Flamberg Two-hand Swords, late 16th-Early-17th Century

[Matchlock]

Sorry, Dmitry,


That's my opinion on the basis of your image.
Again: I can and will defend all my statements concerning 14th-17th century 'military' firearms but I have never claimed being an expert in related fields.

I guess we all should take it for granted that there is a manifold basis in judging historical pieces of weaponry.
In my eyes, the Philly, housing the Kretzschmar von Kienbusch Collection, have never tried to rethink their outdated inventory descriptions - which is true for almost any museum worldwide. Take the Met! Take Graz!

Any advanced study in weaponry, after all, seems to have been taken over by - and readily left to - a couple of internationally engaged private enthusiastic collectors - at their own expenses ...
It seems to me that a few of them are united here on the forum which might be a first humble step in the right direction!
The academic 'ivory tower' society formed by the established museuns has been looking down upon them from the very beginning - and has excluded them. That's exactly what I have experienced for some 35 years, in spite of my academic career. Well, you cannot graduate in weaponry, after all!

In my opinion we are facing a basic problem.
What is needed most is up-to-date scientific research methods to enable any user to exactly define the age of single components of a weapon: when the metal parts were last heated, when the wooden parts were last treated, etc., etc. I know it sounds like a Space Ship Enterprise phaser of the '80's but I do know they exist in laboratories - unaffordable to average people though.

Why not? Just because there is extremely little interest worldwide in resolving such questions concerning weapons. I guess that weapons range way below 1 per cent overall with the average historians ...

E.g., no serious research has ever been taken to define historic woods, except from oak. But all that can be defined even in this narrow field is when the oak tree was cut down - which is not helpful in any way, given the case that somebody acquired a 500 year-old oak beam from an old house and, afterwards, cuts e.g. an oaken stock out of it to complete a genuine haquebut barrel! The decisive questions should be: when was the wooden surface last treated? When was it last stained, and what are the components of the staining or 'lacquer'? Do they only contain period recipes? Unbelievable as it may sound, it is absolutely true: not even the varnishes of earliest pieces of furniture and caskets have ever been analyzed and dated!

On the other hand, these methods have been well approved long since in historic pottery and related fields; laboratory research can specify when a piece of earthenware was last heated. So why not in weaponry? Why not for medieval pieces of furniture? Dendrochronological anlyses can only define when a piece of oak wood was cut down but not when it was used secondarily to build a new piece of stock or furniture! For other types of woods generally employed in weaponry, especially for stocking firearms in limewood and fruitwood (16th c.) and beechwood or walnut in the centuries to come, no research has ever been attempted. Too low interest ...

So who are we to decide?


Best from a sometimes disillusioned
Michael


P.S. As this a fundamental issue concerning our common interests, I encourage other members to utter their opinions!

[fearn]

Hmmm. I agree to some extent. Unfortunately, if the item has been extensively handled or curated, I'm not sure you can get a decent age off any of the surfaces. The problem is similar to that of items excavated before modern archeology came around. So much context has been lost, and so much has been done to them, that it's unclear how much, if anything, you can learn from the exercise.

My <0.002 cents,

F

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Sorry, Dmitry,


That's my opinion on the basis of your image.
Again: I can and will defend all my statements concerning 14th-17th century 'military' firearms but I have never claimed being an expert in related fields.

I guess we all should take it for granted that there is a manifold basis in judging historical pieces of weaponry.
In my eyes, the Philly, housing the Kretzschmar von Kienbusch Collection, have never tried to rethink their outdated inventory descriptions - which is true for almost any museum worldwide. Take the Met! Take Graz!

Any advanced study in weaponry, after all, seems to have been taken over by - and readily left to - a couple of internationally engaged private enthusiastic collectors - at their own expenses ...
It seems to me that a few of them are united here on the forum which might be a first humble step in the right direction!
The academic 'ivory tower' society formed by the established museuns has been looking down upon them from the very beginning - and has excluded them. That's exactly what I have experienced for some 35 years, in spite of my academic career. Well, you cannot graduate in weaponry, after all!

In my opinion we are facing a basic problem.
What is needed most is up-to-date scientific research methods to enable any user to exactly define the age of single components of a weapon: when the metal parts were last heated, when the wooden parts were last treated, etc., etc. I know it sounds like a Space Ship Enterprise phaser of the '80's but I do know they exist in laboratories - unaffordable to average people though.

Why not? Just because there is extremely little interest worldwide in resolving such questions concerning weapons. I guess that weapons range way below 1 per cent overall with the average historians ...

E.g., no serious research has ever been taken to define historic woods, except from oak. But all that can be defined even in this narrow field is when the oak tree was cut down - which is not helpful in any way, given the case that somebody acquired a 500 year-old oak beam from an old house and, afterwards, cuts e.g. an oaken stock out of it to complete a genuine haquebut barrel! The decisive questions should be: when was the wooden surface last treated? When was it last stained, and what are the components of the staining or 'lacquer'? Do they only contain period recipes? Unbelievable as it may sound, it is absolutely true: not even the varnishes of earliest pieces of furniture and caskets have ever been analyzed and dated!

On the other hand, these methods have been well approved long since in historic pottery and related fields; laboratory research can specify when a piece of earthenware was last heated. So why not in weaponry? Why not for medieval pieces of furniture? Dendrochronological anlyses can only define when a piece of oak wood was cut down but not when it was used secondarily to build a new piece of stock or furniture! For other types of woods generally employed in weaponry, especially for stocking firearms in limewood and fruitwood (16th c.) and beechwood or walnut in the centuries to come, no research has ever been attempted. Too low interest ...

So who are we to decide?


