Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Matchlock
The author, on the grounds pointed out above, doubts the early dating and is convinced that they should be correctly dated 'late 14th to early 15th c.', on the grounds of the illustrative sources presented.
No earlier date can be proven for them but the sources quoted by the author suggest a date of ca. 1400 by the earliest.
|
Two of the
Gun arrows from Eltz castle were finally examined using the C14-method in 2010. One specimen could be dated within the 14th or 15th century, but the probability curve of the analysis suggests a production around 1330 or 1400. The other bolt was dated to "ca. 1200", but it´s obvious that the craftsmen used old timber to produce the arrow. I have to say that the hypothesis of the relation between the
Eltz gun arrows and the Elz feud of 1331/33 seems dificult to me - because of the lack of information about that war.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Matchlock
The author pointed those facts out to the guy in charge, arguing that it obviously was a gun arrow - in the presence of a witness. His argument was rejected, and about ten years later he found that very same gun arrow displayed next to a wall crossbow in the Imperial Castle at Nuremberg - labeled as a crossbow bolt. The recess at the rear of the oaken haft where the binding used to be was now clearly visible but the remainder of the binding had gone! (bottom attachments).
Interestingly, the socket of the arrow head shows a piercing for a nail but actually no nail has ever entered!
Well, Nuremberg seemingly does not wish to be aware of the fact that they possess one of the rarest items of antique ammunition: a gun arrow of late 14th/early 15h c. date ...
|
Finally, they´ve named that bolt a gun arrow a few years ago - without refering to Matchlock. Too bad he won´t be able to notice this change of information.
