Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 6th February 2016, 10:15 PM   #1
archaeologist
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3
Default butt form

Does anyone have info or comment on the butt form - rounded cross section vs octagonal? When/where do we get that transition? Am I right in thinking the octagonal butts are typical of slightly later Turkish flintlocks?
archaeologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2016, 03:57 PM   #2
Pukka Bundook
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
Default

Good morning Archaeologist,

I believe you are right, in that the faceted butt appears to be a Turkish design. As for dates, it appears we can find Turkish stocks of this style going back a very long way, into the 17th century at any rate, and up to the 19th C.

I think the round or oval stocks are more Persian, and these too were made over a very long period, and up into the 19th C.
My understanding (very imperfect!) is that the two stock types co-existed over the same time period, in different areas.

Then of course we get into the "Spheres of influence" and as these spheres came and went, fashion in arms would change as well, and not at all helpful to us!
I stand ready to be corrected in the above, but at present that is as it appears to me. :-)

Best,
Richard.
Pukka Bundook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2016, 10:37 AM   #3
estcrh
Member
 
estcrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook
Good morning Archaeologist,

I believe you are right, in that the faceted butt appears to be a Turkish design. As for dates, it appears we can find Turkish stocks of this style going back a very long way, into the 17th century at any rate, and up to the 19th C.

I think the round or oval stocks are more Persian, and these too were made over a very long period, and up into the 19th C.
My understanding (very imperfect!) is that the two stock types co-existed over the same time period, in different areas.

Then of course we get into the "Spheres of influence" and as these spheres came and went, fashion in arms would change as well, and not at all helpful to us!
I stand ready to be corrected in the above, but at present that is as it appears to me. :-)

Best,
Richard.
Richard, when looking for Ottoman matchlock images I found that Persian examples were even more rare, I do not remember seeing a Persian matchlock and only a few Persian flintlocks. I believe this image shows an Ottoman gun next to a Persian one.
Attached Images
 
estcrh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2016, 04:58 AM   #4
Pukka Bundook
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
Default

Eric,

I believe you are right in your assessment of the last photo, one Persian, and one Ottoman.
I believe that Manouchehr has photos of Persian matchlocks in his series on Persian arms, in "Classic Arms" magazine.
These pictures will undoubtedly be published again in his book, which will be appearing very soon now.

As you say, Persian matchlocks are Very thin on the ground. We keep bringing this up, in the hopes that someone can shed light on why this is the case, but we keep drawing blanks!
All I can come up with, is that they were traded off, or at least the barrels were, going into India, Afghanistan, and over in Oman when the Persian armed forces were modernised on the Western pattern.
This may be all horsefeathers, but it's all I can think of at present!

Best,
Richard.
Pukka Bundook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2016, 10:22 AM   #5
estcrh
Member
 
estcrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by archaeologist
Does anyone have info or comment on the butt form - rounded cross section vs octagonal? When/where do we get that transition? Am I right in thinking the octagonal butts are typical of slightly later Turkish flintlocks?
Unfortunately images of early Ottoman guns are rare, in fact this is as far as I know the largest collection of such images ever discussed. From what I can see, the early Ottoman matchlock/flintlock butt was not nearly as flaired out as the later ones, that is just a personal thought based on the images I have seen.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by estcrh; 8th February 2016 at 10:38 AM.
estcrh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.