RCA 19 "Sister" Rifle

[jdm]

I hope this wonderful topic does not go south. It has been most enjoyable to read. I  appreciate the generosity of the owner for sharing pictures and thoughts on this important rifle. Also for allowing this discussion to take place.

[spgordon]

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.

[JohnHBryan]

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.

So do your records mention Paxinosa, or elaborate on the gun made for him?  Your theory is that the gun doesn’t exist any longer because you haven’t seen it. I’m sure it can’t possibly be the Germanic transitional period smooth rifle with the burning Indian on it, lol.... that couldn’t possibly have been made by a German gunsmith for an Indian wealthy enough to afford such a gun.....   Even Shumway thought it was an Indian on the buttplate. Dressler thought it was an Indian gun. Many others thought that before Ernies research.  What do you want, a photo with Paxinosa holding it?

more edits by consensus of moderators

[Eric Kettenburg]

Something which I have not seen addressed - and I have no answer so don't look at me! - is an aspect involving clash of religious culture.  When reading various translations of Moravian diaries, texts etc., including the 'lebenslauf' of Albrecht or Valentine Beck etc., it is quite clear that they were people deeply moved and deeply touched by their belief.  It appears to me that much if not all of the work amongst the natives was largely missionary work, so there is a conversion issue there looming large.

How comfortable would a man of Albrecht's nature be in the actuality of decorating a rifle of his manufacture with what essentially would be considered totems or otherwise 'heathen' representations?

Just thinking out loud - I am not trying to initiate anything offensive!  I don't know why so many of these threads often seem to get combative.  I personally like to question everything just for the sake of discussion, clarification and better understanding.

[JohnHBryan]

Something to look into. Zeisberger had a medicine man at Schoenbrunn, and I was reading last night about missionaries taking part in sweat lodge rituals and other native practices, so my guess would be they were pretty open in that regard.

[jrb]

but the engraving might have been done by a non Moravian somewhere anytime later.

[spgordon]

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.

[JohnHBryan]

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.

That’s funny, I was just at Schoenbrunn last weekend and visited the medicine man’s cabin. And took photos. And I also have a signed Moravian rifle with both a snake and a bird of prey, since you asked. They were wonderfully talented and creative artists. They made all sorts of things for non-Moravian customers.

[spgordon]

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.

[Eric Kettenburg]

What?  Are we talking earlier PA Moravian here or later NC, i.e Voglers etc.

This sounds extremely interesting.  Who signed it?

[Dan Fruth]

Eric, you bring up a good point. As I think this over, it seems even the Christian Moravians made some interesting compromises. The gun shop seems to have worked on several weapons for the war effort, but did not allow the brethren to participate in the war. Seems odd, but I'm sure they had their reasoning. That may shed some light on Indian symbolic engraving on a rifle built in a Moravian shop. This seems a bit like the Amish, who forbid ownership of cars, but will ride in them all day long....We humans are interesting creatures!

[JohnHBryan]

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.

I’m not presenting a seminar on the topic, I was merely responding to Eric’s question. The tour of Schoenbrunn gave that description, not me. Maybe what Zeisberger said, and what he actually did we’re two different things. Wouldn’t be the first for a religious leader.  Maybe he was an approved medicine man. 😆  In any event, it doesn’t matter. Moravians made weapons of war, even though they forbade participation in war.  In any event Paxinosa, though he converted, was not a mission inhabitant, and I highly doubt any Moravian told a Shawanese king, which is how they described him, What to do, or not do. 

[spgordon]

Sorry, I just have to: Paxinosa did not convert. He was never a Moravian. [If he did, we would know a lot more about him.]

If a Native converted (which P did not), the Moravians told him exactly what to do--whether he was a king or not. The heir to the Delawares after 1776, Gelelemend, wanted desperately to join Zeizberger's Moravian mission towns and Moravian authorities forbade him to for many years (because he was more useful "outside"); when he joined (1788 I think), he became like every other convert and obeyed, or was expected to obey, the same rules as everybody else (white or Native). The Moravians were not enforcing "their" rules; they thought they were enforcing their Savior's. They didn't make exceptions because of one's worldly status. Again, lots to read about this--both original records (many of which have been translated) and recent historians' writings. No need for guesswork.

Bottom line: the only thing that matters here is that Moravians were not "pretty open" about Native beliefs and practices. They did not tolerate them at all in mission sites. As I said originally, this does not bear on whether a Moravian might have engraved that panther on a rifle for Paxinosa since Paxinosa was not resident at a mission site.

Just trying to keep it accurate here (and civil).

[spgordon]

Just so everybody is on the same page, here is the single and only entry that proves that Albrecht stocked a gun for a Shawnee chief (never "king"). Paxinosa is not named but it seems very likely that the diarist (Kliest) refers to him in this entry. It would be good for somebody to nail this down, as nobody ever has. Note that this is a 1754 diary entry that speaks about work that Kliest and Albrecht had done back in 1752:

Thursday the 18th. April, 1754 [Shamokin Diary]
Today the chief Shawnee from the Big Island was here and brought me some work. He was glad that he found me here. He knew me right away because 2 years ago in Bethlehem I had had also repaired a gun for him.  He also asked about Brother Albrecht who had stocked his gun 2 years ago to his complete satisfaction.  He would have liked to have talked much more with me, but could speak no English.  But I could sense his mind and heart that he loves us.  His wife was also well behaved.

