lantaka?

garynhk · 14th December 2010, 09:15 AM

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?

Bill M · 19th December 2010, 12:52 PM

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?

Maurice · 19th December 2010, 01:00 PM

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

laEspadaAncha · 19th December 2010, 06:42 PM

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.

Battara · 19th December 2010, 11:18 PM

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.).

garynhk · 20th December 2010, 03:47 AM

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.

14th December 2010, 09:15 AM	#1
garynhk Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3	lantaka? 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?

19th December 2010, 12:52 PM	#2
Bill M Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Georgia Posts: 1,599	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?

19th December 2010, 01:00 PM	#3
Maurice Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,346	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

19th December 2010, 06:42 PM	#4
laEspadaAncha Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 608	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.

19th December 2010, 11:18 PM	#5
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,221	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.).

20th December 2010, 03:47 AM	#6
garynhk Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3	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.