Frontier Arithmetic: The Afghan Jezail

[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]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

I can not comment either way regarding the FLAUNCHED EIC mark, but according to the records I have of English Gun Proof marks, the QUARTERED EIC heart surmounted by the 4, was in use up 'til 1860.
Stu

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

I can not comment either way regarding the FLAUNCHED EIC mark, but according to the records I have of English Gun Proof marks, the QUARTERED EIC heart surmounted by the 4, was in use up 'til 1860.
Stu

I think it is probably right that the quartered heart was likely in use until then in degree as it seems there were certain disparities in the chosen markings used by the Company through its existence ending officially in 1874.
Effectively the East India Company was ended by the Mutiny in 1857, and became governed by the Crown.

I have always been surprised (perhaps not really) that so little is known of the reasons behind chosen symbols used in the time and that mostly such detail seems to be thought of later from assumptions or contrived notions. The logo (bale mark or chop) of the EIC is often regarded as one of the earliest official trademarks, and seems to have begun in with the formation of the Company in 1600.
The first mark, essentially a cross and orb enclosing the initials GCE
'Governor and Company of merchants of London trading to the East Indies'.

In 1698, the Company was reorganized as the English East India Co. and a heart, quartered by a St. Andrews cross enclosing initials VEIC (United East India Co.) was adopted. It is tempting to think that perhaps the St. Andrews cross (the X) represented the Royal House of Stuart then in power, but that would lend to the same line of thinking of the '4' being a disguised cross to avoid offending Muslim trade partners.

While this bale mark does not seem to have appeared on arms that early, it probably was found on cargo etc. I have not yet found when these marks became placed on Company weapons but we know they were on gun locks by latter 18th c. seeming to have been around 1790s.

While the quartered heart appears to have been standard, the curious occurrence of the flaunched heart (half circles from either side of the heart) seems to have taken place from about 1805-1815 and on locks marked by many of the usual known makers.
The only evidence of other use of this distinctive variation of the heart is in the cent coin from Penang (Malay peninsula) in 1786. That was the year this area was taken over by the Bengal presidency. The coins of the next year no longer used this heart marking.

By 1808, it is claimed that the standing lion became the official marking of the EIC, at least on the gun locks, and was said to have remained in such use until c. 1839.

Clearly these dates are not hard and fast, and it would seem by the noted longevity of the quartered heart, that these markings were contemporary to each other. But the phenomenon of the flaunched heart, which remained somehow in place amidst these others for at least a decade, remains unexplained.

It would be interesting to see examples of these EIC locks with dates and whichever marks accompanied them.

Most of the locks dated seem to be from 1790s to around 1815. It is noted that locks were not date marked before 1770s, and it does not seem many after 1815 that I recall offhand.

[kahnjar1]

Hi Jim,
You mention Penang as having a connection to EIC. Here is a little history linking the two through Charles Cornwallis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charle...ess_Cornwallis Particularly relevent is the section on the CORNWALLIS CODE.
Also some pics of Fort Cornwallis in Georgetown, Penang taken when we were there a few years back. Hope this is of interest.
Stu

[rickystl]

Jim: Again, thanks for starting this super interesting Thread. And thanks for your research. Most helpful.

LOCKS: Every flintlock lock I've examined on a Jazail of Afghan origin was either a genuine EIC lock or a locally made copy. (Although I now recall seeing one with an unmarked European lock that I believe was from Belgium). It's likely the EIC Armories would have spare locks in their inventory to replace broken/worn locks on their muskets. While the British were known for keeping good records, it is conceivable that many of these spare locks found their way into Afghan hands one way or the other. LOL
It would seem that the Afghan gunsmiths/customers considered the India pattern Brown Bess lock and trade variants to be the "standard" for building Jazails (?) Even the locally made copies attempt to stylistically copy the same lock. Also, as mentioned above, we can't exclude the probability of exporting the locks only for sale/trade in the Region.
BARRELS: The barrels on Afghan made Jazails seem to originate from regions elsewhere. Persia, Sindh, even Ottoman. I've even seen one with a Northern Indian style Torrador barrel. One common theme was the re-use of older barrels from different regions. You even see this on better quality Jazails.

Here is another good example from my collection: Also in unmolested condition, this Jazail is heavily decorated with pierced brass and punched iron mounts. The genuine EIC lock is marked HIRST (another prolific British maker) and dated 1799. The lock plate and hammer are flat versus round faced. The most interesting feature is the barrel, which is chiseled and fluted. The barrel (probably Persian) is much earlier than the rest of the gun. There is a Persian style makers stamp on the top breech of the barrel that looks like it was originally gold filled (now missing).I need to study this gun further.

Rick