Another noise maker

fernando · 6th June 2017, 06:02 PM

Nice (so called) mortar from Madurai. Let's add the support text that comes with the picture:

" This mortar has a 1.3/4” bore and was probably mounted on a wooden stock which was inserted into the ground ".

This brings us to the question you are posing about distinguishing noise makers from cannons. I would start by reiterating that 'noise maker' is a rather vague classification, as those things have had multi purposes, other than just noise making. Let us call them 'non cannons' only for this conversation sake.

I take it for me that the basic ways to classify them are:
- The shape; if it has a design compatible with being standing up, often (but not forcingly) with a base (breech) wider than the mouth. Also if their profile is irregular, in away to make it unfeasible to insert them in a cannon stock cradle.
- A 'lip' on the (ignition) touch hole; again this is not an obliging detail, but only when the ignition is obtained by priming the touch hole with some powder grains, so that the powder doesn't spill. However this doesn't take place when the ignition is done with a piece of match cord. A further note to be considered is that, some (not frequent) times this lip is not a lip, but a protrusion to protect, in hand cannons, the gunners face/eye.
- The bore width, when is 'too large' to make it reasonable to lodge a projectile; 'non cannons' were filled with gunpowder and plugged with whatever material ... but no bullet.

On the other hand, this example from Madurai is called mortar. This is a tricky term in typology, depending on period and context. According to the author, this mortar might (might) have been mounted on a stock; still he doesn't call it cannon, but apparently this was made to shoot some kind of projectiles, judging by the stock attitude and a 'caliber' that would be within a range plausible to fit cannon balls or other damaging stuff.

Other than the above, only knowledgeable people may discern further distinctions. I am only a novice and, most probably, what i said above is not 100% reliable.

Attached are a 'Schopettieri' type and a 'Montjuic' type early cannons from my little collection; these are rather easy to distinguish.

.

Philip · 9th June 2017, 08:00 PM

Fernando, muito obridago! Your presentation and display are worthy of a museum. (but a very unique museum where cats have the run of the place!)
The one with the "rat tail" handle sticking up on top, isn't that the chamber piece of a breech-loader?

fernando · 10th June 2017, 11:16 AM

Eu é que agradeço, Philip
In fact, there are two breech loading chambers in the pictures. They were within focus, i let them stay.
You are right about who runs things around here ... and they make a point in so showing

.
Here is Adriano (not with us any more), supervising works on a cannon stand.

.

6th June 2017, 06:02 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Nice (so called) mortar from Madurai. Let's add the support text that comes with the picture: " This mortar has a 1.3/4” bore and was probably mounted on a wooden stock which was inserted into the ground ". This brings us to the question you are posing about distinguishing noise makers from cannons. I would start by reiterating that 'noise maker' is a rather vague classification, as those things have had multi purposes, other than just noise making. Let us call them 'non cannons' only for this conversation sake. I take it for me that the basic ways to classify them are: - The shape; if it has a design compatible with being standing up, often (but not forcingly) with a base (breech) wider than the mouth. Also if their profile is irregular, in away to make it unfeasible to insert them in a cannon stock cradle. - A 'lip' on the (ignition) touch hole; again this is not an obliging detail, but only when the ignition is obtained by priming the touch hole with some powder grains, so that the powder doesn't spill. However this doesn't take place when the ignition is done with a piece of match cord. A further note to be considered is that, some (not frequent) times this lip is not a lip, but a protrusion to protect, in hand cannons, the gunners face/eye. - The bore width, when is 'too large' to make it reasonable to lodge a projectile; 'non cannons' were filled with gunpowder and plugged with whatever material ... but no bullet. On the other hand, this example from Madurai is called mortar. This is a tricky term in typology, depending on period and context. According to the author, this mortar might (might) have been mounted on a stock; still he doesn't call it cannon, but apparently this was made to shoot some kind of projectiles, judging by the stock attitude and a 'caliber' that would be within a range plausible to fit cannon balls or other damaging stuff. Other than the above, only knowledgeable people may discern further distinctions. I am only a novice and, most probably, what i said above is not 100% reliable. Attached are a 'Schopettieri' type and a 'Montjuic' type early cannons from my little collection; these are rather easy to distinguish. . Attached Images

10th June 2017, 11:16 AM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Eu é que agradeço, Philip In fact, there are two breech loading chambers in the pictures. They were within focus, i let them stay. You are right about who runs things around here ... and they make a point in so showing . Here is Adriano (not with us any more), supervising works on a cannon stand. . Attached Images

9th June 2017, 08:00 PM	#2
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	Fernando, muito obridago! Your presentation and display are worthy of a museum. (but a very unique museum where cats have the run of the place!) The one with the "rat tail" handle sticking up on top, isn't that the chamber piece of a breech-loader?