, what's depicted on RCA 19 is not just any rendition of a panther - it is the identical panther/spear used historically and today by the Eastern Shawnee tribe.
All of this, however, skirts the issue of the clear inter-related nature of these two early rifles. Setting aside a possible Paxinosa connection, what are we to make of the obvious physical connection between these two guns?
I’d like more discussion of the relationship between these guns and other Moravian guns built at the same time or somewhat later. Neither immediately suggests “Bethlehem” to me.
This is where investor / collector interest can conflict with historical interest.
...as there isn't a signature and the whole conversation appears to be speculation at this point.
Because Moravians seem to have kept better records of their activities of which much has survived to the present compared with other groups and communities, and there are several Rev War or earlier era guns linked to Christian's Spring, do we over emphasize the importance of Christian's Spring and other Moravian settlements as influences on early American gun making?
I believe Beck was sent up to CS to teach school when Albrecht moved over to the gun shop (once complete),
I believe Beck was sent up to CS to teach school when Albrecht moved over to the gun shop (once complete),
Oops, faulty memory, I did mean to say Nazareth as I knew he taught somewhere, and didn't he mention in his lebenslauf that he was initially somewhat unhappy about it?
This is interesting. I don't think we have ever pinned down this sort of coordination--or know, really, how Albrecht's time was divided between gunmaking and the school, either before the gunshop was built (late 1763) or after. We just don't know, even after he has a gunshop at Christiansbrunn, that he is "full-time" there, though it would make sense that he was (especially since he needed to train Oerter). But: he seems to still be working at the school when Beck is sent there in, say, 1762. At least that is what I recollect.
Unfortunately, as far as I know, there are no lists of teachers at the boys' school (Naz Hall) that we could look at to see when Albrecht joins the list or gets removed from it.
I'm going by recollection also, based upon many conversations with Bob, but I figure either you or he have the documentation as to how it was all 'going down' with Albrecht, Oerter and Beck and what to do with all three of them!
While I definitely do not agree with some of the theories that Bob Smalser was advocating when he was researching Neihardt and potential associates, he did hit on an interesting point that I believe has strong merit. Namely, that while there do not seem to be many guns at all in Northampton Co. amongst the fairly poor citizenry during the 1750s, nor much call for gunsmith work among them either, the violent events of the early 1760s seem to be a catalyst that initiated a somewhat sudden ramp-up of demand and fulfillment. CS is established, not merely Albrecht but he even gets an apprentice. Johannes Moll moves over to Allentown from Berks Co, and there is some circumstantial evidence that Neihardt may have jumped into gun work in the 1760s as well. Interesting period.
With regards to the indian panic, I bet that started shortly after Braddocks defeat in 1755. The barracks in Trenton were built then as a response and that was also the time when NJ and NY made large purchases of British commercial muskets. If southern NY and western NJ felt threatened, I suspect folks in eastern PA were panicking.
I see. I was thinking (again, with no knowledge of styles) that Beck arrives in 1761/62, when Oerter is beginning his apprenticeship, and IF there was a stylistic similarity (closer, in any case, than Albrecht's style), THEN that might be good evidence that Beck DID do some work or had some influence at Christiansbrunn, even if we don't know from any other "source" that Beck was there.
Hi Eric and Scott,
I semi-retired from a 30-year career as a research scientist and our bread and butter is independent replication of results when at all possible (there are times when that is not possible) and review of results by our knowledgeable peers. That process, which acknowledges human error and biases among scientists, can at times be brutal and sometimes deservedly and other times undeservedly humiliating, requiring a thick skin and a strong stomach. Other disciplines like history have somewhat similar processes though usually less robust and more subjective. The problem with scholarly debate on forums such as this is that many folks are unfamiliar with what passes as documented evidence, and the experience to link a chain of evidence into a cohesive hypothesis of events. You are not born with that skill set. You acquire it through education and experience. Add the fact that short posts on the forum often do not accurately convey the author's intent (just like e-mail and TWITTER), and you have a formula for acrimony. So what is the solution? Well, I believe the solution is partly what you have already done, presented documented evidence and information. As long as your comments are not personal attacks this forum has no problem with disagreement and if folks have a hard time with that they need to ask themselves, can I respond with evidence and logic or am I just mad? If the latter, and you cannot respond with evidence and logic, don't respond because you have little to add. Those folks who have a lot of information and expertise, you need to understand that not everything you write is clear to those who do not have your understanding and experience and so I believe you need to be mentors more than authorities or advocates. Do any of you remember the play and movie "Harvey"? In one scene, Elwood P. Dowd, the center of the story, says his grandmother always told him that to survive in this world you had to oh so smart, or oh so pleasant. He said he tried smart but he recommends pleasant.
