Frontier Arithmetic: The Afghan Jezail

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

This is indeed a great thread!

Pease see the write up to the artwork below at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezail...fghanistan.jpg also included in a previous post at #25. Note in this painting the almost invisible two bipods shown on the right hand side of the artwork. These bipods were needed to offset and support the front heavy, long barrels of the jezail but not on all. Often these weapons were made with captured brown bess locks or converted to flintlock from matchlock later.

[Victrix]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

This is indeed a great thread!

Pease see the write up to the artwork below at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezail...fghanistan.jpg also included in a previous post at #25. Note in this painting the almost invisible two bipods shown on the right hand side of the artwork. These bipods were needed to offset and support the front heavy, long barrels of the jezail but not on all. Often these weapons were made with captured brown bess locks or converted to flintlock from matchlock later.

What about the barrels? Where did they come from? I understand they were mainly Ottoman (Turkey?) produced? Arguably the barrels are the most important because they have to be very strong and absolutely straight, with twist rifling inside in some cases. Can’t be easy to produce something like that?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Victrix

What about the barrels? Where did they come from? I understand they were mainly Ottoman (Turkey?) produced? Arguably the barrels are the most important because they have to be very strong and absolutely straight, with twist rifling inside in some cases. Can’t be easy to produce something like that?

A VERY good question, and I returned to Egerton (p.136),
"...Postons describes the Sindian arms as being of very superior quality, particularly the matchlock barrels, which are twisted in the Damascus style. The nobles and chiefs procure many from Persia and Constantinople, but nearly as good can be made in the country".

Op.cit. p.136,
"...the Amirs have agents in Persia, Turkey and Palestine for the purchase of swords and gun barrels".

In the listings in Egerton there are many torador matchlocks listed from Sind, all of which have the remarkably long barrels noted on the jezails, and a good number are Damascus. Many of these are from Sind, but noted with 'Afghan' type stocks.
In other listings are a good number of matchlocks, again with long barrels listed from Lahore and Delhi. Here we can see the long use of matchlocks by the Sikhs well into 19th c. These also had notably long barrels.

While the import of the quality barrels from Ottoman and Persian sources seems occasional, the making and diffusion of these long matchlock barrels would seem to have of course gone well into Khyber and environs, It seems the crafting of these barrels may well have been among the skills that developed in these areas as well.

[Jim McDougall]

In looking into the sources for barrels, after going through more on the seemingly invariable use of EIC locks on these guns, I wondered more where the term 'jezail' came from.

Online it simply notes it as a Pashto word for these guns. So looking further I found reference to the armies of Nader Shah, who seized control of the Safavid Empire of Persia in 1730s. Among his forces were musketeers in corps termed 'jazayerchis' for the heavy caliber musket called the 'jazayer'....and these forces had existed from the time of Shah Abbas II (c 1654) using these same guns.

Nader Shah however had these men mounted on horses or mules for strategic mobility, but as dragoons they fought on foot. According to the reference these guns were flintlock, some with miguelet locks and some matchlocks. The barrel bands (rings) were half silver, rest gold (?)

This material I found online in "The Army of Nader Shah", Michael Axworthy
Iranian Studies, Vol. 40, #5, Dec, 2007.
The notes on the jazayer musket are cited from,
"Tadhkirat al Muluk", V. Minorsky ed. , Cambridge , 1943, pp.32-34

Then in reference found the Persian term jaza'il for musket.

These details are of course subject to scrutiny, but I simply added here for further look into the etymology of the word jezail. As always looking forward to insights from the linguists.

It seems well noted that Persian influence was powerfully present in all these Central Asian regions, so it does not seem surprising that the Persian word would become cognate in the Pashto language. There were many Afghans in the forces of Nader Shah.

[Victrix]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

A VERY good question, and I returned to Egerton (p.136),
"...Postons describes the Sindian arms as being of very superior quality, particularly the matchlock barrels, which are twisted in the Damascus style. The nobles and chiefs procure many from Persia and Constantinople, but nearly as good can be made in the country".

Op.cit. p.136,
"...the Amirs have agents in Persia, Turkey and Palestine for the purchase of swords and gun barrels".

