17th Century Puzzle

[bluelake]

I found this on another site with the caption:

A flint-style lighting mechanism, most likely a wheelock, as depicted in a Ming firearms manual published in 1638.
Wheelocks were used by the later Qing Dynasty military as well

[Philip]

Thanks for initiating an interesting thread. To respond to your questions and comments:
1. First off, the so-called "Japanese style" matchlock is of Indo-Portuguese origin. Japan and Korea were the last areas to receive this technology, which was a fusion of Germanic/Lusitanian/Indian elements developed at the turn of the 16th cent. An example of one of these Goanese muskets, perhaps the only published example known, is in Holger Schuckelt, DIE TUERCKISCHE CAMMER (Dresden, Sandstein 2009), cat. 60, p 79. The matchlocks of SE Asia are of Indo-Portuguese type along with many from China.
2. The woodcut illus. of the gun in your post above dates from the Ming Dynasty. Flint ignition systems were known in China (as they were in Japan) but never supplanted the matchlock in either country. There are a handful of Japanese examples, and their mechanicals are derived from Dutch-style snaphaunces. This Chinese example is interesting -- Portuguese ancestry here. The cock is powered by a mainspring outside the lockplate pushing up on the cock's tail, which is identical to the way a Hispano/Portuguese "patilha" lock (the familiar miquelet) operates. The shape of the lockplate, the angle of the cock, and the crescentic terminus of the cock jaw screw are similar to that on the Portuguese "pescoco de cavalo" (horse neck) lock, an early flint mechanism in which the mainspring has been moved inside the lockplate. The horse neck lock, which is now rare, originated in the latter 16th cent. See Rainer Daehnhardt, ESPINGARDA FEITICEIRA: A INTRODUCAO DA ARMA DE FOGO PELOS PORTUGUESES NO EXTREMO-ORIENTE (Lisboa: Texto Editora, 1994), p 100.

Also, note the shape of the stock of the gun in the picture. It is a short-butt, cheek-fired design, classic Indo-Portuguese shape. The guns made in the Malay archipelago down to the end of the 19th cent. have butts of identical shape.
3. Wheel locks were known in China, courtesy Jesuit missionaries at the court in Beijing, by the 18th cent. In the cabinet d'armes of the Qianlong emperor (r 1736-95) are several wheellock sporting guns, all of Chinese make and design, right down to the locks themselves.
4. When the Koreans (and later the Qing forces during the Kangxi reign) fought the Russians in the Primorye region, the Cossacks and other forces opposing them had guns using a type of flintlock common in Scandinavia at the time. It had an external mainspring but was stylistically distinct (and appeared to be of less substantial construction) than the Portuguese and Spanish models. The buttstocks of these guns are long, for resting against the shoulder when aiming.

This is a brief coverage of the points raised in the above posts, my apologies if I've overlooked anything. Please pose any questions and comments and I'll do my best to address them.

[bluelake]

Philip,

Thank you very much for the information. It is quite helpful. Do you have any pictures or drawings of the type the Russians would have used in the 1650s in the Primorye region?

As mentioned in the OP, the Koreans had some type of friction firelock gun at least as early as the 1630s. As with what you mentioned about Japan and China, Korea stuck with the matchlocks (until the end of the 19th century); it would be interesting to know why they didn't pursue the new technology further. I am guessing part of it might be because much of the 17th century, aside from interruptions by Ming and Ching, was relatively peaceful for Korea (in comparison to the end of the 16th century), so there was little impetus for major advancement of weapons.

Still, the technology was evidently used to improve their matchlocks. A Korean author, Song Haeng (1760-1839) wrote about the Dutch shipwreck in Korea (1653), in which one of the survivors, Hendrick Hamel, kept a journal. An earlier Dutch shipwreck survivor, Jan Janse Weltevree, had been working and living in Korea for a couple decades by that time and provided translation between the Koreans and Hamel's group. Here is what Song wrote (http://www.hendrick-hamel.henny-save...anstudies2.htm):

Amongst the survivors of the shipwreck there were some artillery experts. On board their ship there were around 30 cannons. These were on wheels, so they were easily maneuverable. When a shot was fired, the cannon rolled a distance to the back. Thus, the power of the recoil was taken and prevented the barrel from splitting open. Their muskets also showed an ingenious design. When fired, the powder is ignited by a spark made by hitting a piece of flint against an iron point. This takes place by means of a spring mechanism, which can be latched and unlatched .

According to Hamel's diary, the Koreans salvaged quite a bit from his ship and Song Haeng said that all weaponry salvaged was sent to Seoul. Later, according to Hamel, he and his men were made king's guard and were issued matchlocks, black powder and lead. Between Weltevree and any of Hamel's group who were knowledgeable about gunsmithing, improvements to Korean matchlocks could easily be made. As it was recorded in the Annals of Joseon Kings, something along those lines surely happened. The records of 1657 show, "Dutch sailors drifted into Joseon. They brought with them new matchlock manufacturing methods" and in 1658 was recorded, "For the first time, it was possible for Joseon to make good matchlocks. This was proven by the fact that Ching requested 100 matchlocks". That was in the 1650s, as were the battles with the Russians, so they had firelock mechanisms from three sources (including the one obtained in 1631).

The information is greatly appreciated.

[Dmitry]

Hello,
There is a scarce variation of the flintlock mechanism called the Russian style lock. I will post photos of it, once I'm back from my (much deserved) vacation.