Mike, I agree with you and it begs the question of whether private collections motivated by monetary value enhance or hinder historical progress.
dave
I had 30+ years experience in peer review in science, as author, reviewer, and journal editor, and as grant writer and reviewer and study section leader. Peer review is dependent on a system where papers can only be published in peer-reviewed journals. We don’t have peer reviewed journals publishing articles on original early American firearms. And writers who are first collectors or builders, unless they have been trained in putting together scholarly manuscripts which will be subject to peer review, seldom have any perspective that their arguments and conclusions need to be rigorously supported by documentation, and posited as hypotheses with varying degrees of confidence, when evidence is largely circumstantial. A string of probabilities requires the squirrel to choose the “right” branch each time to end up on a particular limb.
So I’m not surprised when attributions fulfill someone’s “most exciting possible outcome” scenario, if they don’t have an academic background in research. However, once in print, what should be hypotheses become “fact” to many people.
....And Albrecht's Lititz rifle (we assume Lititz) also looks nothing like Oerter's work, so there we have another outlier if comparing to Oerter; if it was not signed, would ANYONE point to that gun and believe it was made by Albrecht?
Could a highly trained European gunsmith of the era produce a custom gun based on an Indian customer's stated desires that differs quite a bit from his later work?
CAN a buttplate like #19, with a flat toe and given the overall height, be swaged out of a typical shorter French round-toe fusillade buttplate? I have my doubts but admittedly I've not tried it
Bob L would be able to supply more specifics but gun mounts were being sold in Philadelphia by the 1750s and I believe there are Moravian ledger entries indicating that Bethlehem was purchasing furnishings.
Hi,
Folks might want to read the description of the Shawnee seal in the link below. Read the whole thing.
https://www.estoo-nsn.gov/culture/the-tribal-seal/
dave
Scott, it’s natural to think it likely that if a motif was specifically requested to be engraved on an item for a customer, it would need to be in a form that they would find it pleasing or at least recognizable.
Regardless of when the current panther representation was chosen by the Shawnee for their emblem, it would not be surprising if it had been in use for centuries.
The acorn finial is a recent restoration, the original finial was probably more continental, the sceptic in my wonders if this isn't when the panther was added..... ;) Why would anyone with even a remote understanding of early rifles put an acorn finial on this trigger guard? ::)I'd like to retract part of my previous post. I have now actually looked at the gun again in RCA I instead of depended on my feeble memory. Mainly to clarify that the figure on the buttplate WAS purposefully engraved around the screw. It seems to be done in an "Colonial American style" and doesn't have the sophistication of European engraving. The dude has really funky arms and a stick gun. The head piece, what ever it is is interesting. To me it looks like it may be one of those funky "Liberty Caps" you see on Lehigh guns. I still believe this buttplate may be a reused and modified French fusil detrait buttplate.
I have always suspected the buttplate was French as well, although I think I was poo-pooed on that idea...I don't recall why. The screw seems to pierce the engraved figure, not likely done unless it's a reused trigger guard from an old French trade gun. I haven't looked at #19 in RCA I lately, but doesn't the figure seem to be wearing a helmet? ....could be another gun I'm thinking of.
all of the above is irrelevant I guess and doesn't help connect the gun to Albrecht.
To me the first important way towards understanding if this was possibly owned by Paxinos, which would be very hard to prove regardless, would be to see if you can even confirm that a Panther was a symbol he used. Paxinos was born in the Minisink/Munsee division of the Delaware not Shawnee, but his group later integrated with the later and historical sources do list him as a Shawnee chief.
I'm not very well informed on Shawnee history outside of the war of 1812 era, but my understanding was the Panther that is currently part of the Eastern Shawnee emblem is representative of Tecumseh (one of the translations of his name is "Panther Across The Sky"). Tecumseh's father was a lower level Shawnee war chief from the Panther clan. Even if this was a symbol Paxinos used, that certainly does not prove it was his gun as it could have been owned by any member of a the Panther clan, another Native American group who used the symbol, another individual whose name meant some variety of Panther, etc.
(http://preview.ibb.co/fkP4xG/7_F71_EEC0_38_AF_46_AD_AEA7_844681_BD4_F06.jpg) (http://ibb.co/dLWTPw)
Saw this online today: a panther mold made in the Moravian community of Salem, NC, sometime between 1786-1833.
