The cannon from Dunwich Bank, Suffolk

1990

This study is the outgrowth of a project which I began in 1987 for Colonial National Historical Park to catalog the artifactual material excavated on Jamestown Island between the early 1930's and late 1950's. Established in 1607, Jamestown is the site of the earliest permanent English settlement in North America, and the objects recovered from these grounds reflect the range of materials produced and traded throughout Europe in the seventeenth century. A substantial number of early gunlock parts are contained in the Jamestown Collection, including all of the major ignition systems in use in the seventeenth century: wheellocks, miquelet locks, snaphaunces, matchlocks, English-locks, and flintlocks. Once I started cataloging the firearms assemblage I noticed that many parts previously had been misinterpreted providing a false picture of the type of weaponry in use. This is especially true of snaphaunces, most of which are represented by nothing more than lockplates which had formerly been recorded as wheel-locks. The classification errors of the Jamestown locks led Harold Peterson to state in his much read and cited Arms and Armor of Colonial America ". .. there are (at Jamestown) fewer remnants of snaphaunces than any other firearm used in colonial America" (Peterson 1965:27). To the contrary, my cataloging project revealed that there are more fragments of snaphaunce firearms at Jamestown than any other type. (These artifacts are enumerated in Appendix A .) The role of the snaphaunce in the seventeenth century has been understated and misrepresented as a result of this type of misinformation finding its way into the literature. These inaccurate data are used repeatedly by scholars in the field of English firearms as evidence to build the history and development of ignition systems during the seventeenth century. Not only are these researchers working on assumptions about the archaeological record that are incorrect, but they often substantiate their evidence using extant museum examples which, in many cases have lost historical context. This has resulted in as many typologies as there are researchers and a confusing dating sequence for the appearance of these early arms. My insights during this study of firearms have been aided by the fact that I started by analyzing archaeological examples which, by their nature, are unconsciously-preserved links to the past. While they may reflect the "repairs, v renewals, or conversions naturally found on weapons that have been in continual service over a long period during which various systems of lock have been introduced1 1 (Jackson and Whitelaw:77), the archaeologically-retrieved gun parts have not been deliberately altered to deceive the collector or to enhance their worth. Firearms that have survived in museum collections usually owe that survival to the fact that they are atypical in some way. Uncommon arms can be exquisite works of art constructed for a king or "state of the art" fowling pieces designed for wealthy recreational huntsmen. Or they can be just the opposite-groups of weapons stored away on dusty shelves, considered unworthy of refurbishing or modernization and enduring from their perceived insignificance; but, usually, these "worn-out and obsolete guns were like old shoes thrown away" (Mayer: 5). The value of archaeology as a source to an unbiased view to the past has been largely overlooked by firearms historians and collectors. It is hoped that this study may reawaken an appreciation of the untapped information residing in the rows of shelves and cabinets full of artifacts which are being maintained by federal and state agencies, historical societies, and preservation groups. Use of these resources helps justify the costs of their storage and curation and thereby guarantees their survival. A result all who are interested in material culture of the past should applaud. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to the following persons who assisted me in my research and helped make this thesis possible: to James Haskett, Assistant Superintendent, Historical Interpretation and Preservation, Colonial National Historical Park for his interest and enthusiasm for the subject that enabled many beneficial things to happen; to the following museum curators who permitted me to study and photograph guns and gunlocks in their collections:

Academia Letters, 2021

The 15th century saw the most important period of European fortress development. [1] This was driven by artillery's own development: bombards became reliable wall breakers, about 1420 [2]; small-arms had separated from artillery proper, about 1440. [3] Further, the early propellant, serpentine [4], was replaced by the easier to handle corned powder; it was corned small, for small-arms and large, for artillery. [5] Guns were either, forged from iron hoops and staves, or, cast in bronze; there were even hybrids. [6] After an initial move towards gigantism, Mons Meg [7] and the Dardanelles gun, [8] the potential of more modest pieces was recognized. It is generally acknowledged that, about 1450, the strength of bronze guns was enhanced by their being cast breech down. This and other modest developments, like trunnions, led to the first appearance of a revolutionary cannon. [9] Less well known is the important step of reaming their bores. Breech down casting It is logical to suggest that bronze guns were first cast by bell founders, they used the same materials and techniques. So, after the practice with bells, guns were cast muzzle down. [10] Unfortunately, this left them with slag inclusions that weakened the breech. Slag is the unavoidable side product of using a flux in the melting process. [11] Slag floats in the liquid metal and, unless drawn off, solidifies within the cast to give weak zones at the top, the breech. Casting the gun breech down and somewhat longer than needed, probably from about 1440, left the slag inclusions at the gun's muzzle end. When cold, the gun could be trimmed to length and the impurities discarded. This practice was not universally adopted for some time and bronze guns continued to be cast muzzle down well into the 16th century. [10]