From other sources (the diary of the congregation at Bethlehem), we know that a group of Shawnee visited Bethlehem on July 10, 1752, which is surely the moment that the chief Shawnee had his gun repaired by Kliest and Albrecht.

[blienemann]

Allow me to interject a detail.  In the original Shamokin Diary, this entry was written by Daniel Kliest - Master Locksmith at Bethlehem except when he was sent to Shamokin to work the smithy there.  Kliest and Albrecht had worked side by side in the new Bethlehem Locksmith and Gunstocker Shop for several years by this time, where Kliest was primarily a metalworker (repairing arms often includes spring work, hardening the Hammer (frizzen), hardening and tempering other metal parts, etc.  Albrecht was the Gunstocker, primarily working in wood, repairing, restocking or occasionally stocking up new arms.  Both knew the terms for different types of arms and components, and in their inventories or other records they call these out in detail.  They are specific about rifles, smooth rifles, fowlers and so forth.  Kliest here wrote that he had repaired a buechse or rifle, and that Albrecht had stocked a rifle - same buesche in German script.  From my experience with the Moravian records, I believe Kliest meant rifle in both cases - not a smooth rifle or other type.

Other missionaries not working in the smithy at Shamokin would use the term Flinte, which could be a general term for gun for those not familiar with the trade, or could mean a fowler or trade gun which are smoothbores.

Lanie and MAB gave me permission to use this image years ago, and Scott - I hope I don't get into trouble here by posting a small part of this page.  This image is courtesy of the Moravian Archives at Bethlehem - wonderful people who maintain so much wonderful history.

I was not there - but this is my somewhat informed interpretation.  Respectfully, Bob

[spgordon]

Bob, yes, thanks. The translation I posted was one of the early ones (from Roy L.), before you sensitized me to these terms. In my original post, it should read "rifle" rather than "gun."

To be further specific, the term translated as "chief" here is really "Great" (the Great Shawnee--or actually "Schawanos").

[Dan Fruth]

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....

[spgordon]

Dan, I hope you are asking Bob Lienemann this question! He is much more qualified than I to answer it.

As lots of folks on this board know, I am no good at "reading" rifles like he and Eric K. and others can. I'm a historian of Moravian studies and know my way around archival collections and know how to put together claims and a narrative (and how to assess others' claims). This is my job. But I just have not learned to see details of rifles, how they are related to one another, how some get attributed to known makers, when a rifle dates from based on its look and components, etc. I never weigh in on that because I just don't have the skills.

So I'm comfortable assessing the research in the pamphlet about the connection to Paxinosa and its claims about Moravian stuff generally. I don't have any opinion about the two rifles and their relation to Albrecht. Just above my skill level.

[spgordon]

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):

         

Büchsenmacher. Should we say "riflemaker" here? Or "gunmaker"? Presumably not "gunsmith" and definitely not "gunstocker."

[JohnHBryan]

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):

         

Büchsenmacher. Should we say "riflemaker" here? Or "gunmaker"? Presumably not "gunsmith" and definitely not "gunstocker."

Wow you guys are really stretching...

[spgordon]

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!

[JohnHBryan]

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....

This should be good....

[JohnHBryan]

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!

more edits . I’m not paranoid just amused.

[spgordon]

The diary entry that I posted, however, and that Bob posted a photo of, does pose the major problem for the association of the rifle with Paxinosa. I don't think I have mentioned this problem before. The Moravian diary states explicitly that the Shawnee chief who visited, and who had his rifle stocked by Albrecht two years earlier, was from "Great Island." You can see it in Bob's photo: gross Eiland. Great Island was near present day Lock Haven.

Ernie Cowan's pamphlet states that Paxinosa was at the "Shawnee Flats" (or Richard's Island) near present-day Wilkes Barre. This he got right. Paul Wallace's Indians in Pennsylvania (pp. 127-128) confirms that Paxinosa was at Shawnee Flats and that in 1756 he moved near Tioga (Athens) New York.

This pretty much proves that Paxinosa was not the Indian who showed up in Shamokin and so not the Indian who had his rifle stocked by Albrecht. (Unless he spent time at Great island, which is possible but, at present, an unknown fact.) It was a different Shawnee chief. Maybe this other chief had the panther totem. Who knows. But Paxinosa isn't our man.

Out of fairness, I will add: this does not mean that the rifle in question was not made by Albrecht for a Shawnee. If analyzing the rifle itself shows it to be by Albrecht, and if the panther engraving links it to some Shawnee chief, so be it. I would have no reason to question this. But the way the claim has been made--based on misreadings of Moravian records and practices--just does not work.

[rich pierce]

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?