Firearms on the Frontier: Guns at Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781

Citation preview

NUNC

COCNOSCO

EX PARTE

THOMAS J. BATA LIBRARY TRENT UNIVERSITY

SfATf

Fort Michilimackinac

Mackinac

Reports in History and Archaeology

This series is designed to provide a format for the publication of substantial reports relating to the Straits of Mackinac, Michigan. As the continued research efforts of the staff of the Mackinac Island State Park Commission produce studies of the history and archaeology of this region, they will be published in this series. Relevant papers by non-staff members will also be included. Research by the Mackinac Island State Park Commission is primarily directed toward the restoration, reconstruction, and interpretation of the historic sites of Fort Michilimackinac, Fort Mackinac, and other historic structures in Mackinaw City and Mackinac Island. It is also the purpose of our program to present the results of our research to both the general public and the scholar. Museum displays, live interpretation, and attractive publications serve to accomplish this goal in their own unique ways. This report illuminates another aspect of our heritage in a way we trust will be interesting and informative. David A. Armour, Number

1. Archaeological Investigation of the Marquette 1971: A preliminary report. LYLE M. STONE

Number

2. The Preservation of History at Mackinac.

Number

3. King’s Men at Mackinac: DUNNIGAN

Number

4. Mackinac

Number

5. Firearms on the Frontier: Guns T.M. HAMILTON

Cover — Dedirot Encyclopedia

Mission

EUGENE

Site, St. Ignace, Michigan,

T. PETERSEN

The British Garrisons, 1780-1796.

National Park, 1875-1895,

KEITH

General Editor

BRIAN

R. WIDDER

at Fort Michilimackinac

1715-1781.

LEIGH

Firearms on the Frontier: b

y Guns at Fort Michilimackinac

1715-1781

T. M. Hamilton

Reports in Mackinac History and Archaeology, Number 5 MACKINAC ISLAND STATE PARK COMMISSION 3000 Copies © 1976 Printed by TriKraft, Inc. Williamston, Michigan

Table of Contents Chapter I. Guns at Fort Michilimackinac n. The Gun Parts Described The Most Complete Buttplates —

.

Ram

7

Gun — Figure 1 .

Figures 7-11

and Thumb

.

11

.

plates —

Figure 15

14 .

or Swivel Barrel Gun — Figure 16 .

Lockplates — Figure 17-19 Cocks —

.

Figure 20 .

Jean-Baptiste Amiot: A Blacksmith at Michilimackinac The Archaeological IV. Barrels — Figure 25

Evidence

.

Acknowledgements

.

References Cited .

in

16 17 18 20 24

.

.

V. Balls .

.

8

pipes — Plate IV .

The Wender

I

7

.

Sideplates — Figures 12-14 Escutcheons

1

.

Figures 2-6

Triggerguards —

Page

25 27 32 33

36 36

Alleys

IV

I.

Guns at Fort Michilimackinac

This report on the gun parts and related material recovered in the excavation of Fort Michilimackinac is dedicated to John Mathay, soldier and demolition expert who, to our great loss, was a casualty in the Vietnam war. While a graduate student at Michigan State Univer¬ sity, Mr. Mathay made a detailed study of the gun material from the 1959 to 1964 excavations and wrote a lengthy report which is on file at the Museum of that institution. Because of various complications, it was impossible to publish Mr. Mathay’s findings while they were still fresh. The excavations in subsequent years, plus the development of new information, have caused most of his study to become obsolete. After much discussion it was finally decided that the only practical solution was to rework completely the entire collection, including both that which Mr. Mathay had studied and that which had been excavated later dur¬ ing the 1965 to 1972 seasons. Mr. Mathay was also an outstanding draftsman, and his drawings of the flintlock, the trade gun, and the Wender pistol, as well as some of the more complex furniture fragments, are included.

Archaeological

excavations

Fort Michilimackinac

has been under archaeologi¬

cal investigation every summer since 1959. The Mac¬ kinac Island State Park Commission, in cooperation with the Museum, Michigan State University, has excavated nearly half of this major eighteenth century fur trading post. During the course of these excava¬ tions, the site of a blacksmith shop located adjacent to the priest’s house was discovered. At this site and scattered through the fort enclosure hundreds of gun parts were found. Fort Michilimackinac, located on the south side of the Straits of Mackinac, was constructed by the French about 1715. The fort was in reality a fortified village enclosing about forty houses. The primary occupation of the residents was trading for furs with the Indians of the Upper Great Lakes. The Indians were particularly eager to obtain guns in trade be¬ cause they had become dependent upon firearms for their hunting and warfare. Hundreds of guns and tons of powder, balls, and shot passed through Michili¬ mackinac each year on their way to distant Indian tribes.

at Fort Michilimackinac. 1

In 1761 after Canada was captured by the British, English soldiers and traders came to occupy the post. Most of the French residents remained, but the trade

or English affiliations. For instance, at Fort Frederica, St. Simons Island, Georgia, occupied by the British from 1736 to 1749, only one French Type D finial was

routes now led across the Atlantic to England rather than France. Guns of English manufacture became predominate even though hundreds of French weapons continued in service. During the unsettled times of the American Revolution, the fort comman¬ dant Patrick Sinclair decided to move the fort and the

found, but many gun fragments designed and en¬ graved in the English manner. These various types are so definitely associated with sites of pronounced French or English affiliation that I question some of the identifications seen in

community to the more defensible Mackinac Island. Some of the buildings within the fort were moved to the Island while others were left to decay. Drifting sand covered and protected the accumulated trash of 65 years which was left behind. When Mackinaw City was founded in the mid¬ nineteenth century, the site of the old fort was dedi¬ cated as a village park. Shortly after 1900 it was given to the State of Michigan to become Michigan’s second state park. Administered by the Mackinac Island State Park Commission, the fort is now being extensively excavated and reconstructed on its exact site. The gun parts described in this report help to provide additional insights into this important eighteenth century frontier community.

Much

of the gun furniture from Michilimackinac

is

of iron. Fortunately, some of the pieces are in excel¬ lent condition and permit accurate classification. Ex¬ cept for the military material, classification of both the iron and the brass furniture, when applicable, will follow the arbitrary types used in my preliminary report, Early Indian Trade Guns, 1625-1775, pub¬ lished in 1968 under the sponsorship of the Museum of the Great Plains, Lawton, Oklahoma. In the seven years which have intervened, additional discoveries have tended to confirm rather than to challenge the affiliations and date brackets then assigned. We are here primarily concerned with the guns actually ordered for and used in the eighteenth cen¬ tury fur trade because relatively little is known about them. Since they were used severely and then can¬ nibalized to keep other guns in operation, practically none have survived intact to this day. It is true that owners will point to eighteenth century “trade guns” in their collections, but the identification is based usually on little more than wishful thinking. By defi¬ nition, an American trade gun is a gun used in the American fur trade, and there are no known speci¬ mens made before 1775 which have kept their iden¬ tity through the centuries. Those few early trade guns now recognized have been identified by matching them with fragments or parts recovered from Indian village sites or frontier trading posts such as Michilimackinac. My reason for continuing to identify, without qual¬ ification, certain types as either French or English is based primarily upon the fact that similar pieces have been found on other sites with predominantly French 2

illustrations from certain gun collections. Presum¬ ably these identifications have been based upon proofmarks, makers’ marks, etc., which certainly cannot be questioned if it can be shown that the guns have not been restocked. Restocked eighteenth cen¬ tury guns are not at all uncommon, but that is no assurance that the furniture as well as the barrel came from the same gun. An English barrel with a French lock and fittings can be a perfectly legitimate antique, but it is still not an original gun. The archaeological evidence indicates unequivo¬ cally that the French and the English used and de¬ veloped in the American fur trade distinctly different gun patterns or types, and some of these patterns

Fox Indian carrying a trade gun in a 1766 drawing . British Museum

The Flint lock and Its Parts

Plate I.

The Flintlock gun

1. Buttplate _ 2. Triggerguard _ 3. Trigger _ 4. Sideplate _ 5. Barrel flats _ 6. Stock _ 7. Barrel ring _ 8. Ram or cleaning rod 9. Barrel chase _

_ t peigh mpionst RaFr

cS5i

£

Note: For some

1L

unknown

reason, John Mathay

drew

this

gun for a left-handed shooter. Otherwise, it is a typical 18th Century smoothbore.

Plate II Partial View

of Top

Barrel flats Front side screw Sideplate Middle side screw 6. 7. 8. 9.

