instagram pinterest linkedin facebook twitter goodreads facebook circle twitter circle linkedin circle instagram circle goodreads circle pinterest circle

Daily News

David Dortort and Me

David Dortort and Me in 2009, the year Mystic Fire was published. I delivered him a copy that day. My brother was with me and said he liked how I could make him smile.

 

David Dortort, who created the Bonanza TV series, passed away Sunday, September 5, 2010 at his home.  He was 93. Dortort personally hand-picked the four actors for Ben, Adam, Hoss and Little Joe, and had survived them all.  Pernell Roberts (Adam) died earlier that year. 

 

David lived for that show.  And though he created another one for television, High Chaparral, Bonanza was always his first love.  He kept it going after Roberts left the series in 1965 and was dismayed when NBC pulled the plug after Dan Blocker passed away during the 14th season.  NBC felt it was done. David never did.

 

He kept returning to his Bonanza Legacy but could not revive the magic that had been. 

 

The first TV movie was meant to be a series spin-off for Lorne Greene and the grandchildren of Hoss and Joe, but Lorne Greene died before it could be filmed.  In 1993 came the first of two more TV movies with grandchildren, this time included Adam's son, also with the hope that there'd be a TV spinoff series. 

 

That's when I got lucky. I started writing Bonanza fanfic in 1992, having found some free markets for them, and loved writing them so much I longed to find a way to get them published. That happened through timing and miscommunication. I got Dortort's attention because, also in 1992, I'd started an online Prodigy board for Bonanza fans, the first ever to do so. I found a TV bulletin board dedicated to old TV series and none yet to Bonanza. So I created one.

 

In 2001, he gave the rights to Beth Sullivan for a prequel called Ponderosa that aired on cable's Hallmark Channel, and featured the family at a younger stage, before the Comstock Lode setting of the original series opener.  But that prequel couldn't pick up a second season (to my dismay, as I'd just submitted two scripts for the series through a script agency where my daughter worked). 

 

Finally, at Incline Village, after the highly successful 2004 season, the highest attendance ever, the Ponderosa Ranch Theme Park closed its doors and sold to a private developer. 

 

David Dortort loved his fans. There's the story about how he allowed Adam Cartwright to unceremoniously leave the show because the fans wrote in protest to the storyline of Adam getting married to Laura.  At the time neither Dortort nor Roberts felt they'd be able to pull it off. "We have to watch the reaction of the audience very closely," Dortort said in an interview in 1963. "We get more than 30,000 fan letters a month and they will tell us if they like the idea. If the reaction is negative, then we'll just have to write it out of the series."

 

Dortort told me in 1996 that, in hindsight, he would have let the marriage happen. But at the time, "It's the most successful show that TV has ever seen, and I, for one, am going to make sure that nothing happens to it." Some fans believe Roberts' open-ended leaving would allow him to see the 'error of his ways' and return. 

 

When I first wrote to Dortort, back in early 1993, it was after learning about the new TV movie, Bonanza The Return. I saw photos of the cast, heard the storyline, and then wrote a script of my own that I wanted him to read. I also asked him to read a short story I'd written, because I wanted permission to write and sell a novel. And I told him about the Prodigy Bonanza Board. I then got a post from Tom Sarnoff, associate producer of this movie, telling me that David Dortort would be in touch with me shortly. Sarnoff stayed in touch on the Bonanza Board because, as I told Dortort, this was the biggest fan base on the internet. Well, I thought it was at the time. We had an incredibly active fan base, and one that became increasingly angry that the new movies would not feature Jamie or Candy. But Sarnoff asked for our feedback for the Bonanza Retrospect that was being filmed to air previous to this new movie.

 

I kept up my contact with Dortort, and gave him my idea for another TV movie, having Adam come back to the Ponderosa to die. I told Dortort I just knew Roberts would love a script like that, to finally get closure to that character. Dortort's responses were sporadic, so I also sent the script to Sarnoff, to NBC, to whatever agent I could find.

 

The 1993 movie did well in its time slot, as did the Retrospect, but they had another movie with these characters the following year that didn't do as well. In part, this was because they had to replace the actor who play Adam's son; in my mind, they didn't do a good job with that.

 

But I continued to write my novel, Felling of the Sons, and the scripts, and I went back to college. Finally, in 1996 I told Dortort I was coming to LA to visit my brother, in case he'd like to get together to talk about the script. He sent me his phone number and told me to call him when I got there.

 

It's now been decades but I can still remember my excitement at the time. I booked my flight the next day.

I guess I had charmed him in several ways. One, the script I wrote before even seeing the 1993 finished movie amazed him. I had those grandchildren's characters down perfectly. I told him how Adam leaving the show might have saved my life after my dad died two years later. And how I inadvertently married a Joe and had sons named Adam and Bennett. My daughter, though, wouldn't let us call her Hoss. And I told him I raised them "the Cartwright way."

 

When I finally got to his house in June 1996, after a few misadventures, I was amazed by the first question he asked me. "How do you know Pernell? Has he said he'll do your script?" I wanted to shrivel up and blow away. I just meant I created the script to be the kind of a thing that would appeal to him. After taking my stumbled response to this question he then asked what right I had to shop that script around. He wondered if I always did things the hard way.

"Well, I guess so, Mr. Dortort. But what's the easy way? No one's ever told me."

 

Oh, we had a long and very friendly conversation after that, even after I told him I thought Bonanza was two different series – with Adam, and without. I had to finally get off my Prodigy fan site because of the anger of Joe fans, and this anger is still out there.

 

But Dortort and I kept up our correspondence, tweaking the script I wrote, and trying to get Pernell involved. But I might have sounded arrogant, because Pernell never once responded to me. Finally it was written so that Adam was only mentioned in it, and then Dortort wanted me to scrap the script and write one for Dirk Blocker to play Hoss and Hoss's son. Well, I just couldn't. He was so good as Walter in the TV movies. Dortort felt bad that he didn't cast Dirk as Hoss's son in those movies and wanted to make it up to him.  (Oh, if only I'd tried!  But I was going for my BA in history at the time.)

 

Most of what Dortort and I talked about those two times I visited him I don't remember.  I didn't take notes, nor did I tape record anything.  There are snatches of things I know that I don't believe I got anywhere else. I did get permission to publish Felling of the Sons, and then, in 2005, got the contract for Mystic Fire after we talked on the phone about the Civil War; he appreciated how much I knew.

