Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

fernando · 15th July 2009, 06:37 PM

I have tried to take resasonable (?) detailed pictures.
Cast iron they are, of course Michael.
They even look to have come out from the same foundry, judging by their texture and also their relative design.
Their conical profile is rather pronounced, as may be seen in these new pictures, specially the large one.
Their walls are quite thick, their bases are even much more; the large one weighs 7,5 kg.
It could (should) be that they are signal mortars but, within my ignorance, with such walls and bases, they could well be (or serve) on a weapon scheme ... don't ask me which version

.
Say Michael, after these lousy pictures, is that age attribution (XVIII century) a final diagnosis?

.

Fernando.

.

15th July 2009, 06:37 PM	#7
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,642	I have tried to take resasonable (?) detailed pictures. Cast iron they are, of course Michael. They even look to have come out from the same foundry, judging by their texture and also their relative design. Their conical profile is rather pronounced, as may be seen in these new pictures, specially the large one. Their walls are quite thick, their bases are even much more; the large one weighs 7,5 kg. It could (should) be that they are signal mortars but, within my ignorance, with such walls and bases, they could well be (or serve) on a weapon scheme ... don't ask me which version . Say Michael, after these lousy pictures, is that age attribution (XVIII century) a final diagnosis? . Fernando. .