In the listings in Egerton there are many torador matchlocks listed from Sind, all of which have the remarkably long barrels noted on the jezails, and a good number are Damascus. Many of these are from Sind, but noted with 'Afghan' type stocks.
In other listings are a good number of matchlocks, again with long barrels listed from Lahore and Delhi. Here we can see the long use of matchlocks by the Sikhs well into 19th c. These also had notably long barrels.

While the import of the quality barrels from Ottoman and Persian sources seems occasional, the making and diffusion of these long matchlock barrels would seem to have of course gone well into Khyber and environs, It seems the crafting of these barrels may well have been among the skills that developed in these areas as well.

Thank you, Jim. Fascinating how there has always been trade, transfer of knowledge for local manufacturing, and loan words, etc. Nothing new under the sun...

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Victrix

Thank you, Jim. Fascinating how there has always been trade, transfer of knowledge for local manufacturing, and loan words, etc. Nothing new under the sun...

How right you are.All this information is out there, but it takes asking the right questions and finding it. I had not realized about the barrels and was focused on the locks, so thanks to you I was able to look further. I cannot believe how much I have learned on these guns since starting this thread, yet how far from so much more there is to learn.
Its all an adventure !!

[Richard G]

Other than EIC or locally made locks there is possibly, or probably,a third type of lock that can confuse the issue.
It is known the EIC purchased lesser quality arms for trading purposes, in Africa on the voyage out, and to customers in India etc.
How many, and how they were marked? - I don't know; but it is certainly a possibility that there were British made EIC 'style' locks, but not actually EIC owned, in circulation in India.
Regards
Richard
PS Harding says he does not know why the 'flaunched' balemark was used, but implies it may have strayed from the ownership mark on other EIC owned goods e,g. the lead seals on bales of cloth.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Richard G

Other than EIC or locally made locks there is possibly, or probably,a third type of lock that can confuse the issue.
It is known the EIC purchased lesser quality arms for trading purposes, in Africa on the voyage out, and to customers in India etc.
How many, and how they were marked? - I don't know; but it is certainly a possibility that there were British made EIC 'style' locks, but not actually EIC owned, in circulation in India.
Regards
Richard
PS Harding says he does not know why the 'flaunched' balemark was used, but implies it may have strayed from the ownership mark on other EIC owned goods e,g. the lead seals on bales of cloth.

Very good points Richard, and in examining the varying character of the locks we might find on these jezails, it is necessary to consider the ever present dynamic of trade.
'The evil trade', that is the 'slave trade' was indeed an element of British networks, and the Royal African Company was formed in the late 17th c. where muskets were among the commodities traded for slaves.
Most of the British involvement in this dark trade system was throughout the 18th century, but manufacture of trade muskets continued long after the abolition of slavery in 1833.

Without venturing further into these complex areas, what is known is that the primary source of these 'trade' muskets was in Birmingham, where several thousand 'gunmakers' worked in the 'gun quarter' of that industrial city. Actually, the components were produced by many subcontractors and the locks produced in the regions along road to Birmingham later known as the 'Black Country' (coal presence) and heavy industry.

In addition to those trade muskets produced for the African trade, were the famed 'Northwest Guns' which were made for the North American markets.
These muskets for the Northwest Fur Trade became well known from c1775 and were traded to American Indian tribes. In about 1805, guns for the Hudsons Bay Company trade began using a snake or dragon on the sideplate which became the key criteria for acceptance by the Indians.

As with the African guns, many of these were of notoriously low quality, and their reputation for blowing up with disastrous results brought the terms 'blood merchants' to the makers who produced these, and to the African examples as well. Naturally this poor character did not apply to all examples but was still well known.

One of the most prolific makers of these trade guns (or at least on the locks) was BARNETT . I believe that name was only one I have seen on a Northwest gun, but never on an African example as far as I have seen.

I have not found any particular lock markings on the locks of the African examples of flintlock trade guns but the Royal African Company had a castle and an elephant, so perhaps that might be considered.

With the 'Northwest' guns, the locks were marked often with a circle enclosing a sitting fox like animal facing right below the pan.

While it seems that these varied locks were typically placed on guns to the appropriate distributions, it is always possible that they became diffused into the components of guns being sent to other contract completions. With huge volumes of components to many 'setters up' to assemble them there are many possibilities in the Birmingham context.

Even after the production stages, distribution via trade, there are still many circumstances where weapons may have been captured, traded away, or taken by individuals moving or transporting to other contexts.

