18th century Gunners Stilleto?

Jim McDougall · 15th November 2011, 10:14 PM

Hi Michael, and Im really glad you came in on this, I hoped you would.
An interesting assessment for Historismus period, and honestly I had never heard of it.....and now that I have read on it, I realize why

You have an amazing grasp of art nuances that are remarkably esoteric and completely fascinating. From what I can understand the term seems to have appeared around 1797 by Friedrich Schelegel suggesting of course returning to classical period (Iggers, 1995) and while largely philosophical in nature also refers to the art movement end of 19th century c.1870-1910 and as you note, reflecting 16th-17th c. styles.
Interestingly, the vagueries concerning this Historismus period seem to coincide with the very subjective nature of the topics and fields it concerns.
In one reference it is suggested that the 'movement' as it is termed may be considered to have begun as early as 1750 inspired by French neo baroque styles.

As I have noted, the French appearance to me is suggested by the crosshatched design in the grips, typically seen in the ebony grips of French officers sabres on Napoleonic period. The pommel is indeed neo classical, and seems to correspond with period in France where many neo classic styles and traditions were in place. The interesting cartouche with majescule letter above another with numbers in what appears 18th c. French script.

Perhaps this may be an 'interpretation' of the type stilettos used by gunners,
as by the time of this piece it seems unlikely such instrument/weapons would have been used. Actually, the bombardier stilletto phenomenon was largely to Italy, though as with fashion and these kinds of allusions may well have passed in degree to other European countries in a military parlance. It seems that for the most part, the priming iron (a sharp pointed stylus type item) was used by artillerymen to clear touch holes. The prime focus of the gunners stilletto was in its doubling as a weapon, and its disguise with arcane numbers in guage arrangement to meet stipulation that only gunners could have such weapons.

Then there is the matter of the curious crenellations in the blade. Still it is either gunners stilletto issued anachronistically or an honorific interpretation of one, either French in the period I suggest, or later as Michael suggests. It is difficult to say exactly as it is a weapon type issued out of time and may have been fashioned within this broader period of the 19th century.

Rick · 15th November 2011, 11:34 PM

Perhaps this was meant only to puncture the cloth cartridge in a gun .

The serrated part (if sharp) would penetrate the bag, make a ragged hole and pull powder up toward the touch hole .

The thing looks pretty well used to me .
Cannon are often numbered on naval vessels .

Matchlock · 16th November 2011, 03:30 AM

Rick,

Interesting points of practical sense, these!

Why not?

Best,
Michael

M ELEY · 16th November 2011, 04:10 AM

Very interesting piece! It also struck me that it could conceivably be naval. The style of pommel and hilt shape remind me of naval French swords and of course, the dirk being a common side-arm. The grip 'badge' was seen on both naval and infantry-type swords. I like Rick's idea that it could have been used to puncture the powder bag (this was done with cannon and swivel guns, I recall). Likewise, as a 19th c. piece in this style, a naval piece seems to fit (meaning that they had a tendency to hang onto items and styles after they had passed, such as pikes and cutlass into the early 20th c.)

kahnjar1 · 16th November 2011, 05:51 AM

Not particularly my field, but it looks from the pics that the pommel, quillons and badge/plaque are brass, which would likely point to naval use. If "normal" military use I would have thought iron/steel for these. I'm not good at decyphering this type of script, but is it RN? (Maybe Royal Navy??)
Nice interesting piece.
Regards Stu

Jim McDougall · 16th November 2011, 08:08 AM

Excellent points guys, and Ricks note on puncturing the powder bag is noted as a distinct use for the stilettos. The reference to numbering of cannon on ships is also well placed. I think these were typically like L4 for 4th position port and S 6 for 6th position starboard , in that fashion.
As Mark points out, there was a strong tendancy for tradition in the navy and often weapons remained in use long after ceasing in other circumstances.
Stu's note on the initials or letters seems interesting and it does seem possible that an N could be transposed over an R in ligature form , but as noted its hard to make out.
Mark, could these strange crenellations on the blade have anything to do with rigging? It seems boarding axes and knives etc. sometimes have notches or unusual features thought to relate to the arcane handling of these by seamen.
Still a gunners stiletto....but why not naval? It seems that many naval dirks are with unusually thin blades as well, though I dont presume they were used with the guns...just an observation .

fernando · 16th November 2011, 03:22 PM

If the number in the plate were to refer to a gun's number or its position in the vessel, that stylized monogram is not a good match; certainly not that of the dagger's owner, neither the initials of Royal Navy or the like. More plausible would be if they were the initials of the vessel's name ... but still.

On the other hand, if the monogram is that of the dagger's owner, then the digits would refer his number... either in the service ranks or aboard ship, like gunner # 43.

Noteworthy is the fact that the crenellations (per Jim) are only grooved in one of the dagger faces, not all round. Could this be to facilitate the breaking of the dagger's point, after plugging the cannon touch hole, to disable the enemy to take it off ?
... Just fantasies of mine

My guess on the monogram initials is; A (in bold, as the first), plus a B and a N ... or vice versa.

fernando · 16th November 2011, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

...I'm not good at decyphering this type of script, but is it RN? (Maybe Royal Navy??) ...

PLUS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

... My guess on the monogram initials is; A (in bold, as the first), plus a B and a N ... or vice versa...

