Martin Meylin's Mysterious Rifle

[scooter]

First I don't think anyone argues that the known signed Mylin gun is a real PA KY rifle. Merely shows he was a gunsmith who made guns. 1st book on Lancaster Co was done by mortician Sam Dyke who [mostly his wife] did Kindig's research. Dyke argued Mylin never made guns and that he had tools of trade only because he took his son-in-law's tools as a security for a debt. The late Richard Headley put stop to that nonsense. That Mylin gun is interesting only for historical reasons.

[Mike R]

As stated in different terms, historians worthy of identifying as such, attempt to build cases for their hypotheses that would stand up in a court of law as more than circumstantial.  While scientific controls are rarely able to be applied in historical literature, there is an understanding and respect for this type of thinking ,too, and primary historical positions cannot fly in the face of it.

Unless there is a true evidentiary chain, unbroken and untainted, replete with verified documentation, then any attempt to associate an antique to a specific historical figure is of no more value than jousting at windmills.  

It does not surprise me that people easily fall into the trap of setting out to "prove" something and ending up doing just that, at least in their own minds.  What amazes me is how susceptible many others are to jumping on the bandwagon, beating drums, and doing a communal dance.  It might be good for business, but it neither pushes back the boundaries of human ignorance, nor adds to verifiable knowledge.  Consumers of information need to be able to discern between education based upon supportable arguments, and  smooth-sounding but baseless vacuity.  So should any organization that professes to promote education as a basic goal.



  

There are parallels in geology--part of which is an historical science--but asking for an unbroken chain of evidence/documentation is asking for alot.  Geologists have developed techniques for handling problems of missing evidence/holes in the evidence/etc; however some  questions are not answerable.  One should start from FACTS [in our case something like a period document, say an inventory from the gunshop, or a nonfaked signed gun]. All INFERENCES should be based on facts.  CONCLUSIONS should be based on facts and inferences related to the facts presented.  No facts, then no valid conclusions--note that the premise may indeed be true, just unproven.  Often in history [and geology] even well considered conclusions based on some facts are actually false -the missing data or faulty inferences being at work...it is a tricky business that calls for constant self criticism of ideas/models and concepts.

[jwh1947]

Scooter, I do not wish to belittle your statements, but I could not disagree moreso with your first sentence, which includes the words "known Mylin.."  I repeat, nothing is known for certain about this specific piece.  Not even the people at LCHS would endorse the story.  MM/WW does not make it a "known Mylin" anything.  As for Sam Dyke, he was no oracle, and he would have agreed; yet, he did a lot to shed light on details we did not previously have.  Back to your argument.  Mr. Headley was a decent man, too, but he didn't put a stop to anything and I, for one, don't see Sam's "argument" as nonsense.  Just my opinion, and you are welcome to yours. 

[JTR]

Hmmm, nice revival of an old subject!
I'm going to warm up my popcorn

Also, Hi Jim, and welcome to the forum.

John

[Lance Martin]

I grew up in Willow Street, less than a mile from the Martin Meylin gun shop, and used to help mow the grass while still quite young.  My late father painted a picture as I played in front of the shop.  I'm also a descendant of David Martin of Switzerland, 1727.  The photo in the corner is of my late parents dressed in costumes for fun.