Reviving and adding to this lengthy discussion. As some of you may be aware, the most recent owner of the RCA 19 "sister rifle", Ernie Cowan, passed away recently. Being the owner of one of his five bench copies and having started this topic late last year after having picked it from him, I feel it's time to post a few photos of the original. Ernie said I could do what I wished with the photos but being well aware of the controversy and out of respect I didn't feel it was proper at the time to post the photos to the general public. Maybe I'm being callous by doing this now but being a career historian/archaeologist I also feel strongly that this rifle should be made available for closer study. Unfortunately, I have no idea what is to become of it, but hopefully these few photos will provide just a little more information and lead to some additional opinions and conclusions. Sorry for the mediocre photos. They were taken in Ernie's shop in poor lighting conditions...and I'm not much of a photographer.
(https://preview.ibb.co/iPJtOU/19_Sister1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kTkJq9)
(https://preview.ibb.co/ffmf3U/19_Sister2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gCMDOU)
(https://preview.ibb.co/eBDhHp/19_Sister3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/i3hbcp)
(https://preview.ibb.co/i8AJq9/19_Sister4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fZr2Hp)
(https://preview.ibb.co/dwWDOU/19_Sister5.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mvvwcp)
(https://preview.ibb.co/dVTGcp/19_Sister6.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jnqjV9)
You’ve done us all a great service making this gun available for study. It’s a very cool and still mysterious gun. So glad it’s black walnut though I partially agree that is not a conclusive feature for it being colonial-stocked. Let’s just say that European walnut is much more common on European stocked guns than American black walnut and vice versa.
I’ve thought about this gun a great deal and built a copy before castings were available. For me the strongest evidence that it may not have been stocked by Albrecht is the construction of the box cavity being so different from other Albrecht-attributed and other Christians Spring rifles. I still consider “19” to be a solid 1750s to 1760s colonial rifle. Which is very exciting to me.
Asking for a simple clarification: in the pictures above are we looking at 19 and sister or 19 and a contemporary copy of 19?
RCA 19 was on public display in 2016 at the Knoxville show in April. I was very interested in the rifle and was allowed the opportunity to hold it and even photograph it. First time I ever saw the inside of the patchbox cavity. I assume your father was there and was a most gracious man to allow a complete stranger to hold and examine what I consider to be a national treasure. A real thrill for me. Tim
I'm a bit unclear on something: above, it's stated that the 'wood had been tested.' I'm not clear as to whether that statement applies to #19, or the short sister rifle? I believe George Shumway mentioned that the wood on #19 had been tested when it was first published in RCA. I am still unclear as to whether the wood of the short rifle has been tested. #19 clearly (to my eye) looks like American walnut. The short rifle, on the other hand, I personally could not say. So I'd be very interested to know if that has indeed been tested.
I’m not a collector, I don’t own any old rifles. So I have no bubble to burst. I was really just repeating what I have heard from others. Wouldn’t a rifle, say, attributed to Christian Oerter lose value if it were found not to be by Christian Oerter? Seems likely to me.
It was a valuable and rare early rifle long before Ernie Cowan, FYI. I don’t think an elderly Indian Chief adds all that much additional value. Many of the existing old guns have had a lot of work, and yet this gun was very well preserved. It needs no additional provenance, and I did not seek it out. Go try to find another like it.... or for that matter a more likely candidate for the Paxinosa gun. I’ll wait....
It was a valuable and rare early rifle long before Ernie Cowan, FYI. I don’t think an elderly Indian Chief adds all that much additional value. Many of the existing old guns have had a lot of work, and yet this gun was very well preserved. It needs no additional provenance, and I did not seek it out. Go try to find another like it.... or for that matter a more likely candidate for the Paxinosa gun. I’ll wait....
My candidate for the gun that Albrecht made for Paxinosa was destroyed in the eighteenth century.
I recently found at the Moravian Archives two account books that record all the transactions between the Moravian community in Bethlehem and Native peoples from September 1747 to about 1753: providing power, leather, corn, blankets, lead, etc. (The account books also record how the Native peoples paid for these goods and for services such as blacksmithing.) The smiths and, after Albrecht arrived, the stocker worked on a lot of guns for Native peoples. None of these guns, as far as we know, survive either.
Here's another question: is there engraving of animals or figures on any other Moravian-attributed or signed rifle? I know there is lots of carving on the stocks. But any other engravings such as this panther?
Moravians expected and allowed different things from what they called "wild" or "savage" Native peoples, on the one hand, and those who had converted or lived in mission sites, on the other. So I think, if Moravians engraved such things, they would have no trouble doing it for a "wild" or "savage" Indian. They expected the Moravian Indians, those who had converted, to abandon almost all Native practices. Zeisberger would not have tolerated a medicine man living in any of his mission sites, and he considered medicine men fakers and cheats. They did visit mission sites, however, as did many non-converted Indians. And when missionaries went to "wild" Indian villages for council meetings they would, like good guests, accommodate themselves, and they also learned herbal remedies from Indians. But basically they had almost no tolerance for Native practices and authorities issued directives about eradicating most of them. Moravians learned, over time, that they would have to be more flexible about this.