[bluelake]

Thanks, Dmitry!

[Philip]

Perhaps the best pictorial source for a number of 17th cent. Russian guns (almost all of them being deluxe-grade sporting arms for royalty) is Yuri Miller (ed.) RUSSIAN ARMS AND ARMOUR (Leningrad: Aurora 1982), plates 48-75. This should be studied in conjunction with Howard L. Blackmore's classic, profusely photo-illustrated GUNS AND RIFLES OF THE WORLD (NY: Viking, 1965) which puts these Russian guns in the proper historical context vis-a-vis firearms technology in neighboring North European countries at the time.

Looking at the examples in Miller's book, one can see that although they are, generally speaking, all members of the "flintlock" family, there are a number of mechanical details that differentiate them and which point to influences from a number of outside sources. These influences are explainable considering the role of the Hanseatic states in Russian history, and the influx of foreign experts (most notably Scandian, Dutch, Scottish, Italian and others) in the growth of Russia's military, industries, and educational institutions.
One can see that:
1. Some Russian locks (Miller, pl 48-50, 60, 73) have a rounded "bulge" in the contour of the lockplate slightly ahead of midpoint. This shape has no relevance in the layout of a flintlock mechanism's operating parts, but is a vestigial, stylistic holdover from the earler wheellock (which was apparently little-used in Russia). This decorative feature is seen on early flint mechanisms from other European countries as well, notably France, Italy, and even Spain and soon disappeared once the flintlock technology matured.
2. A few Russian locks have large external V-shaped mainsprings which power the cock (Miller, pl 50a, 51b, 62a, 65,) which at first blush points to a similarity with various Scandinavian and Baltic locks (Blackmore, figs. 134-42). However it is interesting to note that almost all of the mainsprings on the Russian locks press down on the forward portion or toe of the cock's "foot"; just one in Miller pushes upward against the heel or tail. The former type is seen in the typical Italian version (alla romana) of the miquelet lock ; the latter is almost universal on the primitive early flintlocks of Scandinavia.
3. The remainder of the Russian locks have internal springs and S-shaped cocks which are stopped at the bottom of their range of travel by a buffer block screwed to the lockplate, these features being almost identical to those seen on Dutch and Scottish locks.
4. Practically all of the locks on the guns shown in Miller are SNAPHAUNCES: the priming pan cover slides forward via a mechanical linkage to the internal tumbler connected to the cock, and the steel or frizzen is an entirely separate component. Many of these Russian locks are obviously derived from Dutch prototypes. Scandinavian gun locks of the period are either SNAPHAUNCES or rudimentary FLINTLOCKS, the latter having a pivoting pan cover and steel combined into one L-shaped unit.

In short, the study of early flintlocks in Russia is complicated by the multiplicity of technological and stylistic influences in various combinations, indicating that Russian artisans were trying to achieve what they thought was the best of all possible worlds.

I realize that this merry little excursion through north Europe may seem to have little bearing on Korea, but any study of the actual Korean flint locks (if any survive) or textual references to them should be done in comparison with the mechanical elements discussed above, since the introduction of flint technology into Korea appears to have been via contact with either Dutch or Russians.

Now, onto the question often posed quite often: why did the matchlock remain the characteristic firearms mechanism for so long in the Far East and SE Asia despite the fact that flint systems were not unknown there? For a long time, it has been thought that sheer conservatism was the reason. Perhaps it could have been due to this combo of factors:
1. Economy borne out of simplicity and compatibility with local crafts traditions and the desire for self-sufficiency. Some cultures, such as Japan's, were not entirely comfortable with screw-thread fastening or the tempering of powerful springs, both essential for sophisticated gun lock construction. Matchcord is easy to produce, and the locks do not require the availability of large amounts of good quality flints, which wear out after a number of shots.
AND
2. In many of the culture-spheres, the martial tradition possessed powerful bows and arrows which although requiring far more skill to use effectively, were capable of a faster rate of fire, and in the case of Korea, far greater useful range than firearms were capable of up to the mid-19th cent. Furthermore, although oriental bows can be affected by moisture, they remain usable past the point at which a muzzle loaded firearm with a priming-pan would become so dampened as to be unshootable.
AND
3. It was not until the 19th cent. that states such as China, Japan, and Korea faced a significant threat from gun-using Western states. The Ottoman Turks, who also possessed an impressive archery tradition, was under great pressure to update its weaponry for several centuries before that due to its proximity to Europe, especially the central European states which pioneered the use of rifles (as opposed to smoothbore muskets) beginning in the 16th cent. Thus we see that in Turkey, firearms development from matchlock to flint ignition (both miquelet and true flintlock) and more advanced systems occured at a pace comparable to that seen in most of Europe. Furthermore, of all Oriental cultures, the Turks made the most use of rifled barrels, which were all but ignored in the Far East until the importation of Western military arms towards the end of the percussion-lock era.

[bluelake]

Thanks, Philip! The information is greatly appreciated and very informative. I will look into the books you mentioned.

It's interesting to note that, in Korea, the bow remained an official military weapon until the mid-1890s, but was probably not officially used in battle after the 1860s. In the US military incursion of 1871, although there were bows in Korea's arsenal (at least on paper), none were used and none captured by the US. In the French incursion of 1866, there is evidence they were still being used militarily and at least one was captured by the French (That bow was given to me almost a decade ago by a friend in France and I gave it to the Korean Army Museum).


Thomas
http://www.shinmiyangyo.org