17th Century Puzzle

[bluelake]

I have been doing a lot of research on Korean firearms during the Joseon dynasty (1392-1910) and I ran across one intriguing puzzle. In the 17th century, Korea came in contact with some type(s) of friction-type firelock firearm(s); however, that technology was never pursued and the country stayed with the Japanese-style matchlock right up to the end of the 19th century. In 1631, a Korean diplomat to China, by the name of Jeong Du-won (鄭斗源), brought back from that country some type of friction-type firelock gun. In 1658, China requested that Korea attack Russian troops in the area of Yeonhaeju (Primorye) and they captured many more of some type of friction firelock weapons. The Korean records do not go into detail and no examples of what they obtained are known to exist in Korea.

My question is, knowing the countries they were obtained from (China and Russia) and the time periods (1630s and 1650s), what would they have likely been? Snaphaunces? Miquelets? Something else? Any and all guesses are welcome (pictures are welcome, too! ). The information will help me a lot on my dissertation and I will happily attribute sources in it

[fernando]

Try and PM our fellow member Philip.
He might be within this subject ... not sure.
Fernando

[bluelake]

Thanks, I did. Also, if anyone else knows anything, all help is greatly appreciated

[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

[Philip]

Thomas,
John L. Boots, in his monograph KOREAN WEAPONS AND ARMOUR (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch, 1934), mentions that of all the martial arts, archery was the most esteemed in pre-modern Korea. I find it interesting to note that this particular affection for the bow and arrow is also a defining characteristic of the martial cultures of the Manchus, Mongols, and Turks -- peoples, who along with the Koreans are members of the Ural-Altaic linguistic family. Put a Korean composite-recurved bow next to an Ottoman one and you'll see weapons of almost identical proportions (distinct from Manchu, Sino-Tibetan, and Indian bows) and performance characteristics. The Korean and Turkish weapons are known for their ability to shoot very light arrows at velocities and over distances unmatched by the bows of other nations. Our colleague Peter Dekker is a wealth of info on this subject and I suggest that you contact him if you have further interest.

[Philip]

Thomas,
Like the Koreans, the Chinese under Qing rule maintained their tradition of military archery (at least in theory) until quite late. Rigorous tests of shooting ability on foot and from the saddle were a part of the Chinese military officers' exams until the entire traditional examination system was abolished in 1905. Although the bow had co-existed with the musket up to the mid-19th cent., we see that from that point onwards, firearms gradually supplanted it as even matchlocks began to give way to imported percussion-lock (and later breechloading) guns and rifles during the second half of the century. The impetus was undoubtedly due to unprecedented Western military pressure, which for China began with the First Opium War in the 1840s. The unavoidable move towards newer styles of firearms under these conditions can be compared to Ottoman Turkey's evolution from matchlock to flint to later firearms systems in its military under centuries of competitive pressure from a hostile Europe on its doorstep.

[bluelake]

Originally Posted by Philip

Thomas,
John L. Boots, in his monograph KOREAN WEAPONS AND ARMOUR (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch, 1934), mentions that of all the martial arts, archery was the most esteemed in pre-modern Korea. I find it interesting to note that this particular affection for the bow and arrow is also a defining characteristic of the martial cultures of the Manchus, Mongols, and Turks -- peoples, who along with the Koreans are members of the Ural-Altaic linguistic family. Put a Korean composite-recurved bow next to an Ottoman one and you'll see weapons of almost identical proportions (distinct from Manchu, Sino-Tibetan, and Indian bows) and performance characteristics. The Korean and Turkish weapons are known for their ability to shoot very light arrows at velocities and over distances unmatched by the bows of other nations. Our colleague Peter Dekker is a wealth of info on this subject and I suggest that you contact him if you have further interest.

Thanks, Philip, but I literally wrote the book on Korean traditional archery My website: http://www.koreanarchery.org (my book is on the front page).

T

[Dmitry]

Here are some promised illustrations of the Russian style lock.

[bluelake]

Thanks, Dmitry. Do you think this might have been the type of lock used in the early 17 C. that the Koreans captured from the Russians?

[Philip]

Thank you, Dmitry, for posting these pics, especially those showing detached locks, exterior and interior views. Mechanically, these are among the earliest manifestations of flint-and-steel mechanisms on guns that are known, and it is believed that they first appeared in Scandinavia in the mid-16th cent. Blackmore (p. 28, cat. no. 134) discusses what is perhaps one of the oldest dated examples, now in Stockholm's Royal Armory and thought to be one of several guns with Nuremberg barrel marks, converted to this early flint mechanism by Swedish technicians at Arboga in 1556. This style of lock quickly spread throughout the Baltic area and not long after to Russia where they were well-known by the beginning of the 17th cent.

Strictly speaking, these locks and the examples in your pics are not true flintlocks, for reasons discussed previously. They are SNAPHAUNCES, the distinction being in the separation of the steel (which is struck by the flint) and the priming-pan cover into separate units. A true flintlock has, besides an internal mainspring and sear system, a COMBINED steel and pan-cover (the unit looks like a letter L).

