Ethnographic Arms & Armour

Ethnographic Arms & Armour (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/index.php)

- Ethnographic Weapons (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - lantaka? (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13048)

Hi.. just recently found this forum and Im glad I did. I recently saw some cannons at a friend's and at a glance, it looks like lantakas? But Ive searched all over the web trying to figure out the origin and so far havent come across anything in close resemblance. So I figure its either a really rare authentic one or a very obvious fake. What do you think?

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/9032/lantaka1.th.jpg

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/7605/lantaka2.th.jpg

Certainly they are Lantakas. Some were made for fighting, others for trade. Some were replicas.

Need more info. Length? Does the more elaborate one have two handles? Could you make high resolution images of the areas between the swivel mount and the breech from both sides? Image of the muzzle showing the bore?

Welcome to the forum!
Maybe this old thread I started a while ago helps you a little further..
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...hlight=lantaka

Maurice

Hi Gary,

Welcome to the forum. :)

As has been mentioned - both in this thread and in Maurice's linked thread - there are authentic older "fighters," more contemporary currency cannon, and modern reproductions.

In combing through the linked thread, I would also add the following to consider in evaluating your friend's cannon:

First, the gross weight... Authentic "fighters" were meant to fire shot (as opposed to a lessor signal charge of powder alone, or no charge at all in the case of modern reproductions). They would have to be cast with enough metal to endure the forces produced by the ignition of these greater charges and the resulting expulsion of highly pressurized gas. And they would have been made to endure this over and over. It took a lot of resources and effort to cast a cannon in bronze, so they would want them to last as long as possible.

Consequently, authentic fighters tend to be significantly heavier than examples produced as currency or decorative pieces. For example, I have an authentic fighter originally recovered by a renown underwater archeologist who sold it to raise funds for a privately-curated museum operated by his foundation. It measures a little over a meter in length and must weigh +/- 30 kg. By comparison, I would imagine decorative examples and more modern reproductions would be made with a focus on reducing cost (of production) and would therefore require less material and effort in their production. How large are the examples you show? 1 meter? 1.5 meters? How much would you estimate they weigh?

Second, if they were made to be used, you will likely to see some signs of wear around the touch hole (the same applies to signal cannon). If the touch hole appears geometrically perfect and untouched, I would be suspicious.

It is also my understanding (as mentioned in the other thread) that the placement of the trunnions is also a good indicator, as "real" examples will have their trunnions set below the centerline as observed along the axis of the barrel. While by no means statistically significant, this is the case with the two cannon I own.

Hope this helps in your evaluation. :)

I agree with laEspadaAncha. I wrote in some of the link posted above.

As far as the pictures go, the first one looks like it might be Moro, though I would like to see the top, back, and front of the lantaka to be sure of all the okir designs.

The second is a little harder and might be Moro or Borneo with mixed styles of okir work as far as I can see (again needing more pictures of the top, bottom, etc.).

Hi guys, thanks!

Well the first cannon is about 1 metre in length with 1 inch bore while the second is about 1.5 metres. As im still new to this I cant really tell how "used" the touch hole is. Dont know the weight but i remember it took 2-3 person to move them around and it wasnt easy either.

I'll go back and take a closer look with more pics.

Very decorative and beautiful piece. I suspect it is not a fighting cannon or is newer than 1600 AD. Proportions are slightly off, perhaps this is distortion from camera angle, but there are several details that place this as different from a pre-1600s fighting cannon.

Still a neat piece!

Hi Gary, welcome to the forum. I would really like to encourage you to upload your images directly to our site so that they reside in our archives. Otherwise when you take these images off your particular browser they will be gone from this thread rendering most of the discussion next to useless. If you need any help understanding how to upload please ask. Thanks. :)