Navajas of the Galleons

[Chris Evans]

Dmtry,

Originally Posted by Dmitry

Chris, to what period would you date the earliest locking folding knives? Any extant examples of the really early stuff?

This is a very difficult question to answer with any certainty, principally, because there is not a single known and reliably dated surviving specimen that predates the XVIII century, save for one made in 1699 and which is not a weapon, nor am I aware of any paintings or other artistict depictions that show people carrying one in earlier times.

However, the technology of the lock found on later navajas, IMO, could have been easily replicated by the end of the XVI century, given the advanced state of metal working and lockworks in general. So why didn't we have locking navajas earlier on? I tend to agree with Forton that as long as better weapons were available, there was simply no need for clasp knives, which IMO even at their best are vastly inferior to fixed blades.

Where I differ with him, at least until some contrary evidence is presented, is that he ascribes the adoption of a non specific weapon grade folder to the beginnings of the XVII century, whereas on the evidence available, it was after the Borbon ascent that a credible weapon grade folder became widely used in Spain.

Of course, it is entirely possible that substantial primitive folders came gradually into use in the course of the XVII century and that these could somehow be crudely locked out for use as a weapon on the odd occasion, but why do this if better weapons were available? Here we need some proof that effective and enforced weapon bans, other than restricting swords to the nobility, were in place before the Borbons.

It is a while that I read Forton's book with due attention, but with all its faults it remains the most highly regarded work on the subject. It examines the navaja in various contexts, one being the legal and devotes quite a bit of space to it. Remembering that he graduated as a lawyer, I find it curious that all the anti C&T weapon ordenances and laws that he quotes were post 1700 and this reinforces my belief.

Cheers
Chris

[Dmitry]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

So why didn't we have locking navajas earlier on? I tend to agree with Forton that as long as better weapons were available, there was simply no need for clasp knives, which IMO even at their best are vastly inferior to fixed blades.

That makes much sense. Gadgets like the locking knives would be relegated to the people who could afford them.
Like this Italian mid-16th c. folding spetum in the Higgins Museum.
The locking mechanism, with a button release looks similar to the weapon-grade folders.
Was it made out of necessity? Hardly. It was a one-a-kind gimmick, but a beautiful one.

But why did the locking knives blossom later on? Tradition?
Unfortunately I don't read Spanish...

[fernando]

Perhaps there are differences between the various (country) navies and also in time period. Pyrard de Laval (1575-1652) points out some, distinguishing determined habits aboard practiced by either Portuguese, Dutch, English French.
May also the logic of terminology be considered, aggravated by my poor english and translation difficulties.
Senior sailors and (cabin) boys would be a distinct thing, respectively in what touches their recruiting, capacities, attributions and behavior from command towards each of them.
Laval makers a thorough description of the navigation between Portugal and India, emphasizing distinctions of crew members in the diverse type of embarkations, namely carracks (Naus) for the (so called) India career, all built in Lisbon, destined to bring back spices (generally called pepper), or the galleons ready for combat, to transport big shots or other express purposes, these being also built in India ship yards and elsewhere. He states that such carracks reached much over 1000 tons, being therefore the largest ships out there, not able to navigate on less than ten braces depth. Concerning personnel, he describes a remarkable distinction between the well considered sailors of such large merchandise carracks and mid size ships, where sailors were of lower profile, those, yes (your’e right here) were caught by force … even superior rank, assuming that those ships do not come back. And if ever they return, their crew men might get a post in large ships, but no so high as in the galleons they have served; from what comes that is a higher honor be a sailor in a large carrack than counter master in a galleon.
Concerning knives aboard, i believe these were decidedly sailors gear, but naturally not that of boys, be them grumetes (aspiring to sailors) or pages which, after all, counted for a significant number of the garrison aboard. Laval mentions more than one boy per sailor; narrations from the Pedro Alvares Cabral period (1500’s) describe these boys with ages from 12, receiving a symbolic salary and, in both descriptions, performing the simplest jobs, like wetting the decks (would could not get too dry, risking the whole boat to crack), screaming the hours (live clocks) and other kind of “public” attentions, besides serving their master sailors in all services aboard.
… But i am digressing here .

