Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 14th October 2015, 06:42 AM

Thanks very much Fernando for the additional information on some of these disparities in some of the references. Like you, I claim no particular expertise in these matters, but wanted to point these out so as to be noted by readers and others who might join in here. The marks imaged by Gyngell are of course correct, but the 1516 date seems clearly to predate the biographical data on the Munsten's. You are correct in that the misprint is irrelevant so perhaps should have been omitted.

However, I think you have revealed that your familiarity with these references is well versed, and the notes you provide from Boeheim et al give us better perspective concerning these issues. I had not consulted, nor included the Boeheim material, which is indeed pertinent.

It is always good to have additional views on the complexities in things like markings as there are often sources which have not been brought into the discussion, and as you well note, authors and scholars typically have quite different views.

I had noted in my post that the issue on the Peter Munsten who had gone to London was moot as far as this example, but brought it up as a factor in the spectrum of this family of swordsmiths. Clearly the sword in discussion is of German form and believed earlier than Hounslow, so would not have been made by this individual in England.

Ulfberht, thank you for your kind comments, and I agree, it is very difficult to determine further on this weapon from the images, and I look forward to more from others.

14th October 2015, 06:42 AM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,801	Thanks very much Fernando for the additional information on some of these disparities in some of the references. Like you, I claim no particular expertise in these matters, but wanted to point these out so as to be noted by readers and others who might join in here. The marks imaged by Gyngell are of course correct, but the 1516 date seems clearly to predate the biographical data on the Munsten's. You are correct in that the misprint is irrelevant so perhaps should have been omitted. However, I think you have revealed that your familiarity with these references is well versed, and the notes you provide from Boeheim et al give us better perspective concerning these issues. I had not consulted, nor included the Boeheim material, which is indeed pertinent. It is always good to have additional views on the complexities in things like markings as there are often sources which have not been brought into the discussion, and as you well note, authors and scholars typically have quite different views. I had noted in my post that the issue on the Peter Munsten who had gone to London was moot as far as this example, but brought it up as a factor in the spectrum of this family of swordsmiths. Clearly the sword in discussion is of German form and believed earlier than Hounslow, so would not have been made by this individual in England. Ulfberht, thank you for your kind comments, and I agree, it is very difficult to determine further on this weapon from the images, and I look forward to more from others.