Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - Possibly the oldest hand cannon dated 1346

Marcus den toom · 6th June 2018, 08:11 PM

Hi Nando, Andi and David,

thank you for all your questions, together we will be able to get to the bottom of this. Well than, first question Nando the bore measures 31mm. -Before buying this barrel i did some digging around, i remembered a piece written by Michael about just this dilema. I posted a link of this thread along my original posting (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showt...ht=dated+tiller). During the mid 14th century the Arabian numerals made their way into Europe, beeing more practical they where adopted above the Roman style. Still, during this transition years both types where used in mixture (see Michaels posting for proof). As for the D type symbol, Wikipedia pointed me to the answer. The Letter D was used in the Roman numeric system to state 500, it was also commonly written I with a inverted C (see attached). What this means for the date i don't yet understand, it might be something completly different seeing as it is also in between two dots (marking a difference for reading purposes).
Exactly, wrought wound iron band barrels where made from the first half up to the last years of the 14th century (see Michaels threads on this).

Andi, Yes you are doubtlessy right about it beeing uncommon and therefor more likely to be a later specimen from perhaps the 19th century. Still, i have handled it, which gives me an unfair advantages, and i am able to compare it to the rest of my collection of medieval barrels (which are ranging over a dozen by now). It is exactly of the same make as some of my other barrels, the patina and corrosive surface match it. Now more than ever i wish Michael was here, but i think if we put oir mind together we can make him proud.

David, Your question falls in line with Nando's and the answer is in the same thread as i point Nando to. The mistake is easily made, as you can read in the apointed thread, i thought exactly like you do. I learned in school there couldn't be 3 characters of the same type with Roman numbers. BUT, there where never really strict rules about this, especially during the medieval times. So XXXXVI is perfectly normal for arms and art of that era.

6th June 2018, 08:11 PM	#6
Marcus den toom Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Netherlands Posts: 493	Hi Nando, Andi and David, thank you for all your questions, together we will be able to get to the bottom of this. Well than, first question Nando the bore measures 31mm. -Before buying this barrel i did some digging around, i remembered a piece written by Michael about just this dilema. I posted a link of this thread along my original posting (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showt...ht=dated+tiller). During the mid 14th century the Arabian numerals made their way into Europe, beeing more practical they where adopted above the Roman style. Still, during this transition years both types where used in mixture (see Michaels posting for proof). As for the D type symbol, Wikipedia pointed me to the answer. The Letter D was used in the Roman numeric system to state 500, it was also commonly written I with a inverted C (see attached). What this means for the date i don't yet understand, it might be something completly different seeing as it is also in between two dots (marking a difference for reading purposes). Exactly, wrought wound iron band barrels where made from the first half up to the last years of the 14th century (see Michaels threads on this). Andi, Yes you are doubtlessy right about it beeing uncommon and therefor more likely to be a later specimen from perhaps the 19th century. Still, i have handled it, which gives me an unfair advantages, and i am able to compare it to the rest of my collection of medieval barrels (which are ranging over a dozen by now). It is exactly of the same make as some of my other barrels, the patina and corrosive surface match it. Now more than ever i wish Michael was here, but i think if we put oir mind together we can make him proud. David, Your question falls in line with Nando's and the answer is in the same thread as i point Nando to. The mistake is easily made, as you can read in the apointed thread, i thought exactly like you do. I learned in school there couldn't be 3 characters of the same type with Roman numbers. BUT, there where never really strict rules about this, especially during the medieval times. So XXXXVI is perfectly normal for arms and art of that era. Attached Images