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY ?

kahnjar1 · 16th November 2011, 05:22 PM

The Royal AUSTRALIAN Navy did not exist until 1909. Prior to that, units of the Royal Navy were deployed, so not likely any connection there.

15th November 2011, 11:34 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,347	Perhaps this was meant only to puncture the cloth cartridge in a gun . The serrated part (if sharp) would penetrate the bag, make a ragged hole and pull powder up toward the touch hole . The thing looks pretty well used to me . Cannon are often numbered on naval vessels . Last edited by Rick; 16th November 2011 at 01:24 AM.

15th November 2011, 10:14 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Hi Michael, and Im really glad you came in on this, I hoped you would. An interesting assessment for Historismus period, and honestly I had never heard of it.....and now that I have read on it, I realize why You have an amazing grasp of art nuances that are remarkably esoteric and completely fascinating. From what I can understand the term seems to have appeared around 1797 by Friedrich Schelegel suggesting of course returning to classical period (Iggers, 1995) and while largely philosophical in nature also refers to the art movement end of 19th century c.1870-1910 and as you note, reflecting 16th-17th c. styles. Interestingly, the vagueries concerning this Historismus period seem to coincide with the very subjective nature of the topics and fields it concerns. In one reference it is suggested that the 'movement' as it is termed may be considered to have begun as early as 1750 inspired by French neo baroque styles. As I have noted, the French appearance to me is suggested by the crosshatched design in the grips, typically seen in the ebony grips of French officers sabres on Napoleonic period. The pommel is indeed neo classical, and seems to correspond with period in France where many neo classic styles and traditions were in place. The interesting cartouche with majescule letter above another with numbers in what appears 18th c. French script. Perhaps this may be an 'interpretation' of the type stilettos used by gunners, as by the time of this piece it seems unlikely such instrument/weapons would have been used. Actually, the bombardier stilletto phenomenon was largely to Italy, though as with fashion and these kinds of allusions may well have passed in degree to other European countries in a military parlance. It seems that for the most part, the priming iron (a sharp pointed stylus type item) was used by artillerymen to clear touch holes. The prime focus of the gunners stilletto was in its doubling as a weapon, and its disguise with arcane numbers in guage arrangement to meet stipulation that only gunners could have such weapons. Then there is the matter of the curious crenellations in the blade. Still it is either gunners stilletto issued anachronistically or an honorific interpretation of one, either French in the period I suggest, or later as Michael suggests. It is difficult to say exactly as it is a weapon type issued out of time and may have been fashioned within this broader period of the 19th century.

16th November 2011, 03:30 AM	#3
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Rick, Interesting points of practical sense, these! Why not? Best, Michael

16th November 2011, 04:10 AM	#4
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,184	Very interesting piece! It also struck me that it could conceivably be naval. The style of pommel and hilt shape remind me of naval French swords and of course, the dirk being a common side-arm. The grip 'badge' was seen on both naval and infantry-type swords. I like Rick's idea that it could have been used to puncture the powder bag (this was done with cannon and swivel guns, I recall). Likewise, as a 19th c. piece in this style, a naval piece seems to fit (meaning that they had a tendency to hang onto items and styles after they had passed, such as pikes and cutlass into the early 20th c.)

16th November 2011, 05:51 AM	#5
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,800	Not particularly my field, but it looks from the pics that the pommel, quillons and badge/plaque are brass, which would likely point to naval use. If "normal" military use I would have thought iron/steel for these. I'm not good at decyphering this type of script, but is it RN? (Maybe Royal Navy??) Nice interesting piece. Regards Stu

16th November 2011, 08:08 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Excellent points guys, and Ricks note on puncturing the powder bag is noted as a distinct use for the stilettos. The reference to numbering of cannon on ships is also well placed. I think these were typically like L4 for 4th position port and S 6 for 6th position starboard , in that fashion. As Mark points out, there was a strong tendancy for tradition in the navy and often weapons remained in use long after ceasing in other circumstances. Stu's note on the initials or letters seems interesting and it does seem possible that an N could be transposed over an R in ligature form , but as noted its hard to make out. Mark, could these strange crenellations on the blade have anything to do with rigging? It seems boarding axes and knives etc. sometimes have notches or unusual features thought to relate to the arcane handling of these by seamen. Still a gunners stiletto....but why not naval? It seems that many naval dirks are with unusually thin blades as well, though I dont presume they were used with the guns...just an observation .

16th November 2011, 03:22 PM	#7
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	If the number in the plate were to refer to a gun's number or its position in the vessel, that stylized monogram is not a good match; certainly not that of the dagger's owner, neither the initials of Royal Navy or the like. More plausible would be if they were the initials of the vessel's name ... but still. On the other hand, if the monogram is that of the dagger's owner, then the digits would refer his number... either in the service ranks or aboard ship, like gunner # 43. Noteworthy is the fact that the crenellations (per Jim) are only grooved in one of the dagger faces, not all round. Could this be to facilitate the breaking of the dagger's point, after plugging the cannon touch hole, to disable the enemy to take it off ? ... Just fantasies of mine My guess on the monogram initials is; A (in bold, as the first), plus a B and a N ... or vice versa.

16th November 2011, 05:22 PM	#9
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,800	The Royal AUSTRALIAN Navy did not exist until 1909. Prior to that, units of the Royal Navy were deployed, so not likely any connection there.