Tang to the barrel plug Screw to the plug tang Rear side screw Escutcheon or cartouche Butt to the stock _

evolved or merged into other but related types. So far there is nothing to indicate that in order to gain cus¬ tomer acceptance either the French or the English were reduced to copying the rival’s pattern or pat¬ terns. In short, there was never any question in the Indian’s mind as to who made his gun. He knew that by merely looking at it. The flint lock (Plate I) was the gun used throughout the occupation of Michilimackinac. It consisted of a wrought iron barrel which was charged through the muzzle with powder and ball (or shot) and ignited by a spring-actuated mechanism which struck a flint against a steel. This mechanism is the flint lock (Plate III). The barrel and the lock, with the buttplate,

Indian partisans. These guns are characterized by their proved barrels with a 17.5 mm bore made to shoot balls weighing eighteen to the liv re. It is possi¬ ble that some of these had the musketoon bore of 16.7 mm or a dragoon bore of 17.1. In addition to their relatively large bore diameters, these guns had simple but durable metal furniture and well-designed locks with bridled tumbler. There is no evidence here that the French locks had bridled frizzens, indicating that their troops stationed at Michilimackinac were not issued the latest models. As for the English, none of their military locks have been found, nor any of their barrels which would have had a bore of about .75 inches. The French

and English military muskets

of this

triggerguard, sideplate, and other incidental furni¬ ture, was mounted on a wooden stock which nor¬ mally extended the full length of the barrel. Three distinct classes of flintlocks were used at Michilimackinac:

period are well represented in every major gun collec¬ tion. They have been intensively studied and much has been written about them. The standard reference

1) Military muskets, or fusils de munitions, issued to the troops stationed at the fort and upon occasion to

in Boudriot’s Armes a Feu Francoises, notebooks (cahiers) 1 to 16, in which all the views and important

on the French military guns of this era will be found

3

parts are carefully depicted in detailed drawings.

decorations

There is no similar study of English eighteenth cen¬

engraved rather than cast. The triggerguard decora¬ tions, though cast, are more simply done, but usually similar in theme. We are speaking here of the French

tury military guns, but Blackmore’s Firearms is a standard reference.

British Military

2) High quality fowling pieces or, as the French called them, fusils fins. These were brought in by officers, explorers, leading traders or gentlemen ad¬ venturers and were really fine guns with carefully finished and proved barrels and ornate furniture. Be¬ cause of their obvious quality, these guns had a rela¬ tively good survival value, perhaps not as great as the high art guns, but still there are many excellent examples to be seen in any collection from the seven¬ teenth and eighteenth century. For our purposes here we can distinguish the fusil fin from the ordinary trade gun by the cast decorations on the tang of its buttplate, as well as superior decorations on the triggerguards. As will be seen, a surprising number of fusil fin parts and fragments have been found at Michilimackinac. Some of these could represent guns presented in the name of the King to influential Indian leaders. In support of this assumption, Jean Boudriot has pointed out (Pierre Lorain to TMH, 9/30/75) that dur¬ ing the French regime the proportion of fusils fins to fusils ordinaires shipped to America was approxi¬ mately ten to two hundred. The cost of the former in France was about twice that of the latter. 3) Trade guns, or fusils ordinaires, manufactured in quantity in Europe and brought in for sale in the fur trade. Supposedly the barrels were not proved and the

on the buttplate tangs were

ordinarily

fusil ordinaire. All eighteenth century long guns were full stocked, and the barrel lengths varied. However, the barrels were usually over forty inches in length when new, on the theory that the longer the barrel the longer time the explosive force of the powder had to act on the shot or ball. The oft-repeated statement that the price of a gun was a pile of beaver skins as high as the gun was long, is a contemptible fabrication which I men¬ tion simply because it will not die in spite of ample documentation to the contrary. These guns were ex¬ pensive, in terms of eighteenth century frontier liv¬ ing, if for no other reason that that they were made in Europe, imported across the Atlantic, and then car¬ ried inland for hundreds of miles by canoe and por¬ tage. It must be understood, however, that competi¬ tion for the Indian furs between the Dutch and the French in the early seventeenth century and between the English and the French in the years following was serious and it was in earnest. Undoubtedly there were many instances of abuse bordering upon outright robbery, but on the whole if the Indian, who knew full well how to play one seller against another, felt he was being cheated, he did not hesitate to paddle his canoe of furs another hundred or so miles to a compet¬ itor who would welcome him properly.

FORT

MICHILIMACKINAC-

1749

2. 1. Sear Side spring screw hole, rear 4. 3. Bridle (only on better grade guns) Sear Tumbler 6. Pan Side screw hole, middle 7. 5. Main Spring 8. Side screw hole, front 10. Vise screw 11. Lead or leather flint patch 9. Vise jaw 13. 12. Gunflint 14. 15. Tumbler 16. Cock

screw

17. Lockplate Frizzen Pan 18. Frizzen spring 19.

From the archaeological evidence it seems that the French had two basic trade gun patterns or types and the English had one during the period when Michilimackinac was in being. The French guns are here designated as types C and D. These French guns were essentially similar, and the probabilities are that the latter evolved from the former. The archaeological record indicates that the Type C was in the trade by 1680 and that the Type D began to supplant it around 1730 and remained the primary French pattern until the end of the French and Indian War in 1763, when

the English trade gun quickly supplanted it through¬ out the Mississippi Valley. The Type C was distinguished from the Type D by thefinials on the front tang ofthetriggerguard (Figure 11, C)and on the buttplate (Figure 2, E). Unlike the Type D, the finials on the buttplates of the Type C always matched the finials on the triggerguards. The rear finial on the Type C tapered off to a graceful point as seen on the first, second, and fourth rear finials shown in the lower right hand corner of Figure 10. The bottom of the triggerguard bow was usually deco5

rated with two converging lines (Figure 10, F) or with the simple “Chevrolet ’’(Figure 10, A and B). Unlike the Type C, the Type D had many variations in its furniture, the relationships of which still remain to be worked out. However, the basic design found on the furniture most widely distributed throughout the Mississippi Valley, and apparently forming the ear¬ liest form of the type, also had the same gracefully tapering rear finial as had the Type C. In fact, it is impossible to distinguish one from the other if only the rear tang and finial are found alone. On the other hand, the front finial on the triggerguard had evolved into a formalized torch (Figure 10, J), and the bottom of the guard bow is usually elaborately engraved, sometimes with various “Chevrolet” foliage.

designs

or with

formal

flowers

or

The buttplate finials on the Type D can be either

practically nothing is known about those made dur¬ ing the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Appar¬ ently these writers have been unconsciously compar¬ ing Northwest or Hudson’s Bay/usils of the last half of the nineteenth century with Remingtons or Winches¬ ters, which is about as logical as comparing an ox team with an automobile. So far, no archaeological evidence has been brought to light which supports the contention that seventeenth and eighteenth cen¬ tury trade guns were dangerously inferior to other firearms of that period, but they did lack certain re¬ finements, such as the bridled frizzen or tumbler. Some, as will be shown, were more cheaply made than others, but that still does not mean that most of them were not sturdy weapons with serviceable bar¬ rels and locks designed and made to withstand the rigors of frontier service. Another popular assumption is that the English trade guns were superior to the French. No definitely

the early form (Figure 4, E) or variations of it (Fig¬ ure 4, F, G & H). There was also another buttplate tang with the simple formalized torch (Figure 5, C). The sideplates on the Type D were much more simple than the complicated castings used on the Type C, being only flat plates of brass or iron bear¬ ing expertly engraved figures of bows and arrows, sunbursts, abstract figures, and even spirited hunt¬ ing scenes (Figure 14 R to Y). Apparently the French had two trade gun bores,

than 14/8 inches. No burst English nor French breech sections have ever come to my attention, while the burst muzzle sections, which probably resulted from the mouth of the bore being accidentally plugged with mud or snow, could not be identified. However,

“calibre 32” (.57") and calibre 28” (.59"), which were more or less standard. There is also evidence that they traded in guns with their official Infantry bore of

it would mean nothing even if the maker of the barrel were known, for the best modern guns will burst under those conditions.