 

On my second visit to his house in 2001 I suggested that he host one of the Marathons being shown on Hallmark around the time of the airing of Ponderosa.  He only laughed and said, "Who'd want to see an old fart like me?" Of his five favorite episodes, there was one I didn't know, because it was a later episode. No surprise that Crucible was one of them. And yes, he did host a Bonanza marathon for Hallmark. He had just been teasing me.

 

We had some great phone conversations about Ponderosa during its airing, too:  How first Sullivan wanted to use a Japanese actor for Hop Sing.  "There were no Japanese in the U.S. at that time!"  And Lake Tahoe was represented by a "little mud puddle" because they were filming over in Australia, until he could convince her to use stock footage.  But it was obvious in his voice that he was thrilled to have the Cartwrights on the air again.

 

When it wasn't picked up for a second season, his energy began to wane. 

 

Dortort had convinced NBC executives to film his series in color by showing them Lake Tahoe: "Would you film that lake in black and white?"  They decided to use it to sell the new color TV sets.  This is one reason Bonanza holds up so well today.  It doesn't appear 'old.'  But in one of the obits I found online about David I noticed that they quoted him as being proud that a lot of color TV sets sold to watch Bonanza – perhaps his reflection of being the number one show on the air for a number of years.

 

It had reached #2 in its third season, and was number one for three continuous years, never falling below the #3 slot until its 12th season. See more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonanza.

 

Dortort once negotiated with some A-list screenwriters to write the script for a big screen movie version of Bonanza, but when I met with him at his home in 2001, he said "80% of it is crap!"  I asked to see it, but he couldn't.  There's a Hollywood rule against it.  I could imagine the nightmares it would be in trying to cast those four roles, too.

 

I bugged Dortort a lot to write his autobiography. We would have been fascinated by his first-hand look at filming the series. I told him to tape record it and I'd type it for him. Sadly, it never happened. First his eyesight went, and then his hearing. My last visit to him was in 2009, and it was so gratifying to see the smile on his face when we talked. As I left, he said, loud and clear, "Thanks for visiting, darling."

 

My life, as part of the Bonanza world, is one that I will always cherish, for having this man let me in for those visits, providing a bright spot in an often dark and grueling world.

Be the first to comment

US Political Parties 1788 to 1856

ELECTION OF 

 

1788: Washington was a Federalist, John Adams was as well, with Clinton as anti-Federalist.

Washington won election and Adams got the second most votes to get VP. Jefferson worries that the Federalist are becoming monarchists, no better than the Brits they broke away from.

 

1792:  Washington wins again, and takes great offense to being told he's trying to be king. Says he never wanted this honor in the first place. Clinton now called himself a Democratic-Republican. This is the start of the Democratic party, as it was formed out of meetings from working class people.

 

1796: John Adams, Federalist, won. Thomas Jefferson wins VP with second most votes. This is the only election where they were from opposing parties. Jefferson represented Democratic-Republicans. Thomas Pickney and Aaron Burr were the next two vote getters. Pickney was Federalist and Burr Anti-Federalist.

 

1800: Thomas Jefferson wins. He has a running mate for VP, Aaron Burr. He's against John Adams, Federalist, who he had served as VP under. The vote was close enough that Jefferson worries about a tie. Remember, it took a good month before all votes were tallied. He is referred to as "the Negro president," because it was felt the 3/5ths clause in the constitution gave the South an advantage in the electoral college, by adding in their number of slaves to the total population count.

 

1804: Thomas Jefferson wins, with running mate George Clinton, against Federalist Charles Pinckney, running mate Rufus King. Bit of a landslide here. Charles was Thomas's brother.

 

1808: James Madison, Democratic-Republican with George Clinton as VP beats Charles Pinckney, Federalist.

 

1812: The first wartime election. Madison gets us into war against Brits in 1812, and he is up against Dewitt Clinton, also a Democratic-Republican but against the War. The Federalists throw in with Clinton and he picks a Federalist VP, Jerod Ingersoll. Madison's VP is Elbridge Gerry. Dewitt was George's nephew. Madison wins by the closest margin ever, supposedly, although in 1800 it was a tie for a while.

 

1816:  James Monroe, Democratic-Republican, wins against Rufus King, Federalist. It seems the Federalists have been falling out of favor since Adams. Their VPs are not of consequence.

 

1820: James Monroe, Democratic-Republican, ran unopposed in what they called the Era of Good Feelings. Wow, 200 years ago and look where we are now. Era of Bad Feelings. He was the last president from the Revolutionary Generation. It appears that one vote was cast for John Q. Adams, secretary of state at the time.

 

1824:  This was a weird year. I'm going to copy what Wikipedia had in its entirety:

 

The 1824 United States presidential election was the tenth U.S. presidential election. It was held from Tuesday, October 26 to Wednesday, December 1, 1824. Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and William Crawford were the primary contenders for the presidency. The result of the election was inconclusive, as no candidate won a majority of the electoral vote. In the election for vice president, John C. Calhoun was elected with a comfortable majority of the vote. Because none of the candidates for president garnered an electoral vote majority, the U.S. House of Representatives, under the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment, held a contingent election. On February 9, 1825, John Quincy Adams was elected as president.

 

The Democratic-Republican Party had won six consecutive presidential elections and by 1824 was the only national political party. However, as the election approached, the presence of multiple viable candidates resulted in there being multiple nominations by the contending factions, signaling the splintering of the party and an end to the Era of Good Feelings.

 

Adams won New England, Jackson and Adams split the mid-Atlantic states, Jackson and Clay split the Western states, and Jackson and Crawford split the Southern states. Jackson finished with a plurality of the electoral and popular vote, while the other three candidates each finished with a significant share of the votes. Clay, who had finished fourth, was eliminated, but influential within the contingent election, threw his support behind Adams, who shared many of his positions on the major issues. With Clay's backing, Adams won the contingent election on the first ballot.

 

This is one of two presidential elections (along with the 1800 election) that have been decided in the House. It is also one of five in which the winner did not achieve at least a plurality of the national popular vote.

 

What this appears to be is that, though Jackson had the most votes and the most states and the most electoral votes, it wasn't enough to win, and then Clay threw in with Adams, which swung the election to him. The other really odd thing is that both Adams and Jackson appear to have selected John C. Calhoun as their VP!

 

The winner, decided by the House, was John Q. Adams.

 

1828: Now we see two distinct parties again; Democrats, who get behind Jackson, and the National Republicans (I kid you not) supporting John Q. Adams. Adams had picked up some Federalist notions and it would be worth exploring the split in the parties here.

