Lantaka Real Vs Fake

[fernando]

Hi Jim,
Let me take a ride under your cape of 'absolutely no knowledge' and digress a bit myself ...

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Eventually these became items of status beyond their obvious use as weapons, and heavily produced for use in ceremonial cases as well as even trade items... Beyond that, perhaps this one could have been for trade use among local tribes, in the sense of intertribal gift in wedding, currency etc. parlance?...

In a manner that this gives place to a third category; besides operational and fake lantakas you have, as you well note, the ones used for other than firing ... intentionaly made for such purpose, with no thought for fraud. As long as you don't pretend that a determined lantaka is or was for combat, there is on step to consider before calling it a fake. At the end, there were probably more lantakas for multiple inland purposes than those aboard ships; this before junk ones were made for opportunity business. It is said that in some local wealthy people mansions, the surrounding walls were made of zillions of lantakas set upright.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... It is indicated that prior to the 18th century, there were iron pins to center the clay covered wood core which produced the bore. As the mold was broken open, these pins actually became part of the cannon itself, and later these iron residues became spotted rust in the bronze...

The so called cruzetas ... or chaplets



Here i upload two collectable valuable small examples of so called cannon money, a status achieved by non combat lantakas (and other).
One aledgely cast in Melaca in the XVIII century, in a style similar to those introduced there by the Portuguese and a triple barrel (as triple currency unit) cast in Sião during the XVII-XVIII centuries; a very rare example.

.

[Jim McDougall]

LOL! Thanks Nando We can both have capes of zippetee do dah knowledge on these, but with you I know better.

Nicely presented explanation on these serving in capacity other than weapons, signaling methods and gifts or presentation items.
While it seems puzzling that these would be considered as a monetary exchange, I think it was more associated with status. As you note...look how many cannons he has!!! etc.

Obviously in later, or I should say more recent, years, it has become lucrative to create fakes, as well shown in the excellent link Battara added. As collectibles and antiquities have become prime commercial merchandise as well as 'investments' the industrious charlatans of varying countries have stepped up their production.
These days caveat emptor has reached astronomical dimensions!!

In this case, much as with the often harshly and arbitrarily labeled 'tourist' pieces in edged weapons, many of these are actually still part of modern native tradition and have their own place in these cultures.

It does seem that an attractive and formidable appearing cannon such as this would be a lucrative addition to a tribal 'portfolio', despite not ever being intended for actual firing. Though not exactly the same in analogy, with American Indians wealth was often measured in horses; in other cultures sheep or cattle; and so on whether livestock or tangibles.

With these cannon it does seem a bit inconvenient using these as currency though.....I mean, what is the change in transaction for two cannon? perhaps a pistol and some ammunition?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

LOL! Thanks Nando With these cannon it does seem a bit inconvenient using these as currency though.....I mean, what is the change in transaction for two cannon? perhaps a pistol and some ammunition? ...

Oh no; it was a bit like those copper bars and bangles they used (use?) in Africa for currency. The cannon form was just an allegory; not to be associated with weaponry, for what counts. In the maximum a symbolic representation of power. The currency basis is based on the bronze material
You would used them as a monetary means; from buying things to set up the value of a dowry, i would guess.

[CSinTX]

Sorry, I forgot to come back and update this thread after resolving the issue. The seller finally come through in allowing me to exchange it.

After much research, I feel that the lantaka shown here fell in the grey area of likely a money item and not meant for firing. However, typically the basic and early designs with open yoke are accepted as working pieces while the later more extravagant pieces were thought of as wealth items. I believe there also continued to be more basic designs produced as wealth items even after the accepted changes had taken place. This piece did test out to be made of all bronze except for the correct chaplets in place inside the bronze.

The most troubling part of this piece for me was the added material capping the end of the muzzle. Through research, I found a large percentage of "correct and antique" lantakas had the same feature. I am guessing during the construction process, there was reason for more material to be added at the end for some reason. Im not sure why, but it was definitely common. This can clearly be seen in this thread on the last picture at the bottom right- http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4249. It can also clearly be seen in this example with good provenance. http://jamesdjulia.com/item/lot-1542...w-shinn-47729/

Finally, the casting lines would suggest it was made post 1800 with a two piece cast rather than the original method of a one piece cast.

Hopefully this will help someone at some point in the future.

Thanks,
Casey