Best from a sometimes disillusioned
Michael


P.S. As this a fundamental issue concerning our common interests, I encourage other members to utter their opinions!

yes, I know many people in the field, but actually none with your level of knowledge of early firearms. I would be the last to debate this with you.
further your comments on other weapons are always very valuable, perhaps in terms of dating and authenticity they sometimes differs from the norm, but it is always well researched and always makes sense.

Most of the innovative researchers who are truly publishing innovative articles also come from other professional groups, please do read the wonderful array of catalogs of the park-lane arms and armour fair in London.

Also don't underestimate the power of new media such as these forums, there is a large group of weapons enthusiasts reached, including those in the ivory towers.

best,

[Matchlock]

Thank you, Jasper,

My experience has shown though that museum people, e.g. from the Met, actually care very little to virtually nothing about what some forumites think, especially as long as they are anonymous and unidentifiable, and have never published books or articles the traditional way, which to them still is the way it has to be done in order to get acknowledged.
German museum people are all the worse.

Best,
m

[cornelistromp]

I do not share this experience, the majority that I've approached is extremely helpful. But I also believe that the old-fashioned way of publishing articles, ink on paper, may give more recognition and "name awareness".

Well then we just come along to begin with publishing

best,

[Matchlock]

I readily would, given that anybody provides ca. 100,000 euro for a minimum of 500 copies, each of course containing litterally thousands of photos ... Up to now, I have not found anybody to do so.

m

[Dmitry]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Thank you, Jasper,

My experience has shown though that museum people, e.g. from the Met, actually care very little to virtually nothing about what some forumites think, especially as long as they are anonymous and unidentifiable, and have never published books or articles the traditional way, which to them still is the way it has to be done in order to get acknowledged.
German museum people are all the worse.

Best,
m

Well said.
Not only the museums, but fellow enthusiasts. Case in point, on another well-known bulletin board/forum centered around early and medieval weapons, someone had started a thread about naval dirks, which is my passion and my specialty in collecting. They had quoted the British National Maritime Museum website for attribution of a couple of pieces that were attributed very wrong, in an obvious way. When I pointed that out, a couple of forumites there brushed me away, in an unfriendly fashion.
After all, who am I, not even a published author, to question THE MUSEUM ?!

[Matchlock]

That's as sad as it's true, Dmitry.

m

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Dmitry

Well said.
Not only the museums, but fellow enthusiasts. Case in point, on another well-known bulletin board/forum centered around early and medieval weapons, someone had started a thread about naval dirks, which is my passion and my specialty in collecting. They had quoted the British National Maritime Museum website for attribution of a couple of pieces that were attributed very wrong, in an obvious way. When I pointed that out, a couple of forumites there brushed me away, in an unfriendly fashion.
After all, who am I, not even a published author, to question THE MUSEUM ?!

A recurrent situation. Some attributions in (some) museums are so implausible that even a modest non qualified enthusiast can notice the error at miles of distance.
But i know about a published author who alerted a determined (military) museum for the fact that a certain pistol in exhibition had the hammer of a different weapon and they did nothing to correct the failure ... having a couple hundred more of such pistols in their arsenal depot.

[Matchlock]

And probably retaining their correct hammers, I guess!

m

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

And probably retaining their correct hammers, I guess!

m

Naturally

[Dmitry]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Sorry, Dmitry,


That's my opinion on the basis of your image.
Again: I can and will defend all my statements concerning 14th-17th century 'military' firearms but I have never claimed being an expert in related fields.

I guess we all should take it for granted that there is a manifold basis in judging historical pieces of weaponry.
In my eyes, the Philly, housing the Kretzschmar von Kienbusch Collection, have never tried to rethink their outdated inventory descriptions - which is true for almost any museum worldwide. Take the Met! Take Graz!

Any advanced study in weaponry, after all, seems to have been taken over by - and readily left to - a couple of internationally engaged private enthusiastic collectors - at their own expenses ...
It seems to me that a few of them are united here on the forum which might be a first humble step in the right direction!
The academic 'ivory tower' society formed by the established museuns has been looking down upon them from the very beginning - and has excluded them. That's exactly what I have experienced for some 35 years, in spite of my academic career. Well, you cannot graduate in weaponry, after all!

My $.02.
This is a compounded issue. One one side, there's the "old boys club" relic mentality. After all, these people created the whole museum wings by donating significant numbers of weapons and armors. So the old tags are still in place.
On the other, art museums, uniformly governed by the liberal elites, eschew weapons, in fact, hate them, and would like them to go away. Some have removed weapons from their public displays, probably forever.

I will say though that in the past couple of decades, at least in the Metropolitan Museum, the curatorial staff has been doing a phenomenal job in attributing the pieces in their collection, some of which have been attributed wrong for decades, or were composites. The curators at the Met publish a number of fine research papers from time to time, which, unfortunately, seem to go out of print quite quickly.

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Dmitry

My $.02.
This is a compounded issue. One one side, there's the "old boys club" relic mentality. After all, these people created the whole museum wings by donating significant numbers of weapons and armors. So the old tags are still in place.
On the other, art museums, uniformly governed by the liberal elites, eschew weapons, in fact, hate them, and would like them to go away. Some have removed weapons from their public displays, probably forever.

I will say though that in the past couple of decades, at least in the Metropolitan Museum, the curatorial staff has been doing a phenomenal job in attributing the pieces in their collection, some of which have been attributed wrong for decades, or were composites. The curators at the Met publish a number of fine research papers from time to time, which, unfortunately, seem to go out of print quite quickly.

Fully agreed, Dmitry; I did not intend to minimize the Met's work. I know one of the curators very well personally. Indeed he is a member of our forum but I have not heard of him for a long time, and my emails and phone calls have sadly remained unresponded. Hope he reads this and improves!

Best,
Michael