 

But Jackson beat out the incumbent by quite a margin and not surprising, since he actually did have more votes before. But in 1824, there was a four-way presidential candidate race, which kept any one of them from getting enough. Realize that there were no political conventions at this time, either.

 

Still in popular vote, it was pretty close.

 

After this, the Congressional nominating caucus disintegrated.

 

1832: Jackson, Democrat, beat Henry Clay, National Republican. Martin Van Buren was Jackson's VP. Here was the first using of nominating conventions. There was something called an Anti-Masonic Party that also held a convention. As an early third party, they nominated William Wirt, former attorney general. There was also a candidate for something called the Nullifier Party.

 

After this loss, the National Republicans joined with the Anti-Masonic party, whose candidate had received over 100,000 votes, to form the Whig Party.

 

FROM Britannica.com

Anti-Masonic Movement, in the history of the United States, popular movement based on public indignation at and suspicion of the secret fraternal order known as the Masons, or Freemasons. Opponents of this society seized upon the uproar to create the Anti-Masonic Party. It was the first American third party, the first political party to hold a national nominating convention, and the first to offer the electorate a platform of party principles. The movement was ignited in 1826 by the mysterious disappearance of William Morgan, a bricklayer in western New York who supposedly had broken his vow of secrecy as a Freemason by preparing a book revealing the organization's secrets. When no trace of Morgan could be discovered, rumours of his murder at the hands of Masons swept through New York and then into New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. As Anti-Masonic candidates proved successful in state and local elections, politicians saw the issue's vote-catching possibilities. Anti-Masonic newspapers flourished in the heated political atmosphere. In September 1831, the Anti-Masonic Party held a national convention in Baltimore, Md., nominated William Wirt for president, and announced a party platform condemning Masonry for its secrecy, exclusivity, and undemocratic character.

 

1836: Good thinking, Whigs, running several candidates against Martin Van Buren. 

 

Here's how Wikipedia explains it:

The 1835 Democratic National Convention chose a ticket of Van Buren, President Andrew Jackson's handpicked successor, and Congressman Richard Mentor Johnson. The Whig Party, which had only recently emerged and were primarily united by opposition to Jackson, were not yet sufficiently organized to agree on a single candidate. Hoping to compel a contingent election in the House of Representatives by denying the Democrats an electoral majority, the Whigs ran multiple candidates.

 

The most memorable is William Henry Harrison. And his showing got him the nod in 1840. But this defeat became crucial in helping the Whigs to stabilize, and before the next election every other faction (third party) had been absorbed by either Democrats or Whigs.

 

As we can see, the Democrats have been pretty solid since Jefferson, with the Republicans struggling for their voice.

 

1840: This time Harrison, Whig, defeated Van Buren, partly due to the crash of 1837, a real sweep of the electoral college. John Tyler was Harrison's running mate, and here we remember the first slogan from a candidacy – Tippecanoe and Tyler too. They held their first national convention in 1839. Oddly, Van Buren ran without a VP. By this time white male suffrage was universal.

 

Harrison lived only one month into his presidency. Tyler, the Vice President, was actually a Democrat, didn't support the Whig platform and eventually was expelled from the Whig party. Tyler was from Virginia.

 

From Wikipedia:

Tyler was initially a Democrat, but he opposed Andrew Jackson during the Nullification Crisis, seeing Jackson's actions as infringing on states' rights, and he criticized Jackson's expansion of executive power during the Bank War. This led Tyler to ally with the Whig Party. Tyler signed into law some of the Whig-controlled Congress's bills, but he was a strict constructionist and vetoed the party's bills to create a national bank and raise the tariff rates. He believed that the president should set policy rather than Congress, and he sought to bypass the Whig establishment, most notably senator Henry Clay of Kentucky. Most of Tyler's Cabinet resigned soon into his term, and the Whigs dubbed him His Accidency and expelled him from the party. Tyler was the first president to see his veto of legislation overridden by Congress. Tyler was a firm believer in manifest destiny and saw its annexation as providing an economic advantage to the United States, so he worked diligently to make it happen.

 

1844: Tyler initially sought election to a full term as president, but he failed to gain the support of either Whigs or Democrats and withdrew in support of Democrat James K. Polk, who favored the annexation of Texas. Polk won the election, Tyler signed a bill to annex Texas three days before leaving office, and Polk completed the process.

Democrat Polk defeated Henry Clay, neither having a memorable running mate. The election was close, no one getting 50%. They fought over two controversial issues: slavery and the annexation of Texas. James Birney of the anti-slavery Liberty party got 2.3% of the vote.

 

1848: The Democrat this time was Lewis Cass from Michigan, a man who's appeared often in my histories of Wisconsin. He was beaten by Zachary Taylor of the Whigs, but not by a lot. Martin Van Buren ran as a third-party Free-Soil candidate and achieved 10% of the vote.

 

It's interesting to see Van Buren, former Democrat, unable to get nominated again after being defeated in 1840 so he forms third parties. Teddy Roosevelt would try this, as well. Martin Van Buren deserves a closer look for his persistence, and our general lack of knowledge about him.

 

Zachary Taylor was a general in the Mexican American war. Interesting choice, as his politics weren't clear and the Whigs had opposed that war. Millard Fillmore was his vice president, known for his moderate views on slavery. Polk for some reason had promised not to seek re-election. But the Whigs were desperate for someone who could win (this was repeated with Eisenhower).

 

"The Democrats had a record of prosperity and had acquired the Mexican cession and parts of Oregon country. It appeared almost certain that they would win unless the Whigs picked Taylor."

 

Van Buren's Free-Soil party opposed the extension of slavery into the territories. Obviously Jefferson's Northwest Ordinance had an expiration date, making this an issue again. 

 

How did the 3/5ths slave clause effect the electoral college? I'll look for that answer for the 2nd edition of "From Lincoln to Trump."

 

Taylor died during his term, making Fillmore president.

 

This is the first election that saw the first Tuesday in November become the statutory election day.

 

1852: Fillmore tended to side more with the South, so he didn't receive the nomination. Franklin Pierce, Democrat, beat Winfield Scott, another general as the Whig candidate, and their last. The Free-Soil Party ran John Hale.

The Whigs had become badly divided and Scott's anti-slavery reputation damaged those voters in the southern sector. The Whigs collapsed due to bitter divisions over slavery.