The wreck of the Marquise de Tourny was discovered in the western English Channel in 2008 by Odyssey Marine Exploration and subjected to a ferrous metal FADE survey in 2009. The site is 80m deep and 100km southeast of Plymouth. The presence of 25 iron cannon combined with discovery of the ship's name and date embossed onto its bronze bell, La Marquise de Tourny '1744', identified the wreck as the remains of an armed privateer built in Bordeaux and lost during the War of the Austrian Succession. The corsair sank around the mid-18th century. An unknown European organisation is believed to have salvaged the cannon from the wreck. It was subsequently found in a coastal scrap yard and the author of this paper notified. The gun is incised with fleur de lys comparable to those present on a swivel gun recovered from the wreck in 2008 and is identified as deriving from the Marquise de Tourny. At 242cm in length and with a bore diameter of 10.5cm, the gun is an 8-pounder of French origin. The cannon's salvage reflects the impossibility of supervizing and protecting historical shipwrecks located outside terriorial waters from non-authorized access, and underlines how essential it is to record and sample at risk underwater cultural heritage of international importance.

Journal of the Ordnance Society Vol. 31, 2024

The aim of this study was to determine the calibre and consequently allocate weapon type to a subset of spherical lead ammunition recovered from the 1727 shipwreck of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) ship the ‘Zeewijk’. By utilising archival evidence and historical references regarding the calibre of firearms aboard a VOC ship in the early 18th century in conjunction with corrosion rates of spherical lead ammunition in different marine and land environments, it was possible to evidentially determine the original calibre of the spherical lead ammunition and allocate weapon type. It was possible to prove the 17-bore 0.67 inch 17 mm spherical lead ammunition recovered from the Zeewijk was in fact 16-bore 0.68 inch 17.3 mm musket ammunition which had experienced corrosion through its environment. A large calibre blunderbuss could also have fired such ammunition or the ammunition may have been destined for firing from ordnance such as a cannon when as a component of case/canister/hail shot.

1986

to survive Iong periods of Immersion in sea water relatively wel'l. Also because of their mass, they were often left behind on shipwrecks that were otherwise heavily salvaged. Therefore, cannons are one of the most frequently discovered artifact types found on historic wrecks and probably the most easily identified on a coarse level. However, to refine the identification to year, nationality, manufacturer or other truly useful category can be extremely difffcuit, if not impossible, given the current state of reference material on the subject. This study is the foundation of a long-term effort to rectify the lack of useful identification references for cannons, particularly smooth bore, muzzle loading pieces. A tangible need exists For such a citable reference which a researcher unfamiliar with the intricacies oF cannon characteristics may use to identify an artifact found on an archaeological site. This thesis provides a standardized recording system and a method of manipulating recorded data whereby a corpus oF information on guns will be collected. Eventually, a cannon identification key will be produced from this corpus of information. Current tate of the iterature A complete bibliography oF cannon literature would be a weighty tome indeed. To quote lan V. Hogg, author of Artiller : its Ori in ~Hd ~D1t *. "th* 1tt t th b3* t i t ly th but immense" (1970r304). The earliest use of cannons was concurrent with the invention of the printing press. All the technical writers and historians who felt they had something to say about the subject have kept those presses busy since the beginning. Such a panoply of references would at First appear to be a boon to the researcher. However, a single word suffices to describe all of the works to date when considering the subJect of identifying cannons. That word ts 'inadequate'. The modern researcher trying to identify cannons using archival sources is handicapped by a factor comson to all of the contemporary authors, from Birlnguccio (1540) and Tartaglia (1547) through Muller ( 1780) and up to the end of the era: they lived during the era they wrote about. Understandably, they were not writing cannon identification keys for the convenience of archaeologists or historians 400 years later. These people were, ln the main, technical writers producing expansive manuscripts on broad subjects. Their descriptions of cannons were almost unlversaliy very basici length, calibre, weight of shot. Sometimes they provide a few extra details such as weight of gun, or length of bore. The rare illustration was generally not to scale. Such scanty descriptions are, today, insufficient to date a gun with accuracy. Twentieth century authors writing books on muzzle loading cannons are, by definition, writing histories. These authors take one of two approaches. The first approach relies primarily on information from archives and contemporary authors. As a result of this approach, the works of these authors, exemplified by Ivan V. Hogg's mentioned above, B. P. Hughes's British Smooth-bore Artiller (1969) and Lewis's Armada Guns (1961), are subJect to the same limitations as the works on which they are based. These books are extremely valuable works on cannons in CANNONS. PRG

