Frontier knives constantly carried?

[Naphtali]

While I suspect that 3½-5½ inch clip- and drop-point knives preferred by most modern hunters and outdoorsmen are more efficient and convenient to use than what was constantly carried in the 18th and 19th centuries in frontier America, Canada, and sub-Saharan Africa, I am unclear about those tools carried and used - that is, . . . among Europeans living beyond communities, where all jobs were done either in-house or by members of a small near-subsistence group, what length or size, what configurations of knives were in routine use - that is, constantly carried. I specifically do not refer to knives whose primary use was as a weapon.

Among members of the Voyage of Discovery, I anticipate weight and available space were critical considerations. What configurations of knives were in routine use - that is, constantly carried. Again, I specifically do not refer to knives whose primary use was as a weapon unless that use was the primary criterion.

 

[necchi]

Consider the trade records;
If a knife was referred to as a "scalper" I personally don't think it was kept in a drawer until the specific use to "scalp" was needed, or that a "butcher" or a "skinner" was used only for the labeled task used to name the blade.
Those high carbon blades as today can be easily sharpened, and re-sharpened, and re-sharpened,,
Until very little of it's original shape remains.

If you've ever carried a knife for daily use, you know that it's the familiarity of that blade that becomes endeared to it's owner.

All that said, I think it has to do with the level of domestication, where they indeed "in-house"? Or where they always in the field? Or on a trek? A farmer's needs where different than the trapper or long hunter or voyageur.

 

[Rick Son]

See movie McClintock where they retire the chinese cook :v

 

[Treestalker]

Back in the day it would have been unthinkable for any outdoors person of any race to be without a blade. The English made and shipped piles of trade knives to America, I understand many had forged bolsters integral to the blade. Very tough and useful blades for everyday carry and use. I understand the French preferred a roach belly or scalper blade with a 'ball' end handle. No Spaniard or Mexican would be without at least a dagger or belduque. But I'm not too up on this, perhaps better intellects will respond. Tree.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Also if you go beyond the Corps of Discovery, and look at Meshack Browning, author of Forty-four years the Life of a Hunter. He was born a short distance from where I live and moved into what is today the pan-handle of Maryland, not that far from where the Corps outfitted at Harper's Ferry, VA. (Now WVa) Hardly the same frontier as where the Corps were to venture, but his backup weapon/tool for bear hunting was his large, butcher knife.

Now he wasn't going up against grizzlies, he was up against black bear. The members of the Corps of Discovery had no idea what they were going to encounter..., so I submit that they would've drawn upon similar ideas of what was prudent to carry as Browning. They may have decided along the way "we should've brought bigger knives", but when they set off, I submit they would've at least been carrying what "hunters" carried.

Granted, this is supposition, but not unreasonable.

LD

 

[Rod Lassey]

I agree with necchi, just look to the trade records---frontier stores, forts, etc. The most common knife around was the scalper, and it wasn't just Indians buying them, either. Next was the butcher, and the folding knife and cartouche knife probably ran neck and neck for popularity. Scaper, by the way, refers to a particular blade style, with a pointed upswept tip. All varieties were shipped to the frontier and beyond in staggering numbers, orders were frequently in numbers like 50 dozen at a time---in other words, everyone had several.

Rod

 

[Rifleman1776]

I have long subscribed to the notion most woodsmen carried, at least, two knifes. One a large blade for camp and 'social' use. And a smaller, handier 'using' knife. That has been my personal practice and it works for me.
As for Lewis and Clark, another mystery. Right now Track of the Wolf is selling a (reportedly) replica of the knife on the Voyage of Discovery. Dunno if this can be authenticated but the knife looks to be very all-around useful. Blade is 5 3/8" long.
And, FWIW, I have a replica tomahawk that (reportedly) was made for the L&C expedition but the contract was not filled in time and this model never actually went on the voyage.
Both good stories. Dunno if true or not but they still are good stories.

[/URL][/img]

 

[Artificer]

Though they were around in the 17th century, clasp or folding knives became very common here in the 1750's onward after Benjamin Huntsman "re-discovered" how to make crucible steel about 1740 in Great Britain. Crucible steel goes a lot further back than that, but the process was lost until it was "discovered" or "re-discovered" by Huntsman. This brought the price of steel down a great deal and made the clasp or folding knives affordable to almost everyone.

