A unique bronze barrel wall gun (doppelter Doppelhaken), Nuremberg, ca. 1515-20

Matchlock · 22nd December 2011, 07:18 PM

Hi John,

I'm afraid it's a bit too risky to narrow the possible founder of your barrel down to just one person who was active in Zwickau. Nuremberg and Augsburg were the great centers of early gunmaking and founding in the 16th c. The flames you mentioned are by no way characteristic of a specific craftsmen or workshop but originated from the Italian 15th c. Renaissance where they firstly symbolized a fire throwing dragon or serpent-like monster and, using this zoomorphic ornamentation, were employed to make look firearm barrels like embodiments of monsters breathing fire. Soon after that, the flames became common in all kinds of arts and crafts; e.g. the vertical slits in the Landsknecht trousers derived from these flame ornaments.

Best,
Michael

cannonmn · 22nd December 2011, 07:48 PM

Michael, thanks again for your information. I do think there is something to be said for Peter II Mulich having used the rings of undulating flames as a trademark for his bronze cannons, as each one of the four for which drawings (including the one surviving specimen in bronze) have the same kind of decorative rings. Using decorative rings of evenly-spaced wavy (undulating) flames is I think a bit stronger evidence than just flames per se. Another thing to consider is that Peter II Mulich was indeed from Nuremberg, where his father had always practiced his trade, but he moved to Zwickau at some point in his career, apparently about 1520-23. However these are merely idle ramblings or at most "food for thought, and you are indeed the expert and I am but a slow-learning and somewhat impetuous student.

Two additional features of the "Schellenberg" hackbut may help tell us something. What looks like a proof-mark on the side of the flash pan seems to match some of those shown for Saxony in my 1943-dated two-volume Swedish-language set of Der Stoeckel. However the marks in the book are supposed to be much later than my gun, so who knows?

A final feature to consider which may help identify the maker is the very prominent iron core-pin, or chaplet, which goes through the breech vertically and is exposed most noticeably on top. Chaplets were always used to hold the cores in place while casting cannons in those days. Have you seen such core pins or chaplets in other bronze hackbuts?

Thanks again for sharing your incredible database and knowledge of these rare pieces.

cannonmn · 24th March 2012, 12:03 AM

I had my "Ulrich von Schellenberg" hackbut "shot" by an x-ray analyzer today to see what it was made of. I had always thought the metal would be similar to cannons, namely gunmetal, which is approximately 90% copper and 10% tin. Poor innocent, ignorant me! Here's what the analyzer came up with. The very high iron and lead percentages were quite a surprise. I wondered why there would be any aluminum at all, but some other things tested the same day which I know are antique, also showed around 3% aluminum. Go figure!

Test no. and ID:

#10-Bronze Hackbut ca. 1510, presumed to be bronze

Al – 3.62

Si – 7.24

P – 2.08

Ti - .33

Mn - .08

Fe – 17.23

Ni - .04

Cu – 24.68

Zr - .028

Sn – 5.16

Sb – 3.23

Ir – 2.84

Pb – 33.43

cannonmn · 24th March 2012, 07:52 AM

All I can think of is that the x-ray tester made a mistake. I had the operator shoot the machine at the muzzle of the hackbut to stay well clear of the small iron pieces nearer the breech. He shot several other objects I had, all either iron or steel, and the results on all of those seemed quite reasonable. I'm wondering if he had to change a setting on the machine to get a correct reading for a nonferrous object, and didn't do so? I didn't tell him the hackbut wasn't iron like all the other things. I'll have to ask him during the coming work-week.

Matchlock · 24th March 2012, 03:34 PM

Hi John,

This result does not puzzle me at all. Actually it represents what one should expect of early 16th c. bronzes; moreover it pefectly backs up metallurgic analyses of early-16th c. gun bronzes carried out in the 1960's, which I have menioned earlier on this forum. They even found traces of silver and other metallic components.

