Disparity between horn and gun decoration

[rich pierce]

There is another topic here on the symbolism of the decorative elements such as carving and inlays on 18th century rifles.  We see a lot of crossover from period furniture to rifle carving in the c scrolls and floral forms found on both.  Yet the scrimmed decorations on powder horns seldom bring to mind anything we see on rifles made at the same time in the same places.  Why is that?  Consider that a man with a powder horn might very well have a rifle with carving or inlays.  Now he sits down to scratch on his horn.  What will he put on it besides text?  Seldom will we see baroque or rococo designs executed in ways that occur on contemporaneous guns, or other symbols which may have once or at that time had deeper meanings.

One working hypothesis is that the different trades had developed their own styles.  Certain decorative motifs were expected on guns, and others on power horns.  If we follow this further, it suggests that the symbols found on each sort of material goods were larger decorative. If they had deep meaning, why not apply them in different places?

I am also curious about the scarcity of clear religious symbols on guns and horns from the period.  For example, a cross is not a mystery and has for millennia represented Jesus.  So has his name, in different languages.  It's rare to see either of these on period guns or horns, even though the French Catholics were happy to wear crosses as necklaces.  Clearly to them, the form of the cross on their necks had meaning, and they weren't making anyone guess about it.  Why would it be  necessary or expedient to have hidden symbolism instead of outright, recognizable motifs that were unambiguous?

Sorry this is not a concise thesis, but more a jumbled presentation of things that don't make sense to me.

[Avlrc]

  Why would it be  necessary or expedient to have hidden symbolism instead of outright, recognizable motifs that were unambiguous?

That is a good question.

[JTR]

Maybe when the guns were made 200/250 years ago, the symbols weren't considered hidden or ambiguous. Just look that way now, through modern eyes?

The seeming disparity between carving on rifles and horns, hmmm, through modern eyes and easy to understand; When a guy is driving his Ferrari, he doesn't feel the need to wear a Ferrari branded tee-shirt as well. 

John

[Artificer]

One might think more religious symbols might show up on powder horns because IF a spark got in them and the powder inside ignited, they would have done real damage to the person wearing it.  There is some evidence of crosses scratched on wooden powder “bottles” in the bandoleers used with matchlocks for that reason, but the very limited practice does not seem to have followed on powder horns.

The question arises what percentage of powder horns in the period had any scrimshanded decorations at all, let alone the fancier/fanciest ones, especially in the 18th century?   The “High Art” horns were safeguarded well past their time of any actual use due to their Artistic and/or Historic Merit, but what about average horns or especially the horns of the frontiersmen?   Is it too much to say that the fancier horns were usually only owned by the wealthy unless the person could do the scrimshanding himself or it was a special gift?  

Powder Horns could be broken more easily than guns and unlike guns that were repaired and restocked, weren’t powder horns normally “recycled” for other uses or thrown away?  This might suggest why many were never engraved or had little engraving on them or even made later than engraving on horns was thought useful for whatever reason?

I believe the probable answer is the different CULTURAL differences of those who made horns imported into the country primarily from Great Britain and some done here compared to the culture of those who made the Long Rifle who were most often Germanic Settlers or taught by those who were.  Symbolism was more common then in Pennsylvania Deutsch Culture than English Culture.  

Perhaps the ultimate expression of Religion in firearms in the English Culture during the period was in the 1718 Puckle reapeating/cylinder flintlock gun where it supposedly states in the patent section on how to use the gun that one cylinder was supplied for round balls to be used against Christians while the cylinder firing square bullets were to be used against the Turks.  The funny thing is they well knew round balls flew more accurately by that time period than square bullets.  So if you want to ensure you HIT an enemy, you don’t use square bullets.
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-puckle-gun.html

Gus

[Artificer]

  Why would it be  necessary or expedient to have hidden symbolism instead of outright, recognizable motifs that were unambiguous?

That is a good question.

One huge example in our time period would be a horn marked with Masonic symbols that almost no one who was not a Mason would recognize.  Thus, if he were injured to the point he could not make himself known to other Masons, the symbols would give them a pretty safe bet he was.

Gus

[Longshot]

Seems to me, the obscurity of image/symbol might rise most simply from the perspective and self-expression of the craftsman, particularly in respect to those executed by the individual [user].  The more obvious symbolic images [religious, ethnic, cultural, etc.] are likely identity, and perhaps separatist, driven; such as with a fraternity handshake or coded tattoo.

[Artificer]

I an NO expert on original powder horns.  Just found this link in which the author states reasons Riflemen’s horns were usually not scrimshanded, Including but not limited to:

1. Riflemen did not have the idle time to engrave their horns.

2.  Fear of reprisals against their families.  (I assume he means during the Revolution.)

3.   These horns were scraped thinner to be translucent so the owner could visually check the amount of powder remaining in the horn.  Thus they were very concerned that engraving or scrimshanding the horn would seriously weaken the horn.

The Author also mentions filling horns in both civilian and military use and I found that interesting.

