RCA 19 "Sister" Rifle

[Eric Kettenburg]

A relationship between it (shorty) and #19 seems fairly certain.  This being said, I still would love to see the wood tested for origin to understand if a determination could be made.

[rich pierce]

It wood be amazingly cool if one was made in Europe and the other here. 

[JohnHBryan]

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.

I used to have an account on here, and after seeing this, I tried to chime in, but apparently my account had been deleted.  Thankfully registration was pretty quickly. 

Just to set the record straight, Ernie Cowan was never the owner of RCA 19.  It was purchased years ago by my father and I have it here with me at this moment.  Ernie sought me out when he found the "sister" rifle.  The RCA 19 gun was hanging on my wall.  He asked us to lend it to him for a couple of years based on showing us the original sister rifle.  We agreed.  When he finished his research, he unveiled it to us, just like anyone else who saw it.  With the exception that I visited him during the process when both guns were apart.  I examined them together in his workshop, and saw for myself the interchangeability of locks, etc.  I could vaguely see the Albrecht signature, or at least some portions of it, on the sister rifle.  When matched with the original Albrecht handmade lock, which we also own, it did look to be the same signature, to my recollection.

We had always wondered what the engraving on the butt plate meant.  The Piqua sept origin story actually fit the engraving very closely, and made sense when coupled with the old German Moravian records about the "Big Shawanoe" ordering a gun.  It made sense that it would have had a smooth bore, octagon to round barrel, and some French features.  Then the panther engraving.  I'm not sure if there's evidence of that being the Shawnee symbol in the mid 18th century, but certainly the panther was a symbol closely tied with many Native Americans.

The wood has been tested and was found to be American Black Walnut.  I don't really care either way.  To tell you the truth, my father was kind of bummed to hear the whole Paxinosa thing, because he didn't want it to be an Indian gun necessarily.  When my father bought the gun years ago, Shumway himself told my father that he thought there was an Indian connection to the gun.  But my father always had other ideas.

We don't care either way, and have nothing to gain, because the gun is not for sale, and will never be for sale, at least as long as can be helped.  Whatever the story to the gun is, I sure would like to hear it.  I would be interested in further research to validate Ernie's theories. It certainly seems to be a lot of strong circumstantial evidence to me. Much, much more than you have in most attributions.  But again, I haven't even read through Ernie's materials.  This gun has never been hidden away in a vault.  I have made it available to many people.  I don't recall that anyone has asked who has not been able to see it.

[spgordon]

Thanks so much for this post. I think the info about the wood having been tested (and the result) is particularly interesting, as it is something that folks had been asking about earlier in this thread.

I hope you will read Mr. Cowan's pamphlet and also the complete thread above--and I, at least, would be interested to know your thoughts after doing so. In my opinion (expressed at length and in detail above), Mr. Cowan's publication is terribly misleading, because of its misunderstanding of the Moravian economy (which leads to bizarre claims about the significance or not of signatures) and because he misidentified Paxinosa (who had no connection with panthers: that was a different man).

I would love further discussion about these rifles, since the back and forth of discussion is the only way to eventually arrive at some valid understanding about their story, as you say. But we cannot start over. We have Mr. Cowan's argument and a series of concerns about it that have so far gone unaddressed.

Hoping to hear more.

[rich pierce]

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?

[JohnHBryan]

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?

The pics above someone posted appear to be the original sister rifle and a copy.  19 is not represented in those photos.  The photo I posted in my post shows the trigger guard of the original 19.  That's the only thing I had handy. 

I do have complete photos of the original no. 19 and the original sister rifle side-by-side that we took.

I didn't know that Ernie had passed.  That's too bad.  I really liked him.  Part of his first pitch to us to get us to give him the 19 for a couple of years, which is kind of asking a lot, was to bring his repro of the Ferguson rifle, and the Jeridoni (sp?) air rifle and let us shoot it inside my office.  He also brought the sister rifle, and compared them right in front of me for the first time.  I still have the smashed lead balls sitting here in my office.  That afternoon was not at all what I expected when he asked to meet with me.

I'm not sure what has happened to that sister rifle.  I know that a small fortune was invested in it.  I recall hearing Ernie say that he would take it to the grave with him.  I hope that's not the case.  Ernie was a passionate man though, so who knows.  We do have the first right of refusal on that gun, supposedly, because it would be nice to keep the guns together.  But again, apparently a very large amount was paid for it to get it from Missouri, or wherever he found it.

When both rifles were apart, the lock out of the sister rifle fit perfectly in the no. 19 rifle, which was pretty neat.

[sqrldog]

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

[JohnHBryan]

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

Yeah that must have been my father.  You'll know if you meet him.  He's never met a stranger.  Or an antique he didn't want to buy.

[Eric Kettenburg]

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.

[JohnHBryan]

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 was referring to RCA 19. No idea about the other one.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Thanks!