Be that as it may, the examples shown here, like their Scanian counterparts, have a primitive character to them which is not only charming but speaks to their antiquity. The pan-covers are opened manually, like those on matchlocks, before firing. Some of the covers slide, others pivot like those on matchlocks. Note how the first example shown in your post has a lockplate which bulges out on the bottom. This is a hold-over from the style of lockplate on the earlier wheel-lock, it is a vestigial stylistic element which is functionally irrelevant on a snaphaunce because no wheel is necessary!

Snaphaunces were made also in Holland, Italy, and later Morocco but these are more advanced since the mechanism is provided with a push-rod and bell-crank linkage between the tumbler and pan-cover so that the cover AUTOMATICALLY opens when the gun fires. (See Blackmore, appendix, pp 112-13 for operational diagrams).

The primitive flint mecanisms had a long life in the Baltic regions and Russia as well. They remained in use in rural parts of Sweden, Finland, and Norway until the beginning of the 19th cent., and I recall reading a memoir by a Western traveler seeing them for sale in a market in western Siberia ca. 1900.

[bluelake]

Very good information, Philip--thanks!

Dmitry or Philip--Regarding my last question:

Do you think this might have been the type of lock used in the early 17 C. that the Koreans captured from the Russians?

Also, Dmitry, where did you find the pictures?

Thanks, guys.

[fernando]

Great lectures Philip

Originally Posted by Philip

... Snaphaunces were made also in Holland, Italy, and later Morocco but these are more advanced since the mechanism is provided with a push-rod and bell-crank linkage between the tumbler and pan-cover so that the cover AUTOMATICALLY opens when the gun fires... .

If i may hijack the thread, bluelake, attached is one rustic example of the Snaphaunce version quoted by Philip, in that the pan cover opens while you fire the gun.
I beleive this is a Moroccan specimen, possibly from the 19th century, although i ignore where the gunsmith inspired his imagination to make such a bizarre butt stock, resembling somehow those from early weel lock pistols.
Fernando

.

[Philip]

Thomas:
To answer your question (or attempt to do so), yes I do believe that the type of snaphaunces in Dmitry's photos are very likely the sort of thing the Korean troops were exposed to in their encounters with the Russians in the early 17th cent. I'm just hoping that you'll uncover in a S. Korean archive an old military text or manual that has a woodblock illustration of the Korean version of one of these, just as we have similar documentation of Chinese copies of Portuguese proto-flintlocks.

Fernando:
Moroccan pistols are not very common. Yours is quite interesting because of its ball butt. ON the one hand, you could say it is an extreme anachronism if you associate the ball with the familiar north European wheellock pistols with the same feature. The connection is possible, after all the snaphaunce lock was introduced to the Maghrib by the Dutch during an era in which such wheellocks were still in use in places. (note also that there is still a resemblance of certain styles of Moroccan musket buttstocks to those on some types of Dutch and English matchlock guns). On the other hand, you could place the origin of your Moroccan ball butt a bit closer in space and time -- I'm thinking of the Catalan-style pistols, made in Ripoll from the 17th cent. until ca. 1800.

I checked my copy of Geo. C. Stone's GLOSSARY...ARMS AND ARMOR, fig. 649/4 is a crudely-repaired Spanish pistol (with a patilha lock) from Morocco, and 649/1 is the only example in the book with a snaphaunce lock like yours, although the butt is mushroom-shaped and not a full ball. The other two examples are local copies of Ottoman flintlock holster pistols which are themselves knockoffs (of generally inferior quality) of late 17th cent. Dutch and German originals. Indeed, Stone notes (p 503) "In Morocco and North Africa most of the pistols were European or like the Turkish, except for the decoration."

The fact that your lock has a manually-opened pan cover is very rustic indeed, the gunsmith probably lacked the skills to make the automatic-opening mechanism that is usually found on Moroccan locks. This adds to its ethnographic interest, suggesting that it came from a remote source indeed, to embody a shape of stock that had fallen out of disuse so long before in Europe.

[bluelake]

Originally Posted by Philip

Thomas:
To answer your question (or attempt to do so), yes I do believe that the type of snaphaunces in Dmitry's photos are very likely the sort of thing the Korean troops were exposed to in their encounters with the Russians in the early 17th cent. I'm just hoping that you'll uncover in a S. Korean archive an old military text or manual that has a woodblock illustration of the Korean version of one of these, just as we have similar documentation of Chinese copies of Portuguese proto-flintlocks.

Thanks again, Philip. I've been trying to find some local evidence of what type of rock lock the Koreans came into contact with. The biggest problem is that so many records (and other things) were lost or destroyed since that time due to invasions, uprisings, occupation, and a major civil war. Still, I sort through stacks of old books every time I come across them just on the off-chance I might find something important.

Slightly OT, but the loss of things reminded me of a story I was told just last year. The general who was the commander of Korean forces in 1871 when the US attacked, and who was killed in the fighting, had his boyhood home south of the city of Seoul. My wife and I visited there as we were in the area. One village person told us a story that made my heart sink. The general's armor, sword, etc. were kept in the home (the home is still there); back in the 1970s, someone gathered it all up and sold it to a junk dealer who was passing by with his cart.

[fernando]

Oh no, Philip, i guess i didn't put it right .
The mechanism in my example works precisely as you mention; the pan cover is engaged with the action and opens by itself (automatically), when the gun is fired.
Thanks a lot for the Ripoll suggestion on the ball butt; quite suitable indeed .
Fernando

.