I think this is due to at least three different facts:

Firstly, raw ore in these ages could not be melted to be as pure as it can be today.
Secondly, all the knowledge on the reliability of bronze the founders then had was based merely on practical experience. I would imagine them them to have deliberately added traces of other sorts of metal because they believed - or had learned - that these additions would make the outcome more durable.
Thirdly, popular superstition played an enormous role in ages past. This means that people believed that certain substances just had to be added to whatever they were about to produce in order to ge a good result. It was magic make believe instead of today's hardheaded science that ruled over everday arts and crafts, including medicine and fireworks. When analyzing 16th-17th firework substances you e.g. find traces of urine - simply because it contained saltpeter - and various earths. People felt that that special mixture would guarantee a great outcome - and it obviously did.

Please also cf.
http://books.google.de/books?id=4Ozo...ronzes&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_...edieval_Europe

When I had the varnish of one of my Landsknecht arquebus of. ca. 1540 spectroanalyzed in the early 1990's traces of silver and even gold were discovered - in the dark brown lacquer on an almost 500 year-old gun stock!

Best,
Michael

Matchlock · 22nd May 2012, 05:23 PM

After a couple of years I wish to add some more close-ups uf my huge Nuremberg wallgun (doppelter Dopelhaken) that this thread is about.

What I have not mentioned before: it is preserved complete together with its original wooden ramrod (wormed and repaired in places, rear end incomplete) retaining its blackened threaded iron finial (Setzerkopf) and the original scourer (Laufkrätzer)! The ramrod is seen resting on the left side of the heavy piece; it was broken into three separate parts when I bought it some 25 years ago.
The wooden muzzle plug is old but associated.
The originally swiveling pan cover is missing from the barrel.

The gun and ramrod were claimed by the previous owner to have been deaccessioned by the Princely Collections of Hohenlohe-Langenburg in Franconia in the 1960's. On attending their collections by special appointment I photographed two similar Nuremberg bronze wall pieces the better of which, dated 1525, I posted above in post #6.

m

Matchlock · 22nd May 2012, 05:25 PM

Three more, showing details of the ramrod with its blackened iron finial retaining the original scourer.

m

22nd December 2011, 07:48 PM	#2
cannonmn Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 161	Thanks again. Michael, thanks again for your information. I do think there is something to be said for Peter II Mulich having used the rings of undulating flames as a trademark for his bronze cannons, as each one of the four for which drawings (including the one surviving specimen in bronze) have the same kind of decorative rings. Using decorative rings of evenly-spaced wavy (undulating) flames is I think a bit stronger evidence than just flames per se. Another thing to consider is that Peter II Mulich was indeed from Nuremberg, where his father had always practiced his trade, but he moved to Zwickau at some point in his career, apparently about 1520-23. However these are merely idle ramblings or at most "food for thought, and you are indeed the expert and I am but a slow-learning and somewhat impetuous student. Two additional features of the "Schellenberg" hackbut may help tell us something. What looks like a proof-mark on the side of the flash pan seems to match some of those shown for Saxony in my 1943-dated two-volume Swedish-language set of Der Stoeckel. However the marks in the book are supposed to be much later than my gun, so who knows? A final feature to consider which may help identify the maker is the very prominent iron core-pin, or chaplet, which goes through the breech vertically and is exposed most noticeably on top. Chaplets were always used to hold the cores in place while casting cannons in those days. Have you seen such core pins or chaplets in other bronze hackbuts? Thanks again for sharing your incredible database and knowledge of these rare pieces.