 

1856:  Because of the on-going war in Kansas, Democrat Pierce was defeated at the nominating convention by James Buchanan. Buchanan's running mate was John Breckinridge.  The newly formed Republican Party nominated John C. Fremont.

 

Millard Fillmore ran as the American Party candidate, although not willingly. They were also known as the "Know Nothing" Party. As third party, he got 21.5% of the vote. Buchanan beat Fremont 45% to 33%, so it can be assumed Van Buren took some of those votes from Fremont. The Know Nothings openly competed with Republicans to defeat the Democrats.

 

For information on the formation of the Republican Party and what happened to the Know Nothings, see "From Lincoln to Trump."

 

Buchanan warned that the Republicans were extremists whose positions would lead to civil war. They had virtually no backing in the South.

 

This political party information continues in "From Lincoln to Trump." But in 1860 it becomes Democrats V. Republicans, with occasional third parties thrown in, all the way to the present.

 

Under Trump we're seeing the Republicans fractionalize again, with The Lincoln Party forming to oppose Trump and his nascent racism supporters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be the first to comment

AN UPDATE FROM ANDY KLYDE, BONANZA VENTURES

New York City, September 12, 2020 (Happy Anniversary, BONANZA!)


LATEST NEWS FROM BONANZA VENTURES

It's been a bit of a while since I last communicated, but with this alternate universe in which we all find ourselves, there's been much to process.

 

For those old enough to recall, 1968 undoubtedly was a watershed year, but I think 2020 will really be one for the history books, and there's still almost four months to go . . .

 

Highlights of 2019 were the releases -- after a long hiatus -- of BONANZA: The Official Ninth Season and BONANZA: The Official Tenth Season on DVD in North America (and releases of those seasons shortly thereafter in other territories) and the gala 60th Anniversary Celebration at Ponderosa II in Mesa, Arizona -- Lorne Greene's former home, built from plans adapted from the original architectural blueprints designed by Earl Hedrick for the set constructed at Paramount Studios in 1959. Hosted by Louise and Tom Swann (who also hosted wonderful friendship conventions in 2013, 2015, and 2017), the events were well attended by joyous fans from around the globe who had a rare opportunity to not only visit "the Ponderosa," but enjoy the "Cartwright hospitality" extended by the Swanns, who carefully and lovingly restored the magnificent ranch house to its 1963 grandeur.

 

Tom and Louise Swann sold Ponderosa II and moved to a smaller home not long after the 60th Anniversary party (their "swan song," if you will). The new owners of Ponderosa II have since graciously allowed a video tour of the interior and exterior of the house, but so far there are no plans to hold fan gatherings on the premises. The Ponderosa Ranch House constructed at Incline Village (also from Earl Hedrick's plans) has been carefully dismantled, stored and awaiting reassembly by the Thunderbird Lodge Preservation Society, an organization dedicated to preserving and honoring Lake Tahoe's history.

 

I have sad news to relate. Wendy Dortort Czarnecki, creator-producer David Dortort's daughter, succumbed to complications from diabetes earlier this summer.* Over the years, she's attended fan gatherings of both BONANZA and THE HIGH CHAPARRAL. She shared her father's passion for writing and great literature (although her preferred genre was science fiction rather than the Old West). She and her late husband, Matt Czarnecki (who passed away only 14 months before Wendy), owned Bright Star Setters, recognized as one of the preeminent breeders of Irish Setters in the world. They raised many champion dogs in their kennels over the years.

 

2020 so far has also seen the loss of several BONANZA alumni -- Brooklyn-born John Saxon (real name: Carmine Orrico) was featured in three episodes; I'd hoped to have him record an audio commentary last year, but illness prevented that. Marj Dusay (born Marjorie Ellen Pivonka Mahoney in Hays, Kansas) had a special BONANZA connection. Besides appearing in Season 10's "A Ride in the Sun," her daughter, Debra Marj Dusay, is married to Dan Blocker's eldest son, David Douglas Blocker. Multiple award-winning writer, producer, director and former child actor Gene Reynolds (born Eugene Reynolds Blumenthal in Cleveland, Ohio) is best known for co-developing (with Larry Gelbart) the iconic television series, M*A*S*H, but he was also BONANZA's first casting director. He told me he literally had to drag Barry Sullivan out of a party to convince him to report to the studio the following morning and replace Dan Duryea, who had changed his mind about accepting the lead guest-starring spot in the pivotal episode, "Death on Sun Mountain."

 

And days before 2020 began, we lost writer Dorothy "D.C." Fontana. Best known for her contributions to STAR TREK, and one of the first women to achieve great success in a traditionally male-dominated profession, she was also a prolific writer of episodes of television Westerns. (She used the initials "D.C." instead of her first name, finding that potential employers refused to believe a woman could write a Western.) She wrote the fan-favorite, "The Stalker," and with story editor John Hawkins, created the character of "Jamie," played by Mitch Vogel. I'd hoped she, too, would record an audio commentary. Invited to the 60th Anniversary at Ponderosa II, she had to decline because of teaching commitments at the American Film Institute.

 

But there is good news . . . BONANZA: The Official Eleventh Season will be available for sale throughout N. America starting the last Tuesday in October, 2020. (Released by CBS Home Entertainment and distributed by Paramount, the set is just in time to commemorate the anniversary of Michael Landon's birth . . . )

 

In addition to classic episodes (e.g., "The Stalker," "Dead Wrong," "A Darker Shadow," "Caution: Easter Bunny Crossing," "The Law and Billy Burgess," "It's a Small World," "A Matter of Circumstance") all complete and full-length, newly restored and remastered from original 35mm film elements for superior picture and sound (so they look and sound like they were filmed yesterday), there will be numerous terrific bonus features fans have come to expect from CBS Paramount and yours truly.

 

-- brand new audio commentaries accompanying select episodes
-- a rare Chevrolet commercial featuring Lorne Greene, unseen in decades
-- several "trailers" ("Here are some exciting scenes from our next BONANZA") unseen since their network broadcast 50 years ago
-- tons of rare publicity photos, behind-the-scenes shots and location photos, plus a special collection of never-before-published images from Barb Lay Kieffer, and a special layout featuring "dapper" Dan Blocker.

 

Every episode is closed-captioned and comes with an alternate Latin American Spanish soundtrack. And each episode retains its original music score by Academy Award ® - winning composer Harry Sukman, father of our beloved Susan Sukman McCray.

 

Available now for pre-ordering at Amazon! Tell all your friends and neighbors!