Ken Trotman Publishing, 2024

The 1850s saw the general introduction of shell-guns on ships. This resulted in the destruction of the Turkish Squadron at Sinope on 30 November 1853 by the shells from the Russian ships, and the great damage inflicted on the vessels of the allied fleets at the bombardment of Sebastopol by the shells from the forts. These resulted in the introduction of armour on armoured floating batteries, as the only method of defence which would protect ships from these terrible missiles. In 1860, the Armstrong Breech Loading Rifles were introduced into sea service. The 40-pdr replaced the upper-deck broadside armament of the larger ships but there were a series of serious accidents caused by firing the gun before the breech was properly closed. The 7-in (110-pdr) RBL was used as a pivot gun. At the bombardments of Kagosima (1863) during the Anglo-Japanese War, a number of the quarterdeck Armstrong 40-pdr RBL guns were blown out. An officer from HMS Euryalus, published in The Times on 25 April 1864. My opinion, and also that of the gunnery lieutenant, is that for long range they [Armstrong guns] are most successful. The 110-pdr [7-in RBL] as a pivot gun is superior to the 8-in of 95 cwt [smoothbore] gun; but as broadside guns between decks we do not like them; the smoke is too great. Rear choke carriages with such heavy guns are very slow in working and the decks dreadfully cut up. The common shell is one of its great efficiencies, the bursting charge is so great. At Kagosima one vent-piece of the pivot-gun broke and a piece went up to foreyard, but no one was hurt, and it was the fault of the gun captain not putting the tin cap in. If the gun is understood and worked properly, it is very successful. It very soon became evident that the heaviest spherical projectile from a smoothbore gun was inadequate to pierce the newly adopted armour plates, and attention was turned to producing weapons powerful enough to again turn the scale in favour of the gun and against the ship. Only in 1863, when Sir William Palliser’s invention of chilled iron shot was tested successfully at Shoeburyness came the first major advantage. This was an elongated projectile with thick walls of cast iron that was hardened on the outside in a cooled metal mould. They were inexpensive and the Royal Navy into the 20th Century. With the definite adoption of the muzzle-loading rifled gun in 1864 into the Royal Navy, there began the great contest between guns and armour. Smoothbore guns could only use spherical projectiles that did not lend itself to the penetration of even thin iron plates and the range of the heaviest of these guns was limited and the shooting inaccurate.

1997

Privately published, 2024

This live-fire experiment was conducted to determine if we could replicate spherical ball-damaged objects surviving from April 19, 1775, the first day of the American Revolution. The standing structures damaged by gun fire on April 19 now exist amidst a modern built and modified landscape. However, those buildings and places still remain and anchor us to that past by their very existence. These places, Elisha Jones’ shed, Munroe Tavern, Buckman Tavern, Marrett Munroe house, Jason Russell house, and other preserved artifacts have become “hallowed” because they either still stand or exist in collections.

1999

This work will revolve around the analysis of the so-called "Duncan Guns", a total of 4 bronze cannons from Italy and Spain cast in the 18th century. The objective of this will be to carry out an in-depth study of the foundry marks, as well as the general condition of the pieces to obtain all possible information about their past and how they arrive at HMS Unicorn. To highlight some of the weapons' most striking features, the guns' engraving decorations were covered in talcum powder and the photographs of the objects were digitally manipulated. By applying image-editing filters to these photographs, it was possible to make details of the cannons more visible and easier to decipher.