Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

cornelistromp · 6th March 2014, 07:22 AM

a few small side notes;

at the excavated hilt were two side rings with plates! now 1 pierced plate is missing So No 49 corresponds better than No 47.

date between 1675 and 1725 is quite firm and given by JP Puype in his publication Mauritz to Munster. earlier than in 1659 does not seem likely.

actually the site of a weapon never gives such information, not on the date of a weapon, not where it is made, or by whom it is used, besides it is (almost Always) impossible to link to a certain battle.

it only says that it is lost there.

best,
Jasper

6th March 2014, 07:22 AM	#16
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,057	a few small side notes; at the excavated hilt were two side rings with plates! now 1 pierced plate is missing So No 49 corresponds better than No 47. date between 1675 and 1725 is quite firm and given by JP Puype in his publication Mauritz to Munster. earlier than in 1659 does not seem likely. actually the site of a weapon never gives such information, not on the date of a weapon, not where it is made, or by whom it is used, besides it is (almost Always) impossible to link to a certain battle. it only says that it is lost there. best, Jasper Last edited by cornelistromp; 6th March 2014 at 08:00 AM.