be the consensus average, thus the 3 to 4 plus "price" for the 2 1/2 point blanket times the particular price for peltry at any given time.


1784
1 beaver pelt worth 17 to 20/4
Return on one 2 1/2 pt 46-55/ Montreal
1789
1 beaver pelt worth 31/
Return on one 2 1/2 pt 88/
1801
1 beaver pelt worth 28/
Return on one 2 1/2 pt 79/

One thing to keep in mind, most of the blankets were not sold at either Grand Portage or Fort William, so the overhead was much higher, almost prohibitively so by the time it reached the Athabasca Department. Parker's "Emporium" has some good information on this. No matter the overhead (and the Wallace documents gives a rudimentary idea with the advance percentages charged clerks in their minutes on partner agreement regarding prices to be charged) the Native trading partners wanted the blankets for the customary price of 3-4 pelts. So going west, profit became problematic.

Let me know if I am still lacking clarity. You can post here or reach me at furtradeclerk@q.com