 

I thank you for being a BONANZA booster and supporter through these rough times. Better days are ahead! Meanwhile, stay healthy, stay safe, practice social distancing (watch BONANZA on DVD when you're staying home ūü§†), and wear a mask!

Best BONANZA wishes,

ANDY KLYDE

Be the first to comment

My Copper Research "Biblio"

In all the contacts I've been making in the past month, I would hear requests for the project, and my background so I created the following.

 

I've been doing this for a decade, after curating at a copper burial site for three years. I've now got over 83,000 artifacts in the database, though short of the 100,000 I was hoping for. But I have decided I better get to work on the copper resource manuals because getting those all out there will take another decade! Maybe by then I'll hit 100,000.  I'm sure they're out there, it's just a matter of finding where they're accessioned and getting those museums to want to give me the data.

 

Right now I'm waiting for a response from Cleveland; both Knoxville and Ann Arbor have turned me down flat. Not sure why. I have a confidential column for information that I don't share with the public, such as site location and donor, and some private collectors don't want to be known, either. Some say it's because of NAGPRA that they won't share. But I don't share burial information. I need to know what was made and where it was found, not if it was buried with someone. That information I keep private.

 

I've got over 600 museums and private collectors contacted, and I'd say over 50% of museums had nothing. And I've been all over the country. Recently I drove four hours for a photo of two points. But there's just no other way for me to do it - at least until I get a contract on the first resource manual and can put out a national release asking to be contacted. I can't expect overworked curators to always provide the information to me, after all. But anyone who does gets value in return.

 

What I've learned so far - The Great Lakes copper toolers have the oldest industry in the Americas, and if we can call them a cultural group, they are older in dating than anywhere in Mexico or South America. Those early ones in South America began tooling in copper later, and may well have picked it up from those farther north, but they do have their own source of copper, so these industries could have happened independent - although there are a number of artifacts similar.

 

In South America, they began smelting their copper by around 1500 BCE (I'm not good on dates; check the link on my site here), but smelting never happened in the US because, for the main reason, Lake Superior copper is too pure to smelt. Mexico has the Olmecs, considered the oldest culture in the Americas, but they were relatively rather late, even compared to copper tooling in South America. Mexico's copper tooling industry didn't start until around 500 CE, or shortly before the collapse of Teotihuacan. (I'm writing an archeology novel connecting the two.) From Mexico to South America, gold was as valuable as copper, or vice versa, as they tended to blend the two metals to create tumbaga artifacts.

 

In the USA we've got three main copper tooler cultures - the Archaic Old Copper, as it's called because the focus is on tools of copper for hunting, creating boats and clothes, and fishing. Middle Woodland Hopewell, which got into ornamentation and designs in copper in a BIG way, and they really spread out - talk about a trade network! And Late Woodland Mississippians, who are identifiable in their artifacts because access to copper must have become scarce. Their objects were thin, still ornate, but they often covered other materials like stone or wood with copper.

 

The trade network is why I'm doing this. You can find more at my website, and I have three articles at Academia.edu. I put out 88 newsletters to subscribers over the last decade, but now want to focus on the resource manuals which will disseminate what kinds of trade networks they might have had based on where copper artifacts originated and where they were found. Where they originated simply means we track copper tooling sites, what was found where in the highest numbers, and travel out from there. If Montana had an I-B point, for instance, we find where I-B points were most found and follow the waterways.

 

Have I just told you everything you need to know? Doubtful. Watch for my new newsletter, coming soon!

 

Be the first to comment

Updating Copper Records (the exhaustion of)

I'm getting pretty tired – for sure my hands are – of all the entering of copper artifact data, nearly 80,000 so far, but also with the way I'm being treated, or have been treated, the last ten or so years.

 

When I used to run the Oconto Copper Burial Site, I was often asked by visitors what kind of background I had for doing the tours and the updates that the museum needed, and I would tell them about my master's in history and my background in exploring the trade network between Mexico and the southwestern U.S. during my undergraduate work. They seemed pretty satisfied with that answer.

 

And I've given a number of copper presentations over the years, not always to great results or response, but one continues to bother me. It was the one where Tom Pleger said it's a great idea to have someone create master database of copper artifacts – but it needs to be the right someone.

 

That I didn't immediately stand and say, well, what's wrong with me, Mr. Pleger? Do you know someone else who's willing to do it? Because I've been waiting for someone to throw in with me, but no one has. I would gladly give this research to whoever could do a better job. But instead, you and others seem to have a lot more fun treating me like I'm no better than any amateur collector who finds the artifacts in the ground, destroys their context, and sells them to the highest bidder.

 

What's your real problem, Mr. Pleger?

 

Yeah, I know, he's dead now. I can't ask and I don't need to. I knew what his problem was, and it was petty. When I first started running the museum he and I appeared on the radio together to talk about copper and he thanked me for being there and doing the research to help make the copper tooling industry more accessible. He made copper his dissertation and I went to one of his presentations. It was the same presentation he gave years later when he made that 'infamous' remark. He had the nerve to denigrate me when he was no longer doing anything in the copper field.

 

But the real thorn in his paw was that I wouldn't listen to him when he told me that I had to remove the burial display for kids I had developed in the museum. He had the audacity to say that I was encouraging kids to dig for artifacts in graves. He wouldn't listen when I told him what I was actually doing with that display. Then he went running to John Broihahn, state archaeologist and told him and Broihahn called with the same line, that I had to shut it down. Well, the Oconto museum committee did not want to shut it down, and to this day, a decade after I left, as far as I know, it's still there. And Broihahn still refuses to talk to me.

 

What about public excavation opportunities? Don't they encourage the public to dig wherever they want? I was at one recently and while they gave digging sensitivity instructions, how do we know people were listening? How do we know people weren't there to get some instruction on how to go off wherever they want and dig alone? We don't. I didn't know that either. But I had kids as an audience, and it was the only way for them to understand what the museum was all about.

 

I'm not saying inviting the public to help excavate is wrong. But having a burial display in a museum where we show kids what excavation is all about is not wrong, either.

 

So yeah, I'm tried of being trounced on by archaeologists. I know I'm not trained to learn every tiny little detail about a site. But I have learned copper. I can identify a piece of copper better than anyone I know. I compile date and can provide details on what's going on in any county in the US. I can show you how the axe evolved into the money celt used in Mexico. I can help track where artifacts were traded. And I can put resource manuals together and make some guesses about what's going on, using this knowledge. I might be right. But people will always recognize by my dialog that my guesses are those of an amateur. And they will always be advised to look at the bibliography at the end of every resource manual, because most everything I share will be from professionals. I don't make up the datings, but I do apply the datings from one artifact in one location to that same type in another location. Because that's what typing is for. Readers of my manuals will be encouraged to contact every museum and talk to people there, and not take my word for anything.