“calibre 18” (.69"). It seems that in the early 1700’s the English, or at least the Hudson’s Bay Company, at¬ tempted to standardize on .59" bores but with indif¬ ferent success. Barrels have been found in British contexts ranging all the way from .53" to .63". I sus¬ pect that the barrel fragments with bores smaller than .53" are from pistols, but the entire question of barrels, balls, and shot on the Colonial frontier is quite com¬ plex and far from solved. The standard English trade gun used during the period of French occupation of Michilimackinac was what I call the Type G (Hamilton, 1968). When com¬ pared with the French guns it is surprisingly plain, having a simple flat brass buttplate (Figure 5, B) and triggerguard usually cold formed from sheet iron (Figure 7, A). The sideplate was in the form of a serpent looking forward, made of sheet brass and crudely engraved to suggest scales and fins. No examples of this sideplate have been found at Michilimackinac, so I suspect that the buttplates and guards here shown actually came from early exam¬ ples of the English trade gun characterized by the cast brass serpent with scales (Figure 13, G) which seems to have been introduced around 1770 and has been so thoroughly documented by Charles E. Hanson, Jr. (1956). Much misinformation has been written about the

identified eighteenth century English trade gun bar¬ rels have been found which measure more than one inch across the flats at the breech, while no known French barrels have been found which measure less

I trust that this study of the gun fragments from Michilimackinac will help clarify the problem to some extent, but there are many other trade gun types which are now known which are not here repre¬ sented. I will be happy to share my information with anyone who cares to send me a detailed description and photographs of the furniture on any presumed trade gun he may have. An exact measurement of the bore to the thousandth of an inch, made at least three inches in from the muzzle, should be included. NOTE:

paper by S. James Gooding (1975) has appeared de¬ scribing trade gun fragments recovered by Walter Kenyon from a Hudson’s Bay post on the Albany River. In discussing the quality of these guns, Mr. Gooding observes: “In 1715, the Board of Ordinance, the body which was called upon to purchase the arms for the British Army, paid 22 shillings each for the current Brown Bess, considered to be the best military musket of its day. At the same time, the HBC was paying their gunmakers 20 shillings each. It is not possible to believe that only 2 shillings could make the difference between the best military musket and a cheap This trade shouldmusket.” put to rest the legend that trade guns were cheaply made, unsafe, and unreliable —

unreliability of trade guns, which is mystifying since 6

Since writing the above, a most informative

won’t.

but it

II. The Gun Parts Described Figure 1: The Most Complete A) This discovered used by the the nearest

Gun

buttplate and triggerguard, which were by James Brown in the bottom of a latrine British between 1775 and 1781 represents approach to a complete gun found at

Michilimackinac. No barrel, sideplate, nor escutch¬ eon accompanied it, so the presumption is that a broken stock was thrown in the latrine to get rid of it. B) The following year Lyle Stone recovered this guard, similar to A above, while excavating the area outside the fort walls where the new visitors’ parking lot was to be placed.

I9601 140). And finally, a triggerguard bow and a finial, as well as a buttplate tang, were found on the Sullivan site, Ei-81, in Illinois. The probabilities are that this was an English trade gun introduced during the last quarter of the 18th century. If so, this is the first English trade gun known to have had cast brass furniture. The lockplate, also shown at A, was recovered with the buttplate and guard, but it is doubtful whether it actually belonged to that gun. If it did, it had formerly been on another gun and later adapted to this one, for

Figure 1.

CJ Top view of the buttplate tang and finial. This type of buttplate had been seen in widely separated collections before Brown’s discovery of the associated guard. A ladle, ingeniously made from one of these buttplates, was found some years ago near the site of a former Northwest trading post on Long Lake in Ontario and is now at Lakehead University. A buttplate tang with the finial was recovered at Spaulding’s Lower Store (1763-1783), Pu23, near Plataka, Florida (Fairbanks to TMH). A tang was found by J. M. Crick on the Little Osage site (17101715), 23Sa3, near Malta Bend, Missouri (Hamilton,

the center screwhole

of the three above the tumbler

axis hole is an extra, drilled on the frontier to fit another gun. The rear of these three holes held the upper tumbler bridle screw, which indicates that the lock originally did not come from a trade gun. The extra hole in the nose of the lockplate was also drilled on the frontier to hold the lug, or spur, on the side of the frizzen spring which too was a replace¬ ment. Later the spur slipped out of the hole, and the spring twisted into the position shown. Except for this defective spring, the lockplate was stripped of all parts before being discarded. 7

FIGURE

2: Buttplates

Four iron buttplates and two of brass, all French except possibly C and D. A) At present this iron buttplate is assumed to be a variation of the Type D, but it could be French military. Similar brass plates are shown in Figure 4D. Because of corrosion, very little is known about Type D trade guns with iron furniture. This particu¬ lar specimen is the best preserved Type D iron buttplate seen to date. B) Several buttplates in iron or brass have been found very similar to this one in design, but with slight variations. The brass tang and finial, shown in Figure 5A, is a good example. A brass buttplate, B-225, from the Tunica hoard is another. About all that can be said about them at this time is that they represent French trade guns made during the first half of the 18th century. C) This rather undistinguished butt plate could be either French or English. We have no data on it. D) This peculiar buttplate in iron has a mere spur for a tang. A side view is shown in Figure 3E. It should be easily identified, but I suspect that it is from a nineteenth century shot gun. Figure 2.

E and

F) Here

are two

excellent

examples

buttplates from better-grade French guns

of

or fusils

The finial on E can be considered the prototype from which the Type C trade gun styling was copied, fins. but it is heavier, more neatly finished, and the design on the tang was cast from the pattern and stands out in high relief instead of being engraved as on the trade Just what the finial is supposed to represent is a subject guns. of wide disagreement. It is most often referred to as an acanthus leaf, but I have failed to find any similarity between it and any known formalized eighteenth century leaf designs. Perhaps it represents what is known as an artificial leaf. Originally (Hamil¬ ton, 1960) I thought it represented a potted plant of some sort, but am now inclined to interpret it as a flaming torch, primarily because of its apparent later modification into the formalized torch-like finial of the Type D as shown in Figure 10 J. The design on F was also sand cast. Two of these finials were recovered at Michilimackinac, showing minute variations which indicate that at least two different patterns were used in production. Only the one buttplate with the tang shown here was recovered from the site, but a complete buttplate with tang and finial intact and with the same formalized intertwin¬ ing of vines, but without the stand of flags, was found in the Tunica hoard (Hamilton, MSa). Whether this particular finial belongs to this spe¬ cific buttplate is debatable since a short section be¬ tween the two is missing as shown.

FIGURE Here and B, Figure D is English

3: Buttplates

A, B , and C show side views of buttplates F, E, respectively, in Figure 2. E is a side view of 2D showing its extremely short tang. a side view of the broken buttplate from an Long Land musket shown as a composite in

Figure 5D. Figure 3.

FIGURE

4: Buitplates

A) This brass buttplate finial is unknown. It could be English. B) This German silver excutcheon is also un¬ known. C) Two formal design variations found on French triggerguard bows.

(catalogue #3699) has the cypher of Desjardins, Con¬ troller of the French Armoury at Maubeugefrom 1718 to 1755, stamped on the reverse side. The cypher consists of the letters “A • R X” in which the “X” appears to be a very skinny four-leaf clover with the stem attached. The “AR” were derived from the two middle letters in the name Desjardins (Boudriot to Donald Biard, 10/16/64). A trophy consisting of a bow, an arrow, a quiver, and a club is engraved on the base of the tang just above the screw hole. Trophies involv¬ ing those four items were very popular in Europe during this period and do not necessarily indicate that the guns on which they appeared were intended primarily for the Indian trade. It is known that the Maubeuge

Armory

under De¬

sjardins made up trade guns for the American col¬ onies as well as its regular military orders (Boudriot to Hamilton, 2/24/72), presumably using obsolete mili¬ tary furniture, but otherwise our information is very sketchy. Possibly these two pieces are not from true trade guns, but from guns made up for French-Indian partisans. D T g is from a bett t and quiv er rade ype er rophy, no com in the intr trad gun. As exp ¬ l e o D guns ahianveed so far been fdouucntio so the type plet Typ e e d, n, thr fou gun fra upo has been base o n g n witdh tang ugahn¬d A bumtetnts Vall out the Miss d plat ey. issi e ppi Desj and bea but hea simi fini vie r al, lar a Freing mus rdins’ was used on the r1733 cyph n k e eto as Ty3p4 E. ch des and rha,s bee on n ign e ate d F, G, and H) These are finials from three var¬ iations of the common grade Type D trade gun and are in marked contrast with the better grade Type D tang and finial E. Aside from the quality of the This butt workmanship on the better grade guns, there is a plat e t a noticeable ng adifference in the weight of the metal nd f i al, used. The finial inmarked with “F” (Cat. #3967) measures .073 inches in thickness anand eng “G” (Cat. #2449) is ave marked “D” are .068 while “E” is .118. The rtwo d .105 and .113 inches thick respectively. bow

)

Figure 4.

tan has its The low is com but upp tp g er ple e to app offte. but oth finlate bro ext r , ial ear erw rem ken isTehe low s tan pat s t f c hav beee ter e er g n ast rom he ame n.

Shipping manifests to the Colony in Louisiana dur¬ ing the 1730’s show that the common grade guns represented 60 to 70 percent of the trade (Boudriot to T.M.H., 2/24/72), and there is every reason to assume that they were quite serviceable for the important features of a gun were the barrel and the lock. Cer¬ tainly the furniture on the common grade French trade gun was equal in every respect, if not superior, to the English trade guns of that period.

9

FIGURE

5: Buttplates

A) The similarity of this brass buttplate tang to the iron buttplate shown in Figure 2B, as well as Cat.