[JohnHBryan]

Another pic I recently took.  I had planned to film a video of the gun, as well as others, since it's just so difficult to photograph longrifles without getting complicated.  This will be posted to my facebook group.  Anyone is welcome to join.  It's called "Frontier Artifacts and History."  I post a large variety of things there that are of interest to me.  I don't claim to be an expert on anything, but i'm interested in a lot, and I love the 18th century time period.  I would also be happy to bring the gun to the next CLA show.  Unfortunately I missed this years.  Or if there's another small show somewhere in between, I'd love to be able to make it.  I already checked the Cumberland show.  Unfortunately I have a jury trial in federal court currently scheduled for then. 

[B.Barker]

I used to see a guy at the Eastern Woodland Indian conference that Alan Gutches used to do. His name is Mark Tradue or something like that I think. Any how he found an old day book for one of the Moravian gun shops in the Moravian archives. It had in it that they had importing wood from Europe. It may have been a one time thing or maybe Albrect brought some wood with him. It was ten or twelve years back when he was talking about it and my memory aint what it used to be.  Alan may have a copy of the page with the entry, I know he was very interested in it. I think the Moravian archives is in Bethlehem PA.








   

[rich pierce]

For me, the patchbox cavity construction on RCA 19 and the sister rifle argues very strongly against an Albrecht association.  Many experts on early longrifles make much of construction details; even position of underlugs. No commonly-attributed Moravian gun with a wooden box has a rounded patchbox cavity that is rounded and extends to the buttplate.  It is really hard to explain why that construction detail does not persist, if 19 was made by Albrecht.  The lack of architectural continuity and carving design continuity are also hard to explain.  It all hangs on the interpretation of the panther, and not much else.  It’s an intriguing hypothesis but not enough for an attribution.  The argument surmises that there was never another gun, made by Albrecht for Paxinosa, that may have had some special decoration, and like most early rifles, was lost to time.

[spgordon]

The Paxinosa and Panther attribution rests on a mistake. (This is repeated from earlier in this long thread.)

The pamphlet about these two rifles declares "The Panther was Paxinosa's totem." There is no source for this and I have not found anything to confirm this. This is one of many assertions in the pamphlet that are invented or, at best, misconstrued from something.

People often confuse Paxinosa with Puckeshinwa, whose son was the famous Tecumseh (whose name means "Panther across the Sky"). It is this other Shawnee family that is associated with the panther.

The Shawnees had 12 clans, only one of which had the panther as its totem. Was Paxinosa part of this clan? No evidence suggests so.

Not surprising that twentieth-century Shawnees would emphasize the panther in their tribal logo, given that Tecumseh is the most famous Shawnee. But Paxinosa was not a twentieth-century Shawnee and there is no evidence that he used the panther as this totem or that he was part of the Shawnee clan that did.

[JohnHBryan]

Since Ernie isn’t here to defend himself, that’s not what it “rests” on. The circumstantial evidence as a whole is what it rests on. The panther with a lance may just be a panther with a lance.  A panther with a lance is not something you generally find on mid 18th century guns owned by white men.  Then the Indian holding a rifle standing in fire, and the face in the sky, and the smooth barrel and the octagon to round, as well as the French butt plate. Nobody has confused Paxinosa with Puksinwah. I’m not sure Ernie’s source for the totem claim, but I’m sure there was one. He was somewhat tight lipped about the Shawnee material because he was apparently paranoid about giving rise to a claim by an Indian nation to the gun. I have been in commission with the modern chief of the largest Shawnee tribe in an attempt to learn more.

Puksinwah got the panther leaping through the sky for his son from somewhere. It didn’t just appear in the 20th century. Tecumseh was born in 1768, only 7 years after Paxinosa ‘s death, at which time his father named him after a panther leaping.  Paxinosa was a highly respected Chief, or old king of the Shawanese, and would have certainly been known to and respected by Puksinwah.

According to the old book, COUNT ZINZENDORF AND THE MORAVIAN AND INDIAN OCCUPANCY
OF THE WYOMING VALLEY, 1742-1763. Frederick C. Johnson, M. D., Treasurer of the Society.

READ BEFORE THE WYOMING HISTORICAL AND GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY MAY I9, 1894.

“Paxinosa was, in 1754, the chief man in Wyoming. He was a Shawanese, and af-
fected loyalty to the English, but was suspected of intrigue in the French interest. He
was always well inclined to the Moravians, and had been a friend to them in several
outbreaks along the Susquehanna. His wife was a baptised convert. In 175S here-
moved to the Ohio country, where he was the last Shawanese king west of the Alle-
ghanies. His wife was the half-sister of Ben Nutimaes, and had lived with her husband
thirty-eight years, to whom she had borne eight children, "a remarkable instance of
the longevity of the marriage tie among Indians." Paxinosa said he vv'as born on the
Ohio. The Historian of Easton pronounces his one of the highest names in Indian
history, and says that while women and children were falling under the murderous
hatchet of Teedyuscung, the peaceful Delawares and Shawanese gathered around King
Paxinosa in the primeval forests of the Wyoming Valley.”

