Jim, I hadn't really thought of it that way. It had occurred to me that the markings were important, of course, but the aspect of assumed "transfer" of the original weapons' capabilities, and the strength of the forces armed with them, had not. I sort of assumed that the markings were treated much like a proof mark, i.e. as a sign of good quality of manufacture. It is, I agree, good to know that such comparatively ancient weapons as these are still in use to this day; if nothing else, they and the people who make them represent a fascinating insight into the pre-industrial processes of manufacturing, and their products, almost unknown in the modern Western world.[/QUOTE]
The markings found on weapons have long been a fascination of mine, and apparantly are drawing the interest of more collectors. In native cultures even where literacy is not prevalent, the keen understanding and perception of symbolism often transcends any language or educational barriers. The assumption of imbued powers through symbolism, in this case seen as strategically placed on weapons, reflects the power of ones faith and far exceeds the baser elements of business and marketing. This has been very much the case in virtually all cultures in varying degree, and there is a great deal of talismanic and amuletic virtue found in the markings and decoration of weapons in European nations from into the Middle Ages and probably earlier.
(see the thread at the top of these pages on early makers trademarks).
This is truly one of the most fascinating elements in the study of historic weapons, whether ethnographic or European, and the perspective in which even this seemingly modern gun should be perceived and described in a pertinant display, just as you have shown by your keenly placed interest in it. I really wish more museum staff, beyond the numbers who already do, would take your approach. If I may say so, very well done!!
All very best regards,
Jim