What? Are we talking earlier PA Moravian here or later NC, i.e Voglers etc.
This sounds extremely interesting. Who signed it?
Oy vey. Alright, I don't think I can add anything productive to this anymore. So I will try to make this my last post on this particular topic.
I was honestly asking about the engraving. I didn't know.
But you really need to learn more about some of this stuff before weighing in on it--if you think Papunhunk was a "medicine man" of the sort I was talking about (or that Zeisberger repeatedly denounced) or that Moravians were "pretty open" about accepting Native practices or beliefs. When you were there, did you read the "rules" at Schoenbrunn that every convert had to accept--including taking "no part in heathenish festivals" or "witchcraft"? See, you don't need to "guess" about this stuff. There's been lots and lots written by smart people who have done research.
Back to Bob's point that Kliest would have been unusual among Moravian diarists in being intimately familiar with differential terms for gun, rifle, etc., here is his term for William Henry of Lancaster (who appears in the next entry, for April 20):
(https://image.ibb.co/iayiQf/001-Shamokin-D-20-April-1754.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Büchsenmacher. Should we say "riflemaker" here? Or "gunmaker"? Presumably not "gunsmith" and definitely not "gunstocker."
I hope I'm not dropping anything unpleasant into the punch bowl, but how would you view RCA 19, or should I say, where,when,and for whom do you view this piece.....Just curious....
I honestly don't know what you mean. I don't think any of the recent posts are trying to undermine the association of the gun with Paxinosa. (The thing about William Henry isn't even on topic--it isn't meant to have anything to do with the debate.)
The diary entry states that Kliest and Albrecht repaired a rifle for a Shawnee chief in 1752. That's what it says. So, yes, Kliest would have seen the rifle, unless they are talking about two different rifles--i.e., Albrecht stocked one and Kliest repaired another.
But I really don't get what "stretching" means here. I mean, this diary IS the evidence that Albrecht stocked a rifle for a Shawnee. If that Shawnee is Paxinosa, it's the best evidence for your belief! I think you're getting paranoid!
John, I have not heard you adress any specific concerns about the attribution of this gun to Albrecht other than ad hominem responses such as “you’re not collectors”, “you find the rifle if this isn’t the one”, “you and your kind are always trying to disprove”, and other responses that address none of the following:
1) The furniture on RCA 19 and the sister gun is not seen on any other signed Moravian guns or those strongly attributed to Moravian gunsmiths. In contrast, other Moravian guns share common furniture elements.
2) The carving on 19 and the sister rifle does not resemble the carving on any Albrecht gun or other Moravian attributed gun. In contrast, other signed and strongly attributed Moravian guns share carving style.
3) the patchbox cavity construction is entirely different from any Abrecht or any other Moravian-attributed gun and has no progeny in later Pennsylvania guns.
4) The engraving subjects and style do not resemble engraving on any Albrecht or Moravian-attributed guns.
The only possible response I could imagine is “it is a one-off gun”. If that is the case, anyone could have made it.
Can you share your views on concerns 1-4 above substantially?
I will leave the Paxinosa association to Bob and Scott - they know far more about the archival material in question than I. Also, my personal interest in both 19 and the shorty is not for whom either may have been made, but whether or not Albrecht made them. The tricky thing here is that the two separate issues are somewhat intertwined, because my thoughts for what they are worth:
(1) I do not doubt in any way that the two pieces were made *at the least* in the same shop, and very likely stocked by the same man.
(2) If it can be somehow proven that 19 is the gun mentioned in the documented diary entry, well then there really should be no doubt it was made by Albrecht. If this is so, as I stated previously and as Rich has stated, it sure raises a number of interesting questions about other assumed Albrecht or Moravian-attributed rifles.
(3) I personally have no qualms whatsoever about dating either rifle as early as the 1750s, or as late as the 1770s. In other words, there is nothing I see that could preclude 19 being early enough to fit the bill for the diary rifle. The lock looks reconverted with a siler cock and frizzen but the plate and shaping of the lock sure looks early enough also.
(4) As noted, nothing about either piece looks anything like any of the other assumed Moravian rifles. Of course Oerter's dated rifles are 1770s so they are much later, and rifles such as Marshall's rifle or the Lion/Lamb which seem earlier may at the same time be perhaps 1760s, so even they may be at the least 10 years later. Things can change - suppliers, style etc. Bob has illustrated that they were purchasing parts and furnishings: can not the style of the furnishings dictate somewhat of the style?