 

If they do, well, I can't help that, either. Neither can anyone else.

Be the first to comment

THE ANGST is real

When you get to a certain age, you notice that there's more behind you than ahead of you. You also look at your present to see where you're at. My script, Bighorn Deceit, was named a finalist in the CWA screenwriting competition today. And yes, I'm thrilled. But unlike the last time I was a finalist, my category alone has 31 others. They will announce Top Winners next week. Getting this far is a good thing. It's been a long time since any of my scripts made it this far. I published Awakened as a script online when it didn't make the first cut in its last competition, but I'm sure I'll have to unpublish that eventually. My idea was to try and make money on my screenwriting somehow. But it's not selling there. I don't know why I thought it would.

 

I earned a master's in history, with a 4.0 average. I became a good researcher, which is something i didn't learn in my BA in history. Why they didn't have a class in how to research, I don't know. My research skills now are impeccable. But they didn't teach me how to write in my master's, even though I took writing classes that I aced. I know, weird, right?

 

Recently, Civil War & Bloody Peace was reviewed in Western Writers of America - oddly enough, in the same issue that they published my review on another book. But where I worked to make my review reflective of the book I read, front to back, the review I got sounded like he didn't get past the introduction. He didn't even mention Grant. "Even though it could use some serious editing, it is a remarkable historical record." That says it all, doesn't it? Good researcher, lousy writer. All he talked about in this review was Henry, when I tried to hard to demonstrate that the book isn't about Henry. It's about what happened in our history demonstrated in attitude by following orders. 

 

Yes, perhaps I shared too much of Henry's personal background. But for a soldier who lasted 20 years in the army, I felt that demonstated what happened to old soldiers back then, as reflective of what happens to them now.

 

But I published the book myself because of all the rejections I got, most who wouldn't even look at the book.
That means I published without historical validity past having a master's degree. After self-publication (and maybe before, too) I sent a copy to my advisor (second one after the first dropped out because he couldn't handle me -- that says something right there) and asked if he could have someone read and review it at Amazon to help give CWBP validity. But Oscar didn't respond. It has been a year since I published it, and sales have all but stopped. You can imagine the WWA review isn't going to spur sales.

 

While I was putting the finishing touches on From Lincoln to Trump, I asked another of my thesis advisors, I'll call him John, if he knew anyone there who might be willing to do a read on the book to give suggestions or anything like that before I publish. He did not respond.

 

Problem is that right now, University of Wisconsin Press (UWP) has got the proposal for Pensaukee: Voice of a Landscape, and they were really nice about it, too. When I first queried them about it, it was 150,000 words. They told me they have a max requirement of 100,000 words. So I set to work trimming it down. It's now 105,000 words, and they said they'd look at the proposal. if they take a look the sales of my other two nonfiction books, there is likely NO way they'll request the full book. Nor will any other publisher.

 

I have already decided that I will not self-publish anything again -- with the exception of the three books that had been published before, becuase finding a publisher for books that had once been published is even more daunting.

 

But Pensaukee, and two of my Arabus novels, and Dinner at Marshall Fields, and Archaeology of the Dead - these books could well die with me.

 

Yes, the angst is real. I could stop writing. But what else would I do?

 

I found writing diaries dating back to 1985. I must have taken seriously someone's advise to keep journals. Anyway, I've started typing these entries so that I can throw this clutter away. And it amazes me all the mistakes I've made.

 

I think one of them was going to UWEC for a master's. I wanted to get a master's in Environmental History at UWGB. But my professors would not recommend me for it. I don't know why. I had a great advisor there, very supportive, for the environmental master's, but he couldn't talk them into recommending me, even while I took environmental classes. But UWEC was starting up a new history master's program and though I didn't have the three recommendations I needed for that, either, they took me. I should have seen that for what it was, especially when I said I wanted to develop a historical voice for the people. Since I wasn't interested in teaching or in a PhD, I was just a number there. 

 

But I took an independent study class on "Great Lakes Environmental History," which has helped quite a bit in developing this Pensaukee book. So I think it's a good book, demonstrating how the landscape changed over time, but I don't have the credentials needed, so this will not get published without a publisher's support.

 

Unless I turn it back into just the history of a township. That would be something I could self-publish, and forget about. Right? 

 

Except I can never forget about anything I publish. And I know that annoys people on my social media, when I keep saying buy buy! I can't help but feel let down by no sales - even my Bonanzas aren't selling right now. Where's my WOM? During the Civil War sesquicentennial, I put on Henry presentations, an old soldier telling his stories, and people seemed to love them. But I didn't have the book published at that time. So many people who I gave books to, or who bought them when I offered the discount, said they'd review for me, but haven't. Why? What's wrong? So many people encouraged me while I was writing From Lincoln to Trump, but now haven't bought a copy. Why? What's wrong?

 

This gripey, angst-filled person isn't who I want to be. But right now, with more in my past than my future, it's who I am.

Be the first to comment

Now Available: From Lincoln to Trump: a political transformation

 

 

This adventure in journalistic history was unlike my other one in two ways. Civil War & Bloody Peace (CWBP) took me twenty years, from beginning to publication, and I was on the road, a lot, going to all the places at which Henry served to dig out primary information to find out why he was sent where he was sent. From Lincoln to Trump (FLT) took not even a year from beginning to publication, because I relied on information commonly available. CWBP was an exercise in objectivity - I had only to demonstrate why Henry said what he said late in life. I had no other agenda. But FLT was written more with subjective objectivity. I am not alone in disdaining Trump as president; historians overall call him the worst president, and Lincoln the best. I felt that made such interesting bookends for everything that came between them that I wanted to find out what the heck happened to the Republican Party from Lincoln to Trump.

 

I'm going to be presenting on both books in September, so I'm going to see if I can hash out a kind of rough draft here.

 

CWBP was a book that I submitted for publication for about 10 years before I gave up and self-published. Well, I couldn't let all that research go to waste, right? Reasons given by publishers for not picking it up varied. Mostly, the lack of my being able to demonstrate that this wasn't Henry's personal story - because he was a nobody, right? But that his orders, where he was going as a non-comm during his 20 years in the army at such a pivotal time in history, I felt could teach us a lot about our history, in a very real way. And that it does.