If a person from about 1750 onwards had a knife on their person at all times and for most people, it would most likely have been a clasp or folding knife - under the criteria you set for a knife that was not primarily a weapon.
Gus

 

[LRB]

If that pic is of TOW's replica, it is certainly not a knife of that time period. Handy as it may be.

 

[Artificer]

There are also some period accounts of frontiersmen carrying a scalper or butcher knife as their primary knife and also carrying a small folding or clasp knife. However, if the frontiersman only carried one knife, it most likely was a Trade Knife of either the Scalper or Butcher pattern.

I am making a distinction here about a Frontiersman. In my previous post I included farmers, tradesmen and others who would have a usually/commonly carried a knife on their person and that would have been a folding or clasp knife.
Gus

 

[BrownBear]

I like to study modern situations and compare them with what I imagine it to be like back in the day.

For me, the closest anyone comes to rugged and regular field time is on ranches and farms, as well as logging and a few others. Guys need knives as tools, and most likely use them every day.

City life not so much now, and I suspect even back then. Knife just wasn't such a handy or necessary tool.

My own experiences on farms and ranches and logging say there's such a thing as too big and too small. The details of how I'm using a knife now are different than back then, for sure. But I bet our forefathers also had feelings about too big and too small.

I'll tell you one thing though, based on my own experience. For day in and day out, a knife or most anything else dangling from your belt is a PITA. It's always tanglng on stuff, and the bigger it gets the worse it gets. I'd need a very good reason to be carrying something big.

Modern insight maybe, but I sure find folders a lot better for carry and sufficient for most jobs. For our forebears it might have been a question of whether or not they could find one or afford it, much less whether they had a pocket to put it in. But I have to guess that for their active lives, they'd see the value of a folder for lots of jobs.

Speculation for sure, but that's what all of us are doing here.

 

Speculation for sure, but that's what all of us are doing here.

I see some actually doing research. Comparing your modern day life to 1750 is not research.

 

[Rifleman1776]

If that pic is of TOW's replica, it is certainly not a knife of that time period. Handy as it may be.

I dunno :idunno:
It is wat they said.

 

[Auldgoat]

I've worked as a land surveyor for close to 45 years. When ever I might be on a large job, far back in the woods, I always carry an 8" heavy bladed knife. (K-bar) It comes in mighty handy for clearing a line/trail and weighs much less than my machete or brush ax. It's what suits the job best. Camping or hiking it's always with me because of its utility of use. Same would be true (imho) of our predecessors. An axe would be carried for the heavy work, my patch knife for kitchen duty or repairs. My utility knife rarely gets tangled or in the way. Same would be said if that were a Bowie, butcher, or scalper. Folders are useless for serious work other than as a patch knife.
My point being, they carried and used whatever tool fit the job they expected to encounter. Common sense.

Will

 

[Stophel]

Modern "common sense" is NOT THE SAME as 18th century common sense.

Folding knives are useless for "serious work"? What, exactly, is "serious work" then? I use a folding knife for most general cutting work, unless I just need something bigger for slicing meat/cheese/whatever. I know many people today skin deer with a folding knife.

A knife doesn't need to be an axe, a machete, nor a splitting maul. The backwoodsman of 200+ years ago did not have to go slashing his way through thick undergrowth. Even today, in what could hardly be described as virgin timber, I don't feel the need to do much hacking. For those kinds of jobs, I would suggest a billhook would have been used.

The backwoodsman of 200 years ago carried what was available. And what was available were butcher/scalper knives (I have yet to see a real documented distinction between the two... size, perhaps?), folding knives, and "case knives" (with big rounded tips and which would be sold with a matching fork. There are references, and at least one existing example, of a case knife "with the point ground sharp"). That's about it. They did not have sporting goods stores or Cabela's where they could go choose from hundreds of different knife styles. As yet, there was no real "outdoorsman's market". People who ran around in the woods were considered NUTS. Criminals, poor fools, and reprobates. Knife manufacturers did not see much need in catering to the specific desires of such a small market of out-there people... especially when butcher knives were considered sufficient, and even the Indians were gobbling them up as fast as they could be made. Why bother with anything else? This, of course, began to change in the 19th century, but this was the age of the Bowie knife...