#B-225 from the Tunica find, has been noted. In spite D of the ) relative thinness of the metal (.085"), the work¬ manship and finish indicate that it came from a better grade trade gun or a fusil fin. B) It is doubtful whether the tang (Cat. #1678) and the plate (Cat. #1144) at the left originally belonged together since there is a difference in the thickness of the metal. However, they fit together remarkably well and do present a close approximation

of the butt-

plate’s original appearance. The tang and plate on the right belong together. These are typical English buttplates made of light brass .060 to around .070 in thickness, cut to conform to the butt of the stock, and nailed on with from five to

shown in Figure 10J. A somewhat similar finial is to be seen on a brass buttplate, Cat. #227, in the Tunica hoard (Hamilton, MSa). inally went with the two pieces making up the tang and finial, but together they represent remarkably well the original appearance of the buttplate from the (Ftf Long ItLaisnddoub irul ss) English musket, whde st Mo etlherBrow then plBe ate here show in production from about 1730 to 1780 (Blanckmo orig re¬, 1961:45). The tang (Cat. #1439) and the finial (Cat. #1451) fit perfectly. The broad arrow, which marked English military property, can be seen on the inner surface of the plate.

Figure 6. 1 ' i1 • f i . | •

j'j'j 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 in i |t| 1 1^| n ip

'pi

|,

eight nails. The tang to the left, Cat. 1678, is unusual in having been held to the stock with a screw. The buttplate on the right is also unusual in that its edges have been slightly rounded fortable fit to the shoulder.

to present a more

com¬

C) This French iron tang and finial was cut from the buttplate with a cold chisel. This is a most un¬ usual buttplate finial, since it is the same as the for¬ malized torch used on the Type D triggerguards as Figure 5.

FIGURE

6: Buttplates

A) Four pistol buttcaps, two of brass and two of iron. The one in the upper right hand corner is from an English military pistol, while the other three are French. These three have, in addition to the regular round hole for the woodscrew which held them to the stock, a rectangular hole through which some decora¬ tive device such as the two pins were inserted. B) The faces of the decorative pins shown in A above. The one on the right has been inserted into the slot of the brass buttcap shown at the lower right in A. This does not imply that these masks were used origi¬ nally with the buttcaps since they seem to be too small. Both of these pins are French. 10

C) A typical Type D iron pistol guard. It is remark¬ ably well preserved showing practically no effects from its 200-year sojourn underground. The front fi¬ nial, a classic torch, is an especially good example of those used on the standard Type D trade guns, also to be seen on B above. There has been some confusion between this type and the French model 1733 calvary pistol, but the finials of the two are quite different. D) Here wre have the bow7, front tang, and finial from a Type C trade gun with iron furniture. The design is more clearly showm in the brass finials in Figure 10K. Except for the front finial. the Type C and Type D triggerguards are similar in execution. 3

4

t,

7

*

1

C

11

li

FIGURE Bottom

8: Triggerguards

and side views of five iron triggerguards.

E) Two bowr sections with front tangs and finials and two fragments with the tangs and finials only, all surface mounted. About all wilich can be said about these four items is that they are French. They were probably used on late 17th century muskets before the introduction of standardized models in 1717. F) Unidentified, but probably French. Figure 8.

Figure 7. FIGURE

7: Triggerguards

Four iron trigger guards, shown above and side views below.

with bottom views

A) This is an iron guard from an English trade gun. A total of seven of these guards have been found at Michilimackinac. but this specimen. Cat. #5035, was the most complete at the time this picture was made. The rear finial. Cat. #2038. from another guard was added to show7 how7 the entire guard looked when complete. The complete guard, showm in Figure 9H. was discovered later. Though there w7ere some variations in the form of the finials. this is a good illustration of how the Eng¬ lish made the guards for their trade guns. In fact, these guards w7ere made

with more

care than usual for it

required some forge w7ork to make the abrupt bends for the bow7. Often they wrere made from a thin strip of metal formed cold. B) This is a standard

iron guard from a Type D

trade gun. Like A above. B wTas surface mounted with wroodscrewTs, but the superiority of the forge work is self evident. In this example the rear finial originally terminated in a graceful and gradual point, but it has been broken off.

tt sd

i_ i—

FIGURE

9: Triggerguards

Figure

9.

G) Two triggerguard bows with front tangs and finials probably from the Model 1717 French infantry musket. The two front finials immediately above them are also from similar guards. The rear finials to the right are more difficult to identify. The second from the bottom has lost its finial and has a hooked lug. All the others were surface mounted. H) A complete

eighteenth century English trade

gun guard. I) An unidentified French trade gun guard which has lost its front finial. It probably represents a varia¬ tion of the Type D.

12

1t T?

FIGURE

10: Triggerguards

Ten brass triggerguard bows. E is English; the re¬ mainder are French. See Figure 11 for a side view of F and G. Figure 10.

12

n

it TTT3

3 ii,u

4

5

TI Tj 5T Ti Ti T 1

H and I) These finials.

7

6 9 1

$ 1

8

9

*

are the only two

English front

J) Six examples of the Type D front finial. K) Four examples of the Type C front finial. The three to the right are unidentified.

FIGURE

11: Triggerguards

A) Side and bottom views of a heavy brass triggerguard with the broad arrow stamp and the letter “I” on the inside of the bow. This may be from a sea service or yeomanry musket, but no specific date can be assigned. It is definitely English and probably pre-Brown Bess (Peterson, 3/6/75). B) Three brass triggerguard fragments which have been modified by filing notches around the upper ends so they can be suspended as ornaments.

C) Two brass Type C front triggerguard finials with tangs. D) An unidentified brass rear guard tang. The finial is missing. E) Two pieces of a broken triggerguard bow show¬ ing Type C decoration. F) A buttplate finial. Probably a Type D variation. G and H) Side views of the guard bows shown in Figure 10G and 10F.

Figure 11.

13

FIGURE

FIGURE

12: Sideplates

French sideplates. A) Sideplate on a Type C pistol in the Texas Memorial Museum, Cat. #648-306, with the date 1743 on the barrel. B) A Type C sideplate recovered on a common grade trade gun from the Fatherland site, Natchez, Mississippi, by Diana Baker. C and D) Fragments of French sideplates related to the Type C.

F) Various French sideplates or fragments related to the Type C. The one in the upper left corner is complete except for a portion of the rear grillwork. The other pieces represent sideplates from the medallion back. No true Type C rear portions have been found at Michilimackinac. G) The standard cast brass serpent sideplate which was used on the Northwest and Hudson’s Bay trade guns from about 1775 to the close of the muzzle¬ loading era around 1885. Four additional fragments of this design were found at Michilimackinac. H) An unusual

Figure 12.

13: Sideplates

form of the serpent sideplate, pre¬

sumably English. The upper specimen is not com¬ plete, but it probably had a body originally like G above. The break has been carefully filed smooth in a workman-like manner. In addition to the head shown below, another of

E

) Various head fra gments

from Typ e C side plates.

these sideplates was found on the Brown site, 23VE3, Vernon County, Missouri. All three specimens were cast from different patterns, indicating that the type was made in quantity and widely traded. I) The rear half of a French military sideplate. J) The rear half of an English sideplate from a Long Land (Brown Bess) musket. It could be from an early New Land (2nd Model) musket.

Figure 13.

*01

,

mittilili

9

ililililiiilil

fetl

!

■*

'.8 LI. ifl 1,1 111 M

z\ it 1 ll tl • I Ilm 1 1 11 1 1 1 nil II 1 1 II It 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1 1 11 1- 1' - 1 11 1 1 1 miiililiiini Mil

14

S

iiitiiliitlililmtiiiiii

svc Hill. mill .

•

mi. iililiiiliiilililuuiilhulliili

i

FIGURE

14: Sideplates

N and O) French militia muskets.

Sideplates: K to P are iron as well as Q. K) A French sideplate of iron, still in fair condition and engraved in the style shown in R below, with the same separated tail section and outlined with lines and dots. The engraved decoration can no longer be discerned.

iron sideplates from military or

P) Another French military sideplate which has been adapted to fit a pistol lock by redrilling the front side screwhole. Q) Fragments

from

unknown

iron sideplates,

probably French. R to T) French brass sideplates. T is a typical Type D trade gun sideplate. S was probably originally from

L) Another sideplate, probably French. M) An unidentified iron sideplate. It is completely undecorated, but upon reexamination it appears to have been used with a left-hand lock. If so, it is here shown reversed.

a fusil fin. U to Y) All of these are Type D trade gun sideplate fragments except for W, which we can only assume from its size came from a wall gun.

Figure 14.

.

it

vT7TT^l-Tr-W7TT_TTTT—

Fi

s,l , r;t , t'i

z|i

m

o' t .

^

7.

-

15

FIGURE

15: Escutcheons

and Thumbplates

A) An unidentified escutcheon plate, probably English. B and C) An escutcheon plate, similar to these two in design, has been seen on a recently discovered French trade gun, a variation of Type D. Note that the specimen to the right at C is similar to the one to the left except that the surrounding grillwork and crown have been broken off.

ity as A above. Note that the masks are similar.

above the shield

Figure 15.