[Chris Evans]

Dmitry,

But why did the locking knives blossom later on? Tradition?

I have serious doubts about locking navajas having been ever normative in Spain. Much more likely is that it they represented only a fraction of the total numbers of folders in use and then only in the regions where cutlery industry was a significant part of the economy, as in Albacete.

As to why a lock was needed: For a knife to become a serious weapon, it must allow for the thrust. The wielder of a folding knife that does not have some sort of blade fixation mechanism when open, runs the risk of finger amputation should the blade close, be it whilst thrusting or if the blade is parried with a jacket, as was the practice in the Spanish fight.

Forton gives examples of post Borbon legislation that prohibit locks and then tells us on Pg 108 that the authorities did not have a problem with with folding knives per se, given their general utilitarian necessity, but rather their violent usage, for which a blade fixation mechanism was a requirement and thus legislators focused on this feature.

On the same page Forton says that since the majority of navajas in use had some sort of lock, the adverse legislation had a devastating effect on the cutlery industry. I find this assertion very hard to accept because:

a) Non locking navajas were much easier to make and thus cheaper. Hence, anybody who needed a working knife would not have exposed themselves to the wrath of the law, nor (given the prevailing poverty) spent hard earned money needlessly and would have opted for a friction folder.

b) The bulk of the large French navajas imported into Spain during the XIX century had only what I call a demi-lock, which did not prevent the blade from closing if some force was exerted on it, much like a modern so called slip joint.

c) For work, to this day cheap friction folders are still extremely popular in Spain and not the locking navaja. These are typical examples:http://www.filofiel.com/tienda/index...=22_34_112_472

In any event, since fixed blades were prohibited, cutlers still could make a living from making legal friction folders as the boutique cutlers of today do. A much more likely cause behind the decline of Spanish cutlery was its uncompetitiveness in the face of industrialization in the rest of Europe, especially France.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Fernando,

Good post. Am learning a lot about naval matters!

Cheers
Chris

[M ELEY]

Very interesting material and points made-

Fernando, you bring up an excellent point and back it up concerning the class of ship and cargo, as well as nation. All of these facts would affect attitude and armament as you mention (I had hinted at it briefly concerning the merchant classes). Even apart from side-knives, we also have to take into account the use of dirks by midshipmen and officers. Unlike other boarding weapons that were accounted for, dirks were the personal property of the men coming aboard. They purchased them and often chose the style/design. If knives were banned, would it not have caused great derision to let the officers (including midshipmen as young as 10!) to carry such but ban the others? Not trying to put up a fight, but I think the jury is still out on the final answer to this one.

Chris, nice information on the evolution of clasp knives. I still am fascinated with these types and hope to obtain an earlier specimen some day. Think 'XVIII' type, which from what I can glean from this thread so far would lack the later rachet and be more of a friction type.

[Dmitry]

Derision?! A man would have been flogged if he even looked at an officer the wrong way, let alone expressed derision. In that case he would've been put in irons, and probably hanged. Dirks were patently officers weapons, like swordss, and part of uniform. Men had no uniforms. The divide between ratings and officers was astronomical. There is a wealth of information on life on board.
Certainly if knives were carried by men we should see some period accounts of their use on board.

[Dmitry]

Chris, thanks for the explanation.Looks like I have succumbed to the false notion that locking navajas were the norm. I guess the romantic sea novelsa re not a good source of credible information. :-)

[Chris Evans]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

I still am fascinated with these types and hope to obtain an earlier specimen some day. Think 'XVIII' type, which from what I can glean from this thread so far would lack the later rachet and be more of a friction type.

There were a number of co-existing typologies, the ratcheting locker being just one of them. By the XVIII century locking navajas were indisputably in common usage. Many had a lock but no ratchet, or a rotating ferrule, like modern Opinels, a good many only had back springs like modern slip joint and probably far more were simple primitive friction folders.

Cheers
Chris