PDF] EARLY AMERICAN ENGRAVED POWDER HORNS by Crosby ... americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/wp.../03/B012_Milliman.pdf


I realize this is a pretty old article and wondered how accurate the information may still be?
Gus

PS  My apology.  It seems I am not computer literate enough to post the PDF link so it will take one directly to the article.  Perhaps someone else knows how to do it?
Gus  

[tuffy]

I'm a firm believer in the old adage of KISS. You know, "Keep It Simple Stupid". Why does everything have to have deep running meanings or religious beliefs? Didn't you, as a kid, ever see a sign or symbol that just stuck with you? Something that you never did get out of your head even to this day? I know when I'm sitting around doodling, I often catch myself sketching out something from the past. Something that stuck with me all these years and has absolutely no meaning at all. Why would our forefathers have been any different? I'm not saying that all of the symbols were of that category, but I'm also quite sure that many of them were.

            CW

[DaveP (UK)]

We see a lot of crossover from period furniture to rifle carving in the c scrolls and floral forms found on both.  Yet the scrimmed decorations on powder horns seldom bring to mind anything we see on rifles made at the same time in the same places.  Why is that?  Consider that a man with a powder horn might very well have a rifle with carving or inlays.  Now he sits down to scratch on his horn.  What will he put on it besides text?  Seldom will we see baroque or rococo designs executed in ways that occur on contemporaneous guns, or other symbols which may have once or at that time had deeper meanings.

Just felt inclined to offer my twopenn'orth

I think you are simply looking at  differences between the products of trained craftsmen and the result of everyday folk trying to personalise their possessions, record their experiences, or simply pass the time away when kept home by bad weather.
The transfer of motifs from architecture and furniture to gun making seems quite predictable. Acanthus leaves, C scrolls etc. would have reached America quite early on, as part of the repertoire of carpenters, cabinet makers and even gun makers as well as on imported furniture. They would soon be seen on better quality items of local manufacture. Decoration doesn't make a gun work better, but as a gun maker, if you thought that some carving would make your guns appear to be a better quality you wouldn't hesitate. You would use the latest style and would certainly be able to provide yourself with any additional tools required.
I would hazard a guess that for most people, carvings on guns would be the only place they would encounter these designs. Few would be gazing across the street at ornate buildings or be invited in to admire chairs from the old country. Rococo simply would not be a big part of the visual world.
Think now about an ordinary chap with a nice new powder horn and some time on his hands. I suppose the first impulse of most people would be to inscribe their name. If that goes well, what next? Not crosses - the widespread use of religious symbols had pretty much disappeared with the medieval era. Certainly in 18th century England at least, too many crosses about your house or person could be seen as a bit suspicious - there were still a number of privileges denied to Catholics. Not Acanthus leaves - not a familiar sight, rather hard to draw (as I've been discovering) and I don't think they work well as a simple line drawing anyhow.
I haven't seen many powder horns, but I have seen collections of scrimshaw done by sailors, also unsophisticated men with time to fill. They seem to go for scenes from naval life - ships, diagrams of sea battles, little maps, names, dates and simple decorative bands. Things they had probably seen for themselves. I'd expect a man with a powder horn to do likewise. Some would discover a talent and go on to produce more elaborate work. Some would simply have more to say. Either way I would expect their work to be quite distinct from professional work. The inspiration is different and the idea of having everything match is still in the future.

[spgordon]

IWhy does everything have to have deep running meanings or religious beliefs?

I haven't heard anybody saying that "everything" has religious symbolism. But it isn't any more likely that "nothing" does. It would certainly be easier to know what to think if one of these absolutist positions were the case. But they aren't. So that just leaves us with messy ambiguity. It's hard to say in any given case whether a motif or design is "merely" decoration or had more substantial meaning for the maker or the customer. That's not as satisfying as knowing but that's just the way it is. So we're left to make the best or most persuasive argument we can based on the different kinds of evidence we can muster.

[Majorjoel]

My opinion on this subject has to do with the abilities of the craftsmen themselves. A gunsmith took years as an apprentice to become efficient at the styles and designs of his masters teachings.  A horn maker more than likely would have been self taught. A few known horn makers had obvious higher skills, but nothing compared to a trained and experienced gunsmith.      " A person who works with his hands is a laborer. A person who works with his hands and mind is a craftsman. A person who works with his hands, his mind, and his heart is an artist."

[Elnathan]

 If that goes well, what next? Not crosses - the widespread use of religious symbols had pretty much disappeared with the medieval era. Certainly in 18th century England at least, too many crosses about your house or person could be seen as a bit suspicious - there were still a number of privileges denied to Catholics.

Just to add to this, it seems like a lot of the surviving decorated horns came from New England, and Puritans tended to shy away from religious imagery as a rule - I think that they were very much a culture of language, not images, at least when it came to religion. I suspect that most of the other varieties of Protestant, apart from the Anglicans, were the same way - one of the key tenets of Protestantism is the primacy of the written word. So, there may simply not have been much impetus to place religious imagery on horns, nor was there much of a body of imagery to call upon if they did want to do so, at least among English-speaking colonists.

Germans may have been different in this regard.

[rich pierce]

Well, I'll bring up the early rifle that to me best exemplifies a style of carving that might be very much at home on a horn.  It is what I call the Ugly Birds Head Patchbox rifle.  In Rifles of Colonial America it is in volume 2 and is number 84.  In Kindig's Golden Age book it is number 10. The patchbox is secondary work; ignore it.  I've heard the rifle is under restoration by the current owner.  Anyway the carving is a vine-y style similar to that found on many horns of the 1750s to 1780s.