All of these situations from 'one off' to larger circumstances such as surplus or replaced arms should be recognized as potentially viable considerations in evaluating weapon examples.

For example, the sale of over 400,000 India pattern muskets to Mexico in 1821 after the end of the Napoleonic campaigns left huge surpluses.
As far as I know, although these were 'India' pattern Brown Bess muskets, they were not marked with EIC trademarks but the standard government inspection and TOWER.


Pictured Barnett flintlock 'Northwest' gun with sitting wolf cartouche below pan.
The flintlock remained in demand well into the 19th century due to the difficulty on procuring percussion caps in remote circumstances, where obtaining flints and powder was far more accessible.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Richard G

PS Harding says he does not know why the 'flaunched' balemark was used, but implies it may have strayed from the ownership mark on other EIC owned goods e,g. the lead seals on bales of cloth.

I think this is a hard question as during the times it was simply a practical matter of marking goods, and probably not of vital strategic importance.
It seems there was a certain level of autonomy in the Presidencies, but Bengal seems to have been the only one to deviate with this 'flaunched' heraldic design in its interpretation of the EIC chop mark. If I recall correctly, Harding did not choose to use the term bale mark despite the purpose of these markings for ownership on goods.

As the 'flaunched' mark seems 'officially' used on the coinage of the Bengal presidency (even though Penang) it seems more than simply a storekeepers mark, which is what Harding suggested. With that, its use on these gun locks, it would seem that the makers whose name appear with them may have had specific contracts to that Presidency.

Returning to the question of the 'four' atop the heart, again I recall that Harding did follow the idea that this was an extra line added to the cross (the original GCE mark of early EIC was a cross and orb) to avoid offending Muslim trade partners. He did not agree with my suggestion that it may be the 'mystical sign of four' and representing astrological Jupiter and with talismanic properties in protecting EIC ships and goods.
Also the idea of the '4' being a sail is interesting, as to signify the sail over the heart and VEIC initials signifying their maritime worldwide trade.

The heart itself has been regarded as a Christian symbol, and the idea of the cross being disguised as a '4' to me seems unlikely.

[kahnjar1]

Well Jim, you really got me going on this thread! Makes me a little sad that I once owned a couple of other Jezails which in a hasty moment I sold.
Anyway I was surfing the 'net and came across this site describing guns from Nepal. Well worth a look, and there are EIC guns there also!
http://www.archivingindustry.com/Gun...s/gunmarks.pdf
Stu

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

Well Jim, you really got me going on this thread! Makes me a little sad that I once owned a couple of other Jezails which in a hasty moment I sold.
Anyway I was surfing the 'net and came across this site describing guns from Nepal. Well worth a look, and there are EIC guns there also!
http://www.archivingindustry.com/Gun...s/gunmarks.pdf
Stu

Me too Stu!!
I always wanted one, but as things often go, never got one (OK I wanted to climb on the pyramids too, and get a '32 Ford, but gotta be real!).
All of a sudden Im in the middle of the Southwest in the bookmobile, and bang! I got one!
So in my usual insane quest (=research?) I have been at it day and night.
I did come across some of this on many EIC weapons ending up in Nepal, so there's another quest.

What I hoped to do here is get all you guys together who have collected these and experience with them, so I can learn about 'em and so can anyone else out there curious on them can have a good reference source.

Thank you again for all your help on this.

[corrado26]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Me too Stu!!
I always wanted one, but as things often go, never got one

If you have problems in getting a nice Afghan jezail just visit him, he has enough for sale
corrado26

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by corrado26

If you have problems in getting a nice Afghan jezail just visit him, he has enough for sale
corrado26

Chicken Street was awash with guns locally made but they are easy to spot and many are more or less the same decoration when no two could be the same..the give aways being various like inside-out letters or no wear on the swivels and look at the trigger guards which are flimsy useless things on the newly knocked up stuff. (the trigger guard on the gun held by the chap in the picture is one of those.)

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

There was an interesting question on gun barrels and I think elgood points to areas where they were made . certainly Sinde made barrels and also Persian variants were traded...as would barrels be traded in by Ottoman and other countries. I have a couple of pictures of Sinde guns below... which were almost made on the doorstep and in the manner of traditional twist barrel technology.