D

)

Unidentif

ied but probably of the sam e nationa l¬

16

E) A French military escutcheon. F) An English escutcheon from a Brown

Bess.

Some gun collectors interpret the markings as mean¬ ing “Company C, 1717,” but the more informed au¬ thorities believe that it represents a rack number. This is definitely from a Long Land pattern which was introduced between 1725 and 1730 (Blackmore, 1962:45) so the 1717 date is highly questionable. (It could perhaps be from the 17th Regiment which was at Michilimackinac from 1764-66). G) Three iron escutcheons from French trade guns. H) Four iron French military escutcheons.

Rear ram pipes are shown to the left and front ram pipes on the right and across the bottom.

17

FIGURE

16: Lock Parts for a Wender, Barrel Pistol

or Swivel

A most interesting find, so far as the arms historian is concerned, was the recovery of a lock and the two battery sections from a Wender (pronounced Vendare), sometimes called a swivel barrel gun. Accord¬ ing to Lenk (1965:49) these guns were produced only from about 1640 to 1650 because it was found that the wear on the pin, upon which the barrels rotated, was excessive and it was difficult to keep them lined up with the lock. Actually, Wenders were made well into the 19th century, each new maker perhaps thinking that he had come up with an original invention, but they simply could not compete with the more simple and sturdy double barreled gun. However, the fact remains that all Wenders were expensive guns and since neither the tumbler nor the frizzens on this gun were bridled, it follows that it most probably was made around 1650. By the time Michilimackinac was founded in 1715, this gun was already a curiosity and an antique. The drawing of a Wender pistol by John Mathay (Plate IV) illustrates how it was made. The two barrels were superimposed, each outfitted with its own breechplug, pan, and frizzen, and the unit was rotated manually upon a pin holding the assembly to the stock upon which, in turn, the lock and trigger were mounted. Figure 16.

18

Obviously, this was

a rather delicate ar¬

rangement which precluded any hasty urge to use the weapon when empty as a club. The interesting feature about the Wender aside from the ingenious set up of the frizzens and pans is the back action lock which here appears to have been developed originally for this particular application. Later, during the first half of the nineteenth century, the back action cially on target sion cap, but in Wender had to to set the cock

lock enjoyed wide popularity, espe¬ rifles and shotguns using the percus¬ 1650 the gunsmith who made the first redesign the lock completely in order at the front end.

A (Figure 16) shows the outside of the lock as it was found. The cock is missing, but otherwise it is com¬ plete with all its parts. The piece of metal which seems to be projecting down from the lockplate is actually the arm of the sear holding the lock off the background upon which it lies. B is a photograph of the inside of the lock. Unfortunately, neither of these photos are as clear and distinct as one would wish, so I have outlined the lock parts in ink in the picture to the right. Everything is backward in action from the normal lock as shown in Plate III; even the sear en¬ gages the tumbler on the side opposite the lip. None of these lock parts could be used on a standard lock by even the most resourceful of the frontier gunsmiths, so when it came time to discard the pistol, the only part which was saved was the cock.

Plate VI

Swivel Barrel Pistol c. 1660

19

Lockplates Aside from the back action Wender

lock (Figure 16)

no complete flint locks have been found at Michilimackinac since it was the universal custom on the frontier, when it was no longer feasible to repair, to strip each lock of all useable parts before discarding the lockplate. This custom was followed by both the whites in their forts and the Indians in their villages. A complete lock is practically never found in the village debris, only in burials. The assumption that the operation of the gun was a mystery to the Indian is completely without founda¬ tion. If a sixteen-year old Indian boy of today can make a junk car run, there is no reason to think that the repair of a flint lock was beyond the ability of his eighteenth century ancestor. All that Indian needed was a few tools and he could readily substitute one tumbler for another — if he only had a large enough assortment of tumblers available from which to select a replacement. It must be remembered

that this was

before the days of mass production and the inter¬ changeability of parts, and each part was fitted indi¬ vidually as the locksmith put the lock together; how¬ ever, if one were on a hunt far from Michilimackinac, he could not afford to be too particular about the fit or action so long as the replacement part worked. Of course, the untrained shade-tree gunsmith could not retemper a main spring nor adapt used cocks too far out of line, as explained later under Figure 20, but

Figure 17.

he could often save himself many

a weary mile back to

the post gunsmith if he had a suitable supply of lock parts along and a screwdriver, a mainspring vice, and a file or two. FIGURE

17: Lockplates

A to E) These five lockplates were probably made before 1725. Note their banana-like outline and the projection on the tail. None had bridles on tumbler or frizzen. All had a fence on the pan except C. The pan on A had been burnt out and repaired by brazing, while the pan on B is severely eroded from powder burns. The unfenced pan on C is the only one which was still in good condition when discarded. F to L) These seven lockplates were probably made somewhat later than the preceeding five. Like them, these had neither bridled tumbler nor frizzens. All of the pans show erosion from powder burns except H and I, which are in relatively good condition. H has a bow and quiver trophy which can only be seen now under favorable light conditions. The faint tracing of an anchor can also be seen just behind the pan. It is doubtful whether this lock ever saw service with the French Marines. L is from either a pistol or a rifle. L is unusual in that the upper, or center, sidescrew (which helped hold the lock to the stock) was set so low it entered the center of the plate.

FIGURE

18: Lockplates

Lockplates, mostly without bridled tumblers. M is a Willets doglock plate. The name is stamped immediately beneath the pan. The lowest of the three holes to the rear of the large hole for the tumbler axis is the pivot screw hole for the dog. The center hole held the pivot screw for the sear, while the upper of the three held the sear spring screw. The plate itself is perfectly flat and plain with no chamfering of the edges. The removable pan, which has no fence to divert the flash, is in practically new condition indic¬ ating that the lock saw little service. N) A bow, arrow, and quiver trophy decorates the tail of this lockplate; otherwise, there are no discernable markings. The removable pan is eroded, though not seriously, and has a high fence. This is a remark¬ ably well-preserved lockplate, undoubtedly of Eng¬ lish manufacture after 1775, and made by Wilson. (See Figure 19C) O) Judging from its contour, this lockplate is of early eighteenth century manufacture and was made

in France for a fusil fin. After this photograph was made an upper tumbler bridle hole, filled with rust, was detected and quickly uncovered with a hand drill. The screw hole for the pan did not break through to the outer surface, and the upper side screw fitted into the rear of the pan ledge while the front side screw engaged a tapped boss as shown in the top view in Figure 23L. Since the base of the cock covered the upper tumbler screw hole and the frizzenspring was held by an internal screw, this lock presented a re¬ markably smooth and neat appearance and was, without question, one of the finest locks to be seen on the early 18th century frontier. A faint tracing of a name can be caught on the inside between the boss and the frizzenspring screw hole: “PER . ” The initial letter could be a B, T, or F. P is a quite ordinary lockplate probably of English manufacture. There are no markings to be seen other than a simple decoration, similar to a shield, outlined

Figure 18.

21

on the tail, which seems to be an English characteris¬ tic as shown on R below. The contour, the pointed tail, and the three side screw holes combine to indi¬ cate early eighteenth century. This could be an early X ) Wilson lock. Except for its banana shape it is very like Figure 19 C & D. Q) Again we have a lockplate with the shield out¬ line on its tail. The tail tip has been broken off. The removable pan is rounded and is so deeply eroded next to the barrel that it is questionable whether it could still hold powder lish.

when

it was discarded. Eng¬

R) This is a remarkably well-preserved lockplate by Wilson. The last three letters can be read across the tail within the shield-like decoration mentioned above. The front of the plate was also outlined with a double line running from the cock forward. The let¬ ters “WH” are deeply and clearly stamped on the inside immediately below the upper side screw hole. A sitting fox punch mark, Company in the late 1700’s pears immediately in front itself is too indistinct from

used by the Hudson’s Bay on their trade guns, ap¬ of the cock, but the fox weathering to recognize.

