Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Richard G
Other than EIC or locally made locks there is possibly, or probably,a third type of lock that can confuse the issue.
It is known the EIC purchased lesser quality arms for trading purposes, in Africa on the voyage out, and to customers in India etc.
How many, and how they were marked? - I don't know; but it is certainly a possibility that there were British made EIC 'style' locks, but not actually EIC owned, in circulation in India.
Regards
Richard
PS Harding says he does not know why the 'flaunched' balemark was used, but implies it may have strayed from the ownership mark on other EIC owned goods e,g. the lead seals on bales of cloth.
|
Very good points Richard, and in examining the varying character of the locks we might find on these jezails, it is necessary to consider the ever present dynamic of trade.
'The evil trade', that is the 'slave trade' was indeed an element of British networks, and the Royal African Company was formed in the late 17th c. where muskets were among the commodities traded for slaves.
Most of the British involvement in this dark trade system was throughout the 18th century, but manufacture of trade muskets continued long after the abolition of slavery in 1833.
Without venturing further into these complex areas, what is known is that the primary source of these 'trade' muskets was in Birmingham, where several thousand 'gunmakers' worked in the 'gun quarter' of that industrial city. Actually, the components were produced by many subcontractors and the locks produced in the regions along road to Birmingham later known as the 'Black Country' (coal presence) and heavy industry.
In addition to those trade muskets produced for the African trade, were the famed 'Northwest Guns' which were made for the North American markets.
These muskets for the Northwest Fur Trade became well known from c1775 and were traded to American Indian tribes. In about 1805, guns for the Hudsons Bay Company trade began using a snake or dragon on the sideplate which became the key criteria for acceptance by the Indians.
As with the African guns, many of these were of notoriously low quality, and their reputation for blowing up with disastrous results brought the terms 'blood merchants' to the makers who produced these, and to the African examples as well. Naturally this poor character did not apply to all examples but was still well known.
One of the most prolific makers of these trade guns (or at least on the locks) was BARNETT . I believe that name was only one I have seen on a Northwest gun, but never on an African example as far as I have seen.
I have not found any particular lock markings on the locks of the African examples of flintlock trade guns but the Royal African Company had a castle and an elephant, so perhaps that might be considered.
With the 'Northwest' guns, the locks were marked often with a circle enclosing a sitting fox like animal facing right below the pan.
While it seems that these varied locks were typically placed on guns to the appropriate distributions, it is always possible that they became diffused into the components of guns being sent to other contract completions. With huge volumes of components to many 'setters up' to assemble them there are many possibilities in the Birmingham context.
Even after the production stages, distribution via trade, there are still many circumstances where weapons may have been captured, traded away, or taken by individuals moving or transporting to other contexts.
All of these situations from 'one off' to larger circumstances such as surplus or replaced arms should be recognized as potentially viable considerations in evaluating weapon examples.
For example, the sale of over 400,000 India pattern muskets to Mexico in 1821 after the end of the Napoleonic campaigns left huge surpluses.
As far as I know, although these were 'India' pattern Brown Bess muskets, they were not marked with EIC trademarks but the standard government inspection and TOWER.
Pictured Barnett flintlock 'Northwest' gun with sitting wolf cartouche below pan.
The flintlock remained in demand well into the 19th century due to the difficulty on procuring percussion caps in remote circumstances, where obtaining flints and powder was far more accessible.