24th March 2012, 03:34 PM	#5
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Hi John, This result does not puzzle me at all. Actually it represents what one should expect of early 16th c. bronzes; moreover it pefectly backs up metallurgic analyses of early-16th c. gun bronzes carried out in the 1960's, which I have menioned earlier on this forum. They even found traces of silver and other metallic components. I think this is due to at least three different facts: Firstly, raw ore in these ages could not be melted to be as pure as it can be today. Secondly, all the knowledge on the reliability of bronze the founders then had was based merely on practical experience. I would imagine them them to have deliberately added traces of other sorts of metal because they believed - or had learned - that these additions would make the outcome more durable. Thirdly, popular superstition played an enormous role in ages past. This means that people believed that certain substances just had to be added to whatever they were about to produce in order to ge a good result. It was magic make believe instead of today's hardheaded science that ruled over everday arts and crafts, including medicine and fireworks. When analyzing 16th-17th firework substances you e.g. find traces of urine - simply because it contained saltpeter - and various earths. People felt that that special mixture would guarantee a great outcome - and it obviously did. Please also cf. http://books.google.de/books?id=4Ozo...ronzes&f=false http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_...edieval_Europe When I had the varnish of one of my Landsknecht arquebus of. ca. 1540 spectroanalyzed in the early 1990's traces of silver and even gold were discovered - in the dark brown lacquer on an almost 500 year-old gun stock! Best, Michael Last edited by Matchlock; 24th March 2012 at 05:50 PM.

22nd May 2012, 05:25 PM	#7
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Three more, showing details of the ramrod with its blackened iron finial retaining the original scourer. m Attached Images

22nd December 2011, 07:18 PM	#1
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Hi John, I'm afraid it's a bit too risky to narrow the possible founder of your barrel down to just one person who was active in Zwickau. Nuremberg and Augsburg were the great centers of early gunmaking and founding in the 16th c. The flames you mentioned are by no way characteristic of a specific craftsmen or workshop but originated from the Italian 15th c. Renaissance where they firstly symbolized a fire throwing dragon or serpent-like monster and, using this zoomorphic ornamentation, were employed to make look firearm barrels like embodiments of monsters breathing fire. Soon after that, the flames became common in all kinds of arts and crafts; e.g. the vertical slits in the Landsknecht trousers derived from these flame ornaments. Best, Michael

24th March 2012, 12:03 AM	#3
cannonmn Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 161	I had my "Ulrich von Schellenberg" hackbut "shot" by an x-ray analyzer today to see what it was made of. I had always thought the metal would be similar to cannons, namely gunmetal, which is approximately 90% copper and 10% tin. Poor innocent, ignorant me! Here's what the analyzer came up with. The very high iron and lead percentages were quite a surprise. I wondered why there would be any aluminum at all, but some other things tested the same day which I know are antique, also showed around 3% aluminum. Go figure! Test no. and ID: #10-Bronze Hackbut ca. 1510, presumed to be bronze Al – 3.62 Si – 7.24 P – 2.08 Ti - .33 Mn - .08 Fe – 17.23 Ni - .04 Cu – 24.68 Zr - .028 Sn – 5.16 Sb – 3.23 Ir – 2.84 Pb – 33.43

24th March 2012, 07:52 AM	#4
cannonmn Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 161	All I can think of is that the x-ray tester made a mistake. I had the operator shoot the machine at the muzzle of the hackbut to stay well clear of the small iron pieces nearer the breech. He shot several other objects I had, all either iron or steel, and the results on all of those seemed quite reasonable. I'm wondering if he had to change a setting on the machine to get a correct reading for a nonferrous object, and didn't do so? I didn't tell him the hackbut wasn't iron like all the other things. I'll have to ask him during the coming work-week.

22nd May 2012, 05:23 PM	#6
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	After a couple of years I wish to add some more close-ups uf my huge Nuremberg wallgun (doppelter Dopelhaken) that this thread is about. What I have not mentioned before: it is preserved complete together with its original wooden ramrod (wormed and repaired in places, rear end incomplete) retaining its blackened threaded iron finial (Setzerkopf) and the original scourer (Laufkrätzer)! The ramrod is seen resting on the left side of the heavy piece; it was broken into three separate parts when I bought it some 25 years ago. The wooden muzzle plug is old but associated. The originally swiveling pan cover is missing from the barrel. The gun and ramrod were claimed by the previous owner to have been deaccessioned by the Princely Collections of Hohenlohe-Langenburg in Franconia in the 1960's. On attending their collections by special appointment I photographed two similar Nuremberg bronze wall pieces the better of which, dated 1525, I posted above in post #6. m Attached Images Last edited by Matchlock; 22nd May 2012 at 07:00 PM.