[Raf]

Hello Evegny
Some time ago I tried to start a debate about the early origins of the flintlock.
( Leonardos snaplock, the missing link ? ) The theory being that the earliest self firing locks may have been proto- flintlocks with external springs and and a frizzen with base to keep powder in the pan when the thing was cocked . And a separate manual cover to retain the powder when it wasn't .Which is of course perfectly illustrated in your excavated example .

These locks were contemporary with , or developed into snaphaunces using self opening pans borrowed from the wheelock and later evolved into the true flintlock with the development of the half cock position. Michael is right in as far as some Russian locks use this system but one important example ( Kremlin 6783) was actually given to the Tsar Michael Romanoff by the English agent Fabian Smith in 1625. The implication being that it was either english or Dutch. Excavated examples have also been found in Norway ( see Lenk, the flintlock its origins and development ) and are still in use in Tibet !

In my opinion your lock is an extremely rare and important example of a type of lock from which all snapping type locks may have evolved. Once probably common , we don't see any collected examples simply because their simplicity and cheapness made them expendable . Which leads to the all important question of where it was discovered and wether their was anything by way of an archaeological context to suggest a date ? Since the sidenails are present this suggests it was a complete gun at the point at which it was lost or buried.

Self igniting locks changed the nature of early firearms from a weapon of intention , the matchlock best suited to defensive or organised military operations to a weapon of opportunity that could be deployed immediately the need arose. So it would not surprise me if locks of this type were actually contemporary with the earliest wheelocks.