John Mathay’s interpretation of this plate is shown in Plate VII, A. Locks with bridled tumblers. S is another three side screw Wilson lock. The name is stamped immediately in front of the cock. Like all lockplates in this column, this one was fitted with a tumbler bridle. This was a good sturdy lock dating from the mid to late 1700’s. Since no trade gun of this period has been recovered with a bridled tumbler, the probabilities are that it came from an English fowling piece. T) Another

lockplate with a bridled tumbler from

the mid-1700’s. The plate was outlined with a line and dot decoration. A name beginning with either a T or a J in script can just be made out in front of the position for the cock. Probably of French affiliation. U) This good quality lockplate, which had a bri¬ dled tumbler and a front side screw boss similar to Figure 23L, is completely without decoration or markings of any kind. The frizzen spring was held by an internal screw. V) An upper view of this lockplate is shown in Figure 23K where the repair work on the pan will be discussed. A name, now indecipherable, was stamped across the band in the tail, and a decora¬ tive trophy of some sort was engraved on the tail. This lock saw service on at least two guns, for there is an extra side screw hole between the original and the upper tumbler bridle screw hole. The frizzen spring was held by an internal screw. W) A name, “CO can be seen immediately in front of the place for the cock. There is a trophy of some sort faintly seen on the tail and the plate is outlined with the usual two lines. The faceted pan is eroded, but not seriously. The frizzen spring was held 22

by a concealed

screw. There was a bridled tumbler;

most probably of French affiliation.

the mid-1700’s with a bridled tumbler. The nose has been broken off, but it was a three side screw plate originTh ere was a cross band, as on V above, and alis ly. isThan other bs oniath of the lley tama probably some decorasu il.deThelofr tiontant ckon pltate of plate is outlined with a row of single dots. The renew¬ able pan is faceted and shows definite erosion from powder

burns. FIGURE

19: Lockplates

A) This interesting lockplate had long and hard usage. The tail has been cut off and filed down through the back side screw hole in order to fit a second gun more conveniently. The mainspring was replaced at least once as indicated by two separate holes. The center side screw hole is so low it practi¬ cally centers on the plate. The faceted pan is deeply eroded. If it originally had a fence, it was so slight it has been rusted away. B) An ordinary trade gun lockplate with an eroded, faceted pan, probably French. CJ This is a typical English trade gun lockplate with a rounded pan, high fence, and the tail plano¬ convex in cross section. The identification is positive because the name “WILSON” appears under the pan. Like all the plates in this column, the tumbler had no bridle. DJ Though no maker’s name can be read on this plate, it is as nearly identical to C above as can be found among articles made in a handcrafting indus¬ try. The tip of the tail is rusted away, but the screw holes correspond though not in the exact positions as in C. The rounded pan with its high fence could have been forged in the same die. E to I) All of these lockplates had bridled tumblers. E) This is a typical early eighteenth century French lockplate of the better quality. Note the banana-like outline with the tit on the tail. The plate itself is of sturdy construction, flat in cross section with cham¬ fered edges. The tail is set off with transverse bands and decorated with engraving which is now indis¬ tinct. A formalized design of some sort is also im¬ mediately in front of the cock. The front side screw fitted into a boss as shown in Figure 23L, and the upper side screw was held by a tapped hole in the rear of the pan ledge. The faceted pan had a good fence to divert the flash. The pan had been completely eroded through and was repaired as described later. F) This French lockplate is somewhat later than E above, but has many of the same characteristics. An anchor with an “F” on the left side of the shank and a “T” on the right is engraved immediately in front of the cock. This has been interpreted as indicating that it came from a musket issued to the Marines. The faceted pan has a good fence and has been moderately eroded.

Figure 19.

G) Another early eighteenth century French lockplate, but more moderately curved than E above. It is so deeply rusted that the only decoration to be seen is a double line outlining the tail section. The pan is faceted, but if it ever had a fence it has long since rusted away. H) This broken lockplate is shown to indicate what can be determined from a fragment. The rear break occurred through the upper bridle screw hole and the tumbler axis hole. Like most French plates, the frizzen spring was held by an internal screw as indicated by the chamfered edges of the hole. The fence on the faceted pan was probably of moderate height, but it has now rusted down. An anchor, similar to but smaller than the one on F above, and with the same letters, is engraved in front of the cock and below the pan. I) This is another French lockplate fragment like H above, except that the front break is now through the frizzen spring screw hole. An indistinct design in what appears to be brass wire is immediately in front of the cock.

23

Plate VII Lockplates A limited amount of lettering and decorative de¬ signs could be deciphered on some of the lockplates

Plate VIII.

recovered by Moreau S. Maxwell and Lewis H. Binford during the initial years of excavation at Michilimackinac. Essentially, this process consisted of removing the overlying rust from likely looking specimens and then carefully burnishing the surface with crocus paper. If the lettering or design could not then be made out, the plate was carefully heated over a bunson burner and various solutions, as used by the police in raising obliterated markings on firearms, applied. In general they found that, when the lettering had been stamped into the metal, it could be raised so long as the original surface was not too badly pitted. This was because the underlying metal directly beneath the lettering had been compressed. Where the letter¬ ing or designs had been engraved, they had little or no success in raising them. It must be understood, of course, that, where the surface had been deeply pocked by rust, all markings by either stamping or engraving were irretrievably lost. The blanks in these drawings are the results of such loss. Also, often only parts of individual letters bordered these rust pocks, making it impossible to determine whether the letter

H

had originally been, for instance, a “T,” an “E,” or

Plate VIII Lockplates

a “P.” perhaps Some of the markings were also highly ephemeral, lasting only for a short while and then disappearing completely.

E) No trace of lettering can now be seen on this lockplate illustrated in Figure 18, X.

A) This is the Hudson’s Bay lockplate discussed under Figure 18, R. The sitting fox is actually not so clearly seen as here shown, but the mark is excep¬ tionally clean cut.

F) This lockplate is unidentified. G) The design on the tail of this lockplate can no longer be made out, but the anchor stands out quite clearly. Mathay did not complete this drawing, for the

in Fig¬

“F” on the left side and the “T” on the right side of the anchor shank are prominent enough to be seen in the

D) The design here shown is Mathay’s interpretation of what was seen when it was raised. Only the “P” and the part immediately surrounding it can still be seen.

photograph in Figure 19, F. H) This lockplate, shown in Figure 18, W, appears today much as when Mathay drew it, except that only the first two letters of the name are now decipherable. Only the bottom part of the anchor can now be seen.

B) The lettering on this lockplate, also shown ure 18, T, can no longer be seen. C) This lockplate has not been identified.

FIGURE

20: Cocks

A) The cock marked A is from a doglock made, in my opinion, around 1640 (Mayer, 1934, and reprinted in Hamilton, 1960, Figure 4). It is difficult to conceive of a gun lasting for sixty or seventy years on the frontier, so it probably represents a seventeenth cen¬ tury occupation of the site. However, two authorities insist that it could be from an eighteenth century doglock. I have reexam¬ ined it carefully, and the forging is like that seen on mid-seventeenth century guns. B) The cock marked B is from a gigantic English lock, probably a wall gun or a cannon lock. The lower jaw has been broken off. 24

Figure 20.

III. Gunsmithing JEAN-BAPTISTE A Blacksmith

at Michilimackinac

AMIOT:

at Michilimackinac

by David A. Armour During its history Michilimackinac

had a number

of blacksmiths who were also skilled gunsmiths. Lit¬ tle is known about most of these craftsmen, but one, Jean

Baptiste

Amiot,

was

very

influential

at

Michilimackinac during the mid-eighteenth century. Sometime before 1724 Jean-Baptiste Amiot moved to Michilimackinac where he was employed as a blacksmith by the local Jesuit priest. Amiot married Marie-Anne, a Sac Indian who was related to the Ottawa living in the village close to Michilimackinac. About 1737 Amiot had a serious disagreement with the priest Pierre Du Jaunay who fired him, took all his tools, and hired another blacksmith, Pascal Soulard. Sieur Pierre Joseph Celoron de Blainville, comman¬ dant of Michilimackinac, realizing that two blacksmiths were needed to supply the needs of the rapidly growing community and to repair the guns of the neighboring Indians, advanced Amiot the funds to continue working. However, the priest, maintain¬ ing his monopoly of blacksmithing granted by the King’s Memorial, insisted that Amiot pay him one half of his profits. Thus, Amiot worked under the Reconstructed

Priest’s house and adjoining Blacksmith’s

Jean Baptiste Amiot, the Fort Blacksmith, shapes a small hatchet. Also a skilled gunsmith, Amiot was an employee of the Priest whose house adjoins the shop. shop.

25

watchful eye of the priest of his shop adjoining the priest’s house. Archaeologists excavating the site found numerous gun parts, attesting to the important role which the smith played in the economy of this western fur trading post where a broken gun could mean disaster. While training his oldest son Augustin in his craft, Amiot was barely able to eke out an existence on the profits he was permitted to keep. By 1742, with a growing family of eight children, Amiot was reduced to begging at the lodges of the local Ottawa, and he seriously considered moving to the Illinois Country. The Ottawa complained of Amiot’s plight to the Mar¬ quis de Beauharnois, Governor-General of New France, and as a result Amiot was freed from his tie with the priest and his economic position substan¬ tially improved. Amiot, now referred to as Sieur, did a considerable amount

of work for the commanding

officers at Fort

Michilimackinac during the late 1740’s, fixing guns and making axes, tomahawks, and picks, and a va¬ riety of other ironwork. Apparently he worked at Michilimackinac during the busy summer trading season and occasionally spent the winter with Indian hunting bands, for on October 1, 1745, his son Louis was born at a camp on the Des Plaines River near Chicago. While at Michilimackinac, Amiot lived in a house which he owned facing the parade ground, backing on the Chemin de Ronde, and adjoining the lot of Le

A young 26

visitor inspects a gun barrel.