I do not see either of these rifles as in any way similar to Albrecht's lone signed much later rifle. That rifle looks very classic early Lancaster-ish or Dickert-ish. These rifles almost seem to have a whiff of a French twist in the style of the stock shaping, despite being very German. Other than a lack of a stepped wrist, I do not see any comparison between the assumed-Lititz rifle and these two earlier rifles.
In regard to the box cavity - that is of course a very German way of cutting a box mortice, and an early method. Possibly it became passe as time passed? I don't have an answer for that. There are other little things that don't quite mesh with what I see upon the other attributed Moravian guns, the manner in which the lock 'beavertails' are designed jumping out somewhat. Again, however, perhaps things changed over time, or perhaps guns such as the Marshall gun and Lion/Lamb were actually made by Oerter. I think the Lion/Lamb is an Oerter rifle anyway.
It is certainly very possible that both rifles are Albrecht pieces of the 1750s. Unfortunately, much more work needs to be done in attempts to definitively determine if there is in fact a signature on the shorty, and if it is Albrecht's. If they are Albrecht work of the 1750s, it's possible they may be the only two pieces of his that have survived other than the later gun assumed to have been made at Lititz. Many questions there.
There are a good many early rifles that will never be satisfactorily attributed. I’m guessing there are dozens of gunsmiths who worked in Pennsylvania alone in the 1750s and 1760s with no rifles that can be attributed to them by consensus. And new things pop up from time to time, like the Leyendecker patchbox, that identify a maker previously unknown. It is frustrating but given most early rifles are not signed, it seems we will always be guessing and debating who made certain exciting early rifles.
John it's really wonderful of you to be so willing to allow people to view and/or handle the piece, as well as to be so willing to share photography (which I think is quite good!). Just saying - thanks.
Turning back to the short "sister rifle:" does anyone know what now is to become of it after Ernie's passing? It's incredibly important to this entire discussion, not to mention it's a spectacular example of a very early apparently-American piece in its own right. There was some discussion in another thread about methods forensics labs might use to determine faint or barely legible markings, such as a series of photos with varying light angles which are then essentially photoshopped together in layers. I think that could be a very useful, non-destructive technique which might shed more light no pun intended on the signature.
John, you mentioned somewhere above that you have a signed Moravian rifle with an engraved snake and bird of prey. Can you share photos of it--or at least mention which Moravian gunmaker signed it?
I missed the tongue in cheek part. Sorry. I was going to reply when you made that announcement by asking whether the rifle was signed by an eighteenth-century Moravian or a twenty-first century one--and that I could find any number of twenty-first century Moravians willing to sign anything you like--but I thought that would have been taking things a bit far. I guess not!
But I guess the fact that you were joking leaves the question wide open: are there other early Moravian rifles with engravings (not carvings) of animals?
Testimonials are embarrassing under any circumstances...
BTW Scott and others, I only posted what I did because I've found over time spent researching and working upon these old pieces that often a 'story' and a particular piece seem to become inseparable, and frankly more often than not the story turns out to be inaccurate when exposed or otherwise challenged with documentable information. People can get quite huffy about this - I'm not accusing anyone of anything here, just making a general statement based upon my experience. I don't feel that any particular piece somehow needs a 'backstory' in order to remain relevant, and I don't understand how seeking verifiable information can be taken to be an attack on any given artifact itself. These antiques pretty much can stand on their own.
where I gave any opinion about the “merit” or quality of any gun.
You think Paxinosa was at Great Island? Or that Mr. Cowan got the name of the Island correct and it was where Paxinosa lived?
Normally the moderators would want to edit out or shut down a topic where there are personal attacks and there is some of that here. Though there is no escalation or woundedness at play, it is still very distasteful to see ad hominem responses to logical arguments.
I think at this point, it is clear that hard evidence and reasoning are powerful to some, and an exciting story is powerful to others, and there is no crossing over. So if possible, perhaps we could stop trying to convince the most interested, firmly convinced parties directly (I will have to discipline myself) and continue discussion for the benefit of the room. That may help keep the topic going at a lower temperature.
John,
If you are indeed coming to the Virginia - Kentucky show at Front Royal please bring the rifle along. You can place it on the Kentucky Rifle Foundation's table for safe keeping and displaying while you enjoy the show. Just a thought.
VP
(http://preview.ibb.co/fbLEV6/AB1.jpg) (http://ibb.co/bW98q6)
(http://preview.ibb.co/gSgciR/AB2.jpg) (http://ibb.co/fmN6cm)