 

I queried a few publishers on FLT but I knew that I wanted to get it out before the election, because I planned to fill with what happened during every presidency that led to today. No publisher who responded was able to handle such a quick turnaround. So again, I had no choice but to self-publish.

 

This means, of course, that I now have a second book that is not validated by any other historian. And yes, that bothers me. I sent CWBP to my thesis advisor and he hasn't responded since receiving it. I asked for a review from someone on campus. No response. I asked one of my thesis committee members to have someone he knows read FLT before it goes out. Again, no response. I don't know why. And not knowing feels like - when your favorite pet cat disappears one day and never comes back. You never get closure.

 

Anyway, FLT was a cheaper process. I depended on some very factual books to come up with some of the main events in each president in this survey. From there I found some controversy and dug out further information to more fully develop each of the issues in the book.

 

For CWBP, I used a more day to day approach, or fort to fort, and showed what happened at each location that sent Henry there, and kept him there. He was in the Civil War starting in 1862, and then went west - a total of five enlistments, more than any other soldier I found in this research, until medical discharge in 1884.

 

In FLT, I was also able to use research I'd been compiling for quite some time on the assassinations in the '60s. It seems that people don't understand how transformational that period was in our society - and I think that with Trump we're facing another transformational period. But as I put this book togather I found something in the '60s that never occurred to me before. Is it possible the Democrats of the South - Dixiecrats - killed JFK? 

 

So you don't just see Republican presidents, although the focus IS on the GOP. I also do brief comparisons on issues of economy, war, racism and more to Democratic presidents. Because somewhere along the way, the two parties flipped. But did they? I was surprised by the answer, and you will be, too.

 

The seed for FLT was planted in CWBP. In that book I demonstrated how the Republicans gave up on black rights. But I was only scratching the surface, because the book had to have an ending, and I chose Henry's death in 1916. What I learned in FLT made this country's character so clear. When Trump says "make America great again," he really does mean a kind of re-segregation, and dominance, that he felt made us great once before. He is a direct response to Obama's reaching out to the world for healing after the divisive presidency of GW Bush and his Iraq war. But his election is so much more than that, as you'll see.

 

Both books depended on the digging out of facts. You cannot rely on the opinion of others. If you find someone's opinion, and he makes it sound like fact, you have to dig further. While putting FLT together, the libraries closed down. I had to rely on books I could buy, and that I had in my library, and whatever I could find online. But I don't rely on opinions.

 

You will find controversy. I talk about who could have assassinated civil rights leaders like the Kennedys and King; not lone assassins. I include who was freemason throughout this history, but then I also include a discussion of freemasonry in the appendix. I open things up further with my own commentary throughout, something I did not do in CWBP. But I wanted to make sure readers did not miss some of the connections I saw throughout the book.

 

I finally finished up with some more books from the library. In all FLT is an amazing resource. Give it a try. Help validate this work, so that more people take a chance on it. I will use any reviews in my presentation in September.

 

Thanks for reading.

Be the first to comment

ROOTS OF JOURNALISTIC HISTORY

I had an epiphany (and now I know how to spell that word). I was reading this nondescript novel about a journalist who noted that her job was to report events accurately and in order so people can see what happened and draw their own conclusions. Now, mind you, I was reading this on my Kindle while I was out for a walk, so maybe those lines wouldn't have had the same effect if I was, say, on the toilet. I came up with a great edit for a script (remains to be seen, of course, if it sells) with a notebook and pen on that very same walk.

 

And I thought – hey! That's what I do! I followed Henry's orders by going everywhere he went and found all the things that happened where he was sent to find out why he was sent there. I reported on these things as though I was a journalist, reporting on his orders. That's it! That's what I am.

 

I had been criticized by the publishers I queried that I didn't analyze enough. That was not my goal, nor did I have a preconceived end result that I set out to prove.  I wanted to show the attitude of the orders, why he was sent where he was sent, but I wanted the readers to come to their own conclusions about this history. I wanted to be as objective as possible, and you'll read that in my introduction. I did figure this approach would show how much more involved Grant was, but I did not expect to find deliberate defeat at the Little Bighorn, for instance.

 

That is what was accomplished here – simply by presenting all the events as they happened.

 

So the real reason that they didn't publish my book was that they didn't understand my approach. Because it's NEW! It IS Journalistic History. But I did a search online and nothing came up with this genre indicated. That means, yes, you've heard it here first. I also did a search on historic journalism but all I found was the history of journalism. So this is a better name for what I write, historic events in a journalist style.

 

This is not narrative nonfiction. For a while, I tried to promote it that way. But narrative nonfiction doesn't travel in a nice orderly fashion, step by step. It meanders, and for that reason is more for reading enjoyment than learning enhancement.

 

Journalistic History will demonstrate our nation's history in the most forthright way possible. In this respect, it is the best kind of history to use at the high school level. If you want to know why our country is as it is, this is what you'll read.

 

And that's what I meant it for. I meant it for anyone who wants to know – for instance, why is our first black president a Democrat?

 

My next book, From Lincoln to Trump: a political evolution, is going to the KDP printer soon. It will be called, on the back cover, a new journalist history offering. And then will be described to detail what that means to readers of the book. You might also, on occasion, hear it referred to as historic journalism, but that might get confused with the journalism history. Journalistic History is the way history events are reported.

 

I'll share the blurb of my new book here soon.

Be the first to comment

Healing a Racist USA

I posted on how police who deliberately kill unarmed blacks need to be held accountable if we are ever going to begin to purge this country of racism. George Floyd's death under the knee of a cop spurred protest around the country, and the world, in support for justice. But here in the USA, these peaceful protestors are being infiltrated by white supremacists determined to undermine their efforts and turned the country into a volcano, still happening at the time of this post.


Though the cop has been arrested, it is yet to be determined if he will be acquitted.


My post brought out the comment that racism is systemic in this country and a lot more needs to be done to stop it. I posted the following link I was given. I share it here because I want these efforts to continue: https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/what-white-people-can-do-for-racial-justice-f2d18b0e0234?fbclid=IwAR0ph0JOTlnH6XZVjE44hsZufzmj01zdGOWlsKpX87ceWuoAgOKsfBvPgPk (copy and paste)

 
But one comment made took me by surprise, and is worth further exploration: That I, and everyone else in this country, has benefited from this racism.