We all want to say "they MUST have done such-and-such, because I do it all the time, it's only logical", but we CANNOT and be honest about it. We can only look at what they actually did. Their viewpoints, situations, and mindsets were entirely different than ours today.

 

[colmoultrie]

Jim Mullins, noted for his book Of Sorts for Provincials, has said that one of the most commonly carried knives was the cuttoe knife. The cuttoe knife, which is often referred to in 18th century records and inventories, was simply a large spring clasp knife or folder: Link

 

[Artificer]

Folding or claps knives are often found in many archeological sites in large enough numbers, it speaks to how common they were as well.
Gus

 

[tenngun]

Until the invention of forks most everyone ate with a knife. Children got knifes when very young.Even 'cheap' knifes were not 'cheap', but were affordable to everyone.
Most of the info we have on knifes from that time tell us the most common knifes on the frontier were 'scalpers' and 'smaller 'butchers' most knifes put me in mind of a half and half between a modren butcher and a long boning knife.
I understand Riflemans line of thought, one big heavy working,fighting knife mixed with a smaller handy blade makes sense, although we don't have much in the way of evedince to back that up. Large fighting knifes like the 'riflemans knife'seems to have been rare, with most of the blades being sold smaller thinner and handier blades.
L and C were beyond the pale and could not readily replace thier gear, so out fitting with a spare blade makes sense. However a setteler in the Cain-tuck or a MM in the upper missiouri may have felt the avalibility of a replacement via the brigade or settlement stores were handy enough that a lost or broken blade could be replaced cheaper then dealing with having to carry an extra blade.
A knife can be a friend, just like a gun. I have never lost or broken a knife in the woods. I always carry a back up,but have never once needed it. My gut feeling is most frontiesman carried just one.

 

[50cal.cliff]

My opinion and that's what is MHO! Back in the day of Frontier knives, they would have definitely carried more than one knife.

If your thoughts go to the big blade, perhaps a butcher perhaps a Bowie, etc. It would have been the go to when the moment called for it. Hacking at something or in the event of momentary need for hand to hand combat. But very handy and easy to get too. My way of thinking it was more than likely a butcher knife from the table at home converted to field use! Trade knives were meant to trade with the Indians for goods or safe passage, good will and such. The movies make it look like everyone carried a Bowie but I seriously doubt they were nearly that popular or readily available. No I think it was often, "use what you brung" like the kitchen knife!

However a big knife is not my first thought for skinning, so perhaps they carried a secondary for that purpose, maybe in the pack, on a horse whatever! But in the confines of the frontier I would have had a least one more on my body.

Think about a neck knife would have been ideal. Out of sight but able to get too. One knife would not have done all the days chores and as romantic as the idea looks in the movies, a big knife may have not been the first choice. Have you ever put a big cumbersome knife on your side and walked miles through the woods.
At the very least after the first trip you will figure a good securing system, other than just attached to the belt. Your sore thigh from where that big heavy knife has beat it against it constantly will cause to re-think the whole thing. Maybe that is why you see some of the old photos showing them under a sash, but not without some kind of a sheath. You fall in the woods and get a gut wound and you would have been as good as dead in most cases!

Either way I ain't leaving home for the woods with only one knife. Have you ever gone to the woods and discovered your favorite knife on your side has now been reduced to nothing more than a sheath at your side, or your pocket has ripped out and your favorite pocketknife is nothing more than a chunk of steel waiting to rot away with time!

No sir, in my opinion miles from any way to resupply, I am definitely going to be carrying more than one knife. In the day the knife was not only a tool used daily but, often their lives depended on a knife! So yes I do think the knives would have constantly been carried, as to which were constantly carried that might be a different subject.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Large fighting knifes like the 'riflemans knife'seems to have been rare,

Not for the Rifleman. :wink:

Actually, I find the riflemans knife very unwieldy and pretty much useless except for fighting. I only wear mine when actually properly dressed and reenacting the Rifleman.
For ronny and other period events I usually carry a 'using' knife on my belt. It will have about a 4" to 5" (I have several) blade. Then I will also carry a smaller, about 'patch knife' sized on my belt or as a neck knife. And, really, I seldom reach for the larger for simple tasks, the small is a good all around knife.