While this situation seems bizarre, it is well known that many museums have obscure items misidentified and these blatant errors seem to almost roar out at well informed and knowledgeable guests. While such errors seem inexcusable, it is often interesting to discover there is much more to the story than seems apparant.
In some cases it is simply cataloging items received in groupings by workers who are not familiar with the subject matter or broad assumptions without detailed consideration.
In this case I am puzzled by the original post which notes this is a Scottish sword used by a Confederate soldier. The lady from the Cape Fear Museum notes that they contacted the Moores Creek battlefield to borrow weapons from the American Revolution, and this sword was claimed to be a Scottish made sword used by a Colonial Patriot.
How did it get from the American Revolution into Confederate hands supposedly, let alone why is this Scottish?
The single and ever paramount factor that accounts for most anomalies in the extreme diffusion of exotic weapons is trade. It is well known that many exotic weapons entered the Colonial sphere in degree through trade, and though certainly exceptions, even Japanese Samurai swords have been found in records of the times.
There has long been a fascination with the Orient among western cultures and understandably with the exciting and lucrative trade, particularly with China. American ships by the 19th century were trading with China, just as British ships had been of course long before. For a Chinese sword to end up in the hands of individuals in the colonies seems plausible, but extremely limited in likelihood. It seems much more likely than such a sword might be found later in the 19th century.
In 1872, the famed mystery of the brigantine Mary Celeste sensationalized by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle took place. In some accounts of the actual details rather than the fictionalized versions revealed that a sword was found in the captains cabin on the desk. It was described as an Italian sword, probably since the ship had been involved in wine related commerce and was actually destined for Genoa. In further researching I found a photo which showed the desk and the sword....it was clearly a Chinese jian as seen here!
I asked the same questions, why in the world would this be noted as an Italian sword!!?
A broad assumption derived simply by the context in which the item was found, and as it was unusual looking, it must have been Italian.
If this clearly Chinese sword was actually used by a Confederate soldier, it would be a remote possibility as the very ersatz nature of many of these forces, and thier use of any weapons at hand is well known. If this Chinese sword found its way back to America by a hand on a China clipper, and this weapon was handy, easily understood. The Scottish attribution? perhaps again context and the donor may have been a Scottish family.
If this Chinese sword was from the Revolution, again, possibly from British ships into China and someone who came to the Colonies. There was a profound emigration to North Carolina from Scotland, and many Scots were hands on merchant vessels. By being in the hands of a Scot, and since it was atypical for anything known to most in the Colonies, it becomes by association, Scottish.
These kinds of considerations are known as historical detection, and to me it is one of the greatest joys in studying historic arms and armor. With this unusual circumstance I thought it might be fun to look into it further. In the long run, the attribution in the museum needs to be reconsidered, but perhaps further investigation might reveal even more exciting details to add to the description.
My compliments to Steve for diligently noticing the error and bringing it to the attention of the museum, and for sharing it here, and to Ms. Rowe whose response was so professionally presented.
All best regards,
Jim
|