Just what does that mean – benefitted? We all know what capitalism is like. We know that the rich get richer off our backs, and we know that they rarely allow new rich to join their ranks. The black population joined the rest of us after the civil war to be exploited as laborers. Many white laborers hated this competition in the struggles to rise above laboring to "make it" and politicians found ways to keep them from mingling. Blacks struggled to make it, too, but our white dominant society made their struggles so much harder. They are, for instance, incarcerated at much greater rates for longer times for lesser crimes. And no president has spoken out against this – not even Obama.


So yes, many things need to change, not just this strike against racists cops. But to date, only one woman cop has been found guilty, to my knowledge. And this cop who killed George already had 18 complaints against him. Why was he still on the force? All polices forces in the USA need to take a good hard look at the records of every officer. This needs to be done today.


What this post on Facebook, where I felt I was being called racist just for being white, made me realize that there really are two different definitions we're talking about. I'm going to share my responses to these comments, but not the original comments as I don't have permission. [] indicates excerpted from another opinion. () is some cleanup and clarification of my posting texts.


**


You blame people for living within a society in which they were raised? [That systemic view of racism] seems kind of unfair. I agree that the more we learn about these issues, the better able we are to deal with them. But what does dealing with them mean? I read every one of those 75 points (shared in the link above), many of which I already do or am involved in. But to blame each of us as individuals for the evils in our society today (can cause) a guilt complex that (some) people would not be able to overcome. And I don't think that would help BLM or any of our black friends one bit. (Would we just give up and say to hell with the help, then?)


When I think back to the '60s and (those attempts at civil rights) it causes a pain that gets harder to deal with every time it hits. So much hope was lost. So much fear rose up in its place.


Of course I blame society. But to blame kids who got a good education and used it to get a good job because that's what society demands of all of us [as taking part in a racist society] just seems a little harsh. To my knowledge I never pushed a minority out of the way for a job that they could have done better. I was born and raised in Green Bay. The only blacks we knew played football. The key is and always has been integration. Until we can truly create a society where all people ARE (treated) equal, and that means getting rid of the people hired to protect and to serve who only protect and serve whites, we can't even begin to get that society.


I am to this day so horrified at how many of my old classmates (in Green Bay) are trump supporters.


You (cannot) think that each of us (today) created this (old system) in our society. I was not in the Civil War, nor were you. We each had to be raised in what our parents dealt with. The main point is how we move forward from here, not each of us taking blame for what our forefathers did. We have to address today. Now. As we tried in the 60s, but so many of our ideals were assassinated. We cannot go backward into fear again. We have to go forward with courage.


I am not complicit. I am trying to change things. I have always been trying to change things. And I will always try to change things. I suggest you, and everyone else, do the same.

 

Don't throw history at me. I know history. (This is where I realize that all my opponent in this debate was trying to do as to get me to see how long the USA has been racist. I'm a historian. I write about these issues. We had been defining racism differently.)


She sees it as part of being human, as in we're all racist, showing preference for whatever system favors us. (If I'm understanding right.)


My definition is simply to apply the word to the more violent among us - those who cannot stand having "others" around them. Those who are willing to act out their hate is some perverse way. And those that think they can get away with it because their dominant society will support them.


Many of us (today) are not racist, but humanist - it's knowing that we are all human inside, despite our differences, and accept being among others as the natural order of things. We still might more overly associate with "our own kind" but that's more a matter of being used to people we understand (not that I understand my husband all the time.) The need in our society is to turn racists into humanists.


And I think we're getting there a little bit more, every day. I am not my grandfather, and my granddaughters will not be me.


(I reject being called a racist because of how I define the term. I would never violate anyone else's space or rights. Because I don't have that right. None of us do.)


But I will make sure I distinguish the difference in the two definitions in my book so I don't confuse anyone. The problem [of systemic racism] is similar to how (some) native American Indians hate ALL whites because they think we're all the same. It's not true, and it wasn't true historically either.


(I err on the side of) how the term racist is most obviously used in the country (today). When we call white supremacists racist, it's a negative. If we call all of us racist, that makes us feel we're all wrong. We're not and believe it or not, our attitude does change things. We are making progress.


I completely understand this history of our racism. I'm talking about the changes that need to be made to address what's happening today. We cannot erase that history. My book is going to show how we got where we are today. And my initial comment on my other post stands. We have to start with cleaning up our police departments. Holding them accountable. Until that changes, nothing changes. (They are our most public servants, paid by our taxes to protect and defend ALL of us. Until we make sure that happens, we can't find that equality.)


You are all right in understanding that our country is white-dominated since its formation. The trick today is changing that. It's not easy. But it can be done, and we can all take steps to do that. That's what this post is all about.


Many of us want our centuries-long system of oppression to end. That's what this is all about. Changing our history. Let's not fight each other but join hands and know what we're fighting for. True equality.


**


So no, I don't feel I've benefited. Like anyone else, I worked to survive, as we all must. But I didn't benefit because all the pain and suffering by other people around me, needless suffering, breaks my heart every time I see it. It's a truly helpless feeling, and not a gift, at all. I speak up against it wherever I can. Whenever I can. But I will not carry a gun, and I will not protest in a pandemic.


I am not happy to be part of white skin history.

Be the first to comment

The CAMD is Personal

I lost the Iowa Grant, the one that would have enabled the project to feel professional and would have funded the trip to the remaining Iowa museums, including to the OAS in Iowa City where I felt I was only shown half of their material.

 

Because of this, because of, well, many of these kinds of unfunded setbacks, I will no longer be sharing any copper research anywhere except an occasional post at Academia.edu. I will pursue my love of this exploration of a vast Americas trade network for my own satisfaction, and to hope that someday my offerings will make a difference.

 

I will continue to work on the resource manuals but with no delusion that I will find an interested publisher. I will continue to call museums on my list to ask for information over the phone because I can no longer afford to travel anywhere. But I will expect a further lack of cooperation because of my inability to demonstrate any professoinal support.

 

I will no longer do a newsletter in any shape or form. The copper topic will remain here, however, and I will on occasion share something fun. While I dearly loved contact with like-minded people, i was unable to obtain any real support except for a "good job" every now and again. I recently heard that my most avid supporter, archeologist Jack Steinbring, has passed away. I knew he was in ill health. That has left me feeling the void.

 

But I cannot give up, because this work is that important. To me. While others continued to make fun, I continued to see validity in my progress.

 

If you are interested in any aspect of this research, there is one way you can help. Wherever your area of interest is, request a copy of materials found there. It won't cost you a lot. But it could save the CAMD's life.

 

2 Comments
Post a comment