He was well documented in his ties to the Moravians. There’s no doubt they made him a rifle in 1752. There’s no doubt he was Chief of the Piqua sept and spoke on behalf of the Shawnee at many important treaties and counsels. There’s no doubt this gun is consistent with the time period; consistent with the native engravings and other attributes. I guess the better questions are, what are the chances this could NOT be the Paxinosa gun? And how many other mid 18th century Moravian guns out there have panthers, burning Indians and a spirit in the sky on them? In my business that would be called clear and convincing evidence. 100%? No of course not. Only a signature could have achieved that.

Just my .02....

[spgordon]

I said the attribution of the panther to Paxinosa rests on that mistake, which it does. I did not in this post say that the attribution of the whole gun to Paxinosa rests on that particular mistake.

Of course the Moravians had contact with Paxinosa. Nobody disputes this.

But there is no evidence whatsoever, given the mistakes and misunderstandings in the pamphlet, that this gun has anything to do with Paxinosa. Does it seem to have any connection to Albrecht? The reasoning in the pamphlet (including: he would have signed a gun that he owned!!) is very confused. Whether the gun’s architecture ties it to Albrecht others will have to assess—as Rich Pierce has done above.

You admit above that you haven’t read through Ernie’s materials. Not sure whether you mean his reasearch materials or the pamphlet itself. It is hard to discuss or assess the claims in the pamphlet if you haven’t read it. I tried to explain some of the problems in detail (much) earlier in this thread.

[spgordon]

And, to answer the other question: if the rifle has nothing to do with Paxinosa, and doesn’t seem to be Albrecht-related, I’d say there’s a very high probability that it is not the gun that Albrecht stocked for Paxinosa.

[Eric Kettenburg]

A prime factor in the underlying pushback against the theory of the RCA19/short rifle pair being attributed to Albrecht (never mind the Paxinosa theory for the moment) is that they don't look anything like any of the 'other' assumed Moravian rifles and/or Oerter's signed work.  Also, as Rich noted above relative to the box mortise form - and potentially other small details - it's not simply via a comparison of style, but issues of work methodology as well. 

If we tentatively accept this rifle (RCA19) as an Albrecht product, and by extension the short rifle (it would be hard not do so so, given the first assumption), there subsequently are more questions raised than answered in regard to the currently-accepted chain of manufacture when viewing the catalog of surviving signed and attributed Moravian arms.

Momentarily setting aside the lone signed Albrecht rifle (generally taken to have been made much later and for a completely different market), perhaps none of the other attributed rifles were actually made by him.  We have no way of knowing, after all, and to my knowledge any attribution to him is largely based upon "back-tracking" design details using Oerter's signed work as a starting point.  Perhaps this is a mistake.

[JohnHBryan]

I’m not seeking consensus.  As for the facts of this gun, what is known already is fascinating and still developing, hopefully.

major edits

[spgordon]

What are you seeking? There is no whispering or backstabbing here. It is open discussion, hopefully a back and forth, the only way to move understanding forward. Above somewhere you say that you have no dog in this fight (sorry if I got that wrong), but this latest response makes it seem as if you are interested only in confirming this story and not hearing from people who have questions about it or (in my case) believe it can be shown to be just a tall tale. But, again, I’m not whispering. I’m trying to explain my reasoning openly and others are too. I understand why collectors want to keep their stuff at home. These items are very valuable and discussions like this may result in a change in value. But if the evidence fairly considered undermines rather than supports an attribution ...what should happen? Bury the evidence and agree to recycle the tall tale?

[JohnHBryan]

You have no effect on the value. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[spgordon]

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.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Hey I hope you didn't take what I wrote as an attack.  I think we're all very grateful to you for posting the photos and your willingness to engage here in discussion.  I'm speaking in general terms in an attempt to explain - among a large community of gun builders, collectors, researchers etc. - the 'why' there is hesitancy to immediately accept the theory that Ernie put forth.  Speaking for myself personally, I think the theory is a fantastic story and of course the root of it is based upon documented fact:  yes, Albrecht did stock up a rifle for Paxinosa, there is no doubt there.  Can RCA19 be definitely proven to the "the" piece?  I don't know if that can ever be the case.  I'm much more interested in the Albrecht attribution, regardless of for whom either rifle long or short may have been made.  Now that is a whole different can of worms, and something I believe easier to address.  The easiest way to do that would be for a very in-depth examination of the alleged signature on the barrel of the shorty.  I am sure that there are non-destructive methods which might be utilized to augment eyesight alone, and possibly if the remnants of a signature could be more clearly ascertained, it would then go a long way toward clearing up the "who" of the manufacture, which if indeed Albrecht, would be fairly tremendous in terms of implication.  As I mentioned earlier, such definitive attribution would also then pose a number of interesting questions relative to other unsigned pieces which for many years have been attributed to him.

[JohnHBryan]

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....