Chevalier de Repentigny. In the fall of 1757 a small pox epidemic introduced by Indians who had been fighting the English in New York swept through the community, and Amiot’s twelve-year-old son Louis died. The following year Amiot’s wife was also buried in the cemetery at Michilimackinac. Jean Baptiste continued active with the help of a slave or two, and he was residing at Michilimackinac when the English assumed control in 1761. On June 2, 1763, the local Chippewa son. The

attacked and massacred the English garri¬ Commanding Officer, Captain George

Etherington, who was ransomed by the Ottawa, re¬ warded them by directing Amiot to repair their guns. Amiot apparently moved to La Baye sometime after 1763. There he quarrelled with an Indian named Ishquaketa, who had left an axe to be repaired. When Amiot siezed the Indian with a pair of hot tongs, the Indian knocked him senseless with the axe. While Amiot was recovering, another Indian paid him a visit and to put an end to his suffering stabbed him to death as he lay in bed. The exact date of Amiot’s death is unknown for the interment records of La Baye have not survived. During his lifetime Amiot’s skills as a blacksmith had contributed substantially to the local economy and the maintenance of close relations with the local Indians. NOTE:

This article was originally published in a

slightly different form in Dictionary Biography

Volume

of Canadian

III (1974), pp. 12-13.

THE

FIGURE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL

21: Fitting a new cock forging to an old lock.

This was a relatively simple operation. By refer¬ ring to the inside view of a flint lock (Plate III) it will be noted that the tumbler, marked 5, is driven by the mainspring, marked 8. The axis of the tum¬ bler passes through a hole in the lockplate and is fastened securely to the cock, 15, by the tumbler screw, 14. The cock and the tumbler move together as a unit so that the ledge, on the inner side of the

EVIDENCE

cock, will strike the top of the lockplate before the hooked tip of the mainspring slides off the lip of the tumbler. This relationship between the lip of the tumbler and the ledge of the cock must be very exact for, if the mainspring were allowed to slip off the lip of the tumbler, the lock would then be out of action. It could not then be brought back to “full bent,” to use the eighteenth century term corre¬ sponding

to our “full cock.”

Dedirot Encyclopedia

27 Eighteenth Century forge.

To keep this relationship between the tumbler and cock exact and to guarantee that there would be no slippage between the two, that part of the tumbler axis which protruded through the lockplate had four square shoulders filed on it, and the hole in the base of the cock into which the tumbler fitted was also filed square so that there was a pressed fit between the cock and the tumbler axis. The two were then held securely

mark and the ledge, and an iron plug was made to fill this area and riveted into place. In use this plug then struck the top of the lockplate and transferred the shock directly to the ledge in arresting the fall of the cock.

Figure 21.

together with a screw tapped into the end of the axis. Since this was at the very beginning of the Indus¬ trial Revolution, each flint lock was made up indi¬ vidually, the various parts being filed out and fitted together as the sequently, there square shoulders assembler simply

lock was being assembled. Con¬ was no standard positioning of the on the axis of the tumbler, but the filed out the shoulders and then the

square hole in the base of the cock was oriented ac¬ cordingly. If any two cocks could be used interchangably, it was purely a coincidence. For this reason newly forged cocks were delivered to the locksmith either blank or with a small hole drilled through the base for him to begin his filing. A, B, and C in Figure 21 illustrate the three steps followed in fitting a new cock blank to an old or new lock. A is a new cock just as it came from the forge. B is a new blank in which a hole has been drilled through the base so the filing can begin. C is a finished cock showing the squared hole positioned for the particu¬ lar lock for which it was intended. It is interesting to see that new cock blanks were at times available at Michilimackinac, but normally the gunsmith was faced with the problem of adapting a used cock in which the squared hole had already been filed. The probabilities that the squared hole on the replacement cock was properly oriented to the tum¬ bler of the lock being repaired was remote indeed. This was where a large collection of used cocks was highly desirable, for there were three requirements which the replacement must meet. 1) The replacement cock must be of approximately the same size as the one it is to replace. 2) The squared hole must be a pressed fit on the tumbler axis or smaller so it can be filed out to size; it cannot be shimmed. 3) If the squared hole does not coincide exactly with the squared shoulders on the axis, then it must be positioned so that the throw of the cock will be slightly to the right. If to the left, then the ledge on the rear side of the cock would strike the top of the lockplate too soon. Once a used cock was found which filled those three conditions, the adaptation was done as follows: The cock was first fitted by filing the squared hole to a pressed fit with the axis of the tumbler. Then the exact spot was marked beneath the ledge on the inside face of the cock where its fall had to be arrested to prevent displacing the mainspring. A hole was then drilled through the neck of the cock between this 28

In Figure 21, D is the reverse side of C showing

the

ledge on a cock as normally fitted to the lock. E is a cock with a new plug inserted beneath its ledge. F is another cock with a badly worn plug, while G is a cock which has been fitted to two different locks in succession, for there are two plugs, both of which are badly worn.

FIGURE

22

In looking over the material recovered

from the

gunsmith’s shop it is truly astonishing to see to what lengths he went to keep the guns of Michilimackinac in action. The cocks A and B in Figure 21 and the blank frizzen marked H in Figure 22 are the only indications that he ever had new and unused parts with which to make his repairs. Everything else indi¬ cates that he worked and reworked old parts until literally he had nothing left with which to work. From the little evidence which has survived we can only conclude that these frontier gunsmiths were men of astonishing ingenuity and native mechanical ability.

The frizzens H to I in Figure 22, on the other hand, represent mere exercises which any apprentice gunsmith was expected to have mastered. As has been said, H is a new blank just as it came from the forge. It has not yet been drilled for the frizzen pivot screw nor has its nose been filed for action against the frizzen spring. I is a relatively new frizzen and shows no wear from the flint. However, the pivot hole was too large and the frizzen wobbled on the pan, so the hole has been shimmed with brass. J is a large military frizzen and has seen much use, for the face is deeply worn from the flint. It was probably removed to be refaced, but lost in the shop litter. K is a severely worn frizzen which has been sal¬ vaged by neatly brazing a new steel facing over the old one. Where the brass ran onto the pan cover, it has been filed down to present a smooth fit over the top of the pan and prevent losing the priming. The top of the cover has also been filed smooth so that only the brass which has permeated the metal still shows. L is another refaced frizzen, but the replacement has been completely worn through and the lower half is now rusted away. We now come to the more interesting repairs show¬ ing the skill in brazing and the lengths to which the gunsmith went to salvage parts. The poverty in supplies and the adverse conditions of living are here

poignantly reflected. One can only have the greatest respect for the courage with which these people faced life. M) The tang on this breech plug was broken through the screw hole, so an extension was brazed on and a new hole drilled. N) This breech plug tang broke completely off, so an attempt was made to braze it back on the plug. For some reason the work was not completed, for the brass appears only at the start of the break. O) Here the tang was successfully brazed back on the plug. Surplus brass was then filed from the face of the tang where it fits against the breech. The sides were also dressed, and the brass-filled threads of the plug were then cleaned out with a thread-cutting die. P and R) Attempts were made to braze these cock heads back on their respective bodies, but without success. Q) This head was brazed back and the cock put into service as indicated by the flint still in its jaws. The fact that attempts were made to salvage these broken cocks shows how desperately in need of repair parts they were, for the entire strain of bringing the cock to full bent and striking fire against the frizzen is born by this delicate section of the cock neck. The possibility of a permanent repair was remote indeed. S) This cock has a rather complicated history. After service on its original lock it was transferred to another, but instead of adapting its throw with a plug,

Figure 22.

29

as described underFigure 21D to F, a piece of iron was brazed against the ledge instead. Later, the cock was transferred to still another lock, and this time the throw was still more modified by installing a plug below the brazed insert. This is the same cock as shown in Figure 21G. T) This cock broke in three pieces; one break was right at the ledge, and the second was parallel to the first and about one quarter of an inch below. The three pieces were brazed together so perfectly there is no noticeable misalignment and all the excess brass was left under the ledge, after which it was carefully filed away. The cock was finally discarded when the comb broke off since any attempt to braze it back would cause the first brazings to come apart. FIGURE

23

A) This is the only example of a burst barrel so far found at Michilimackinac. This is a muzzle section, and the break was probably caused by plugging from snow or mud, which is no reflection on the quality of the barrel for the best modern barrels will burst under the same conditions. An attempt to repair it by braz¬ ing was made, but this piece is now so badly battered that the success of the repair cannot be determined. B) The frizzen screw hole on this lockplate was brazed shut with the obvious intention of drilling and tapping a new thread. Later it was discarded for some reason and a piece of iron cut off the tail. Figure 23.

Blacksmith

at work at the reconstructed

C) This gun worm was worm back on the base.

forge.

repaired by brazing the

These worms were used for removing the wadding so the load could be changed from ball to shot, or vice versa, depending upon the game encountered. The worm here is a turn or two short of its normal length. D) An attempt was made to braze a new nose on this sear, but the fire was too hot and melted off the screw hole. E) Here the screw hole, which been bushed with brass.

was too large, has

F) In making this successful repair, the old nose of the sear was filed off leaving a step into which the new nose was fitted and brazed into place. G and H) These were relatively simple repairs. In each instance the body of the sear broke just ahead of the arm, and the smith simply brazed them together again. I and J) Bottom views of two deeply worn flashpans which have been repaired by brazing, after which they again were burned through. K) Top view of repair work on the flashpan of the lockplate shown in Figure 18V. A square piece of iron was fitted neatly into the bottom of the pan, where it had eroded away against the barrel, and brazed into place. The patch appears here as a square at the top of the picture. The white blotch is where the pan has rusted through after the lockplate was discarded. L) Top view of the lockplate shown in Figure 19E. Unlike K above, this pan is still in good condition. The white marks in this photo are made by whiting rubbed into the edges of the repaired section so they would photograph distinctly. Again, a square piece of iron was fitted into the bottom of the pan and brazed into place. The repair, in turn, was deeply eroded before the lock plate was finally discarded.

FIGURE

24

M and N) Two triggerguard tangs which broke through the screw hole immediately behind the bow. The repairs were made by joining the two pieces together and strengthening the break by soldering a reinforcing plate across the break on the under side. O) A piece of brass triggerguard tang which has been used as brazing material. The melted portion is at the upper end. Several of these pieces were found. P) This old triggerguard was salvaged by boring screw holes on either side of the bow and filing down the broken ends.

T) Repair pieces have been cut from this brass buttplate using a fine-toothed scroll or jeweler’s saw. U) This is the toe of a large buttplate made from a sheet of copper. V) This upper vise jaw was made on the frontier as a replacement and is still in excellent condition. It is made of copper and is only .04 inches thick, but is carefully cupped to strengthen it. The gunsmith probably decided, after making it, that it was too light to do the job.

Q, R and S) Three ramrod pipes cut from brass or copper kettles. Figure 24.

IV. Barrels No full-length gun barrels have been recovered at Michilimackinac. However, a good representation of short barrel lengths and fragments were found, and 35 of these were submitted for study. Of these, 23 were rejected because rusted.

they were

too badly deformed

or

Of the remaining twelve pieces, one is of particular interest. It is the breech section of an English fowling piece or trade gun, now measuring 10-5/16" long and 1" across the flats at the breech. It is remarkably free from rust or corrosion. The half-octagon breech sec¬ tion is 7-%" long and has been terminated at the chase by simply turning it down to an outside diameter of 7/b" on a lathe — which is an interesting observation on eighteenth century barrel making and metal working in itself. The punch mark of R. Wilson, who is listed as a London gunmaker from 1761 to 1779 (Gardner, 1963), appears on the upper flat between the two

BARRELS Bore Diameters from Barrel Fragments from Michilimackinac Bore Catalogue Diameter Number Comments 1476 Muzzle section cut off with hacksaw by .552 gunsmith. l3/4" by 13/16" O.D. Slightly flattened. Major and minor diameters averaged. .561

1366

.571

759

.575

2016

.580

2115 V10

.585

1496

.610

1083

.630

3044

the bore cuts off oxygen and hinders the rusting proc¬ ess. Therefore, this barrel was cut in two approxi¬ mately three inches in front of the breech, and the bore, though heavily encrusted with a nonmalignant rust, could be cleaned rather easily by scraping and polishing with a fine grade of abrasive cloth. Its bore

.721

measured

with reasonable

.650

section. 1%" by 11/16"

section with sighting rib. 63/4"

by 11/16" O.D. section. 63/s" by %" O.D. Pistol breech Chase section of barrel cut off with

Pistol barrel section. 33,4" by 7/e"O.D.. tapering to 13/16" by 13/16"O.D. Bore clean. Muzzle section cut off by gunsmith using 1

169 1622

by 13/16" O.D.

Broken off clean. muzzle O.D. Bore

hacksaw. 73/s" by 3A" O.D. 7/e"O.D. Muzzle section with sighting flat. 5" by

.601

.655

rib on top.

Muzzle

“1702” style London proofmarks. Wilson’s mark was the letters “RW” beneath an asterisk. The letters “IG” are clearly stamped on the bottom side of the breech. There is no rear sight. Strangely enough, we often find good measurable bores in extremely rusted barrels which have lain underground for centuries, since the dirt plugging

was found to be .650". The other eleven barrel fragments, selected out of the 35 submitted, also had bores which could be

Fusil barrel chase section with sighting

hacksaw. 3V4" by 13/16" O.D. R. Wilson barrel described above. 10-5/16'hy 1" across flats. Muzzle section cut off by gunsmith using hacksaw. 3y4" by 13/16" O.D. Very short section of muzzle cut off by gunsmith using hacksaw, now 11/16" long. Major and minor diameters averaged.

Figure 25 The rear portion of the breech section of an English fowling piece after processing. The punch mark of R. Wilson beneath an asterisk can be seen between the

accuracy. All had been

cleaned electrolytically in the Michigan State Uni¬ versity Museum before being submitted, but no way has yet been devised really to clean the bore of a

Figure 25.

gun barrel, especially if it has any length, for obvi¬ ous reasons, but by using a dental pick here and there and the abrasive cloth, opposing surfaces were found of the original bore walls, and reasonably ac¬ curate measurements could be made. These measurements were made by using an ordi¬ nary pair of inside calipers and then taking the diame¬ ter off the caliper tips with a micrometer. The error in taking the reading off the calipers is probably greater than any involved in the calipering, but in any event it seems to work out to be around a plus or minus .001", which is near enough for our purposes since the readings must then be reduced to the closest hun¬ dredth of an inch for use in our gauge lists.

32

two London “1702” style proofmarks. This barrel was probably made between 1761 and 1779. Mineral oil and talcum powder were used to increase the contrast for photographing.

Reproduction

ration 1:1.

V. Balls It is customary in a study of this sort to list the ball sizes and let it go at that. However, it seems as if someone should be willing to risk his reputation by getting down to specifics and try to assign these vari¬ ous bullets to the guns in which they were probably used. For if we can eventually accumulate enough information to ascribe a given bracket of ball diameters to a particular class of guns — even though no trace of those guns has been found on that site — it will be of definite value to all concerned. Here, where we have twelve established bore diameters, is a good point from which to begin. Few eighteenth century or earlier undeformed balls are actually round, for, due to the method used in routing out their molds, they are usually wider from side to side than from front to back. For this reason, plus the problem of allowing for the accumulation of fouling in the bore, the ball was usually a very loose fit in the barrel according to our twentieth century standards. This difference between ball and bore diameter is called “windage” and the French trade guns seem to have had a nominal windage of about .03". The term “nominal” is used advisedly since it is doubtful whether the tolerances at the time when they were made could be held to less than a plus or minus .01 of an inch. The nominal

windage

each with a .63" bore, but more specific information is badly needed. We can speak with greater authority about the balls with diameters between .58" (25 to the livre) and .54" (32 to the livre) for M. Jean Boudriot (Boudriot & Lo¬ rain, 1972) has found shipping manifests of this period specifying tons of balls in two mixed lots: 32 to 28 to the livre (.54" to .56') and 28 to 25 (.56" to .58'). Fur¬ thermore, an English trade gun barrel has been found with a .56" bore (calibre 32), and just recently evidence has been uncovered showing that they also had a trade gun with a . 59" bore (calibre 28) . From this it is evident that the English had guns in the trade which shot the same bullets as the French. The fact that the above bullets for these two sizes of trade guns, French and English, total 286 or 64 percent of the total measurable balls indicates just how important the standard trade guns were in the economy of Michilimackinac.

There are a total of 31 balls between .53" and .48". I am inclined to suspect that the .53" diameter bullets are merely undersized 32 to the livre balls for they would work quite satisfactorily in the barrel, Cat. #1366, listed above with a .56" bore which is probably an undersized calibre 32.

BALLS

on the French Infantry mus¬

ket was approximately .04" and the British Infantry musket allowed for .05". In actual practice then, the balls with diameters from .73" down to and including .69" were, in all probability, used in the Brown Bess or other English guns with a .75" bore. The thirteen balls .68" in diameter could have been used in the French musket if the bore were a full 17.5 mm (.69"] and if it were clean of fouling, but my guess is that they were also English military. The French Infantry bore, having a nominal bore of .69" (17.5 mm), could take a .67" ball if full-bored and clean, with a lower limit on balls around .63". The same “calibre 18” (.69" or 17.5 mm) was also used certain trade guns (Boudriot & Lorain, 2/24/74) guns furnished the French Indian partisans, so surprising that not more balls in that size range been found.

with and it is have

The balls between .62" and .59" inclusive, fall into a sort of limbo since very little is known about the guns which could have accommodated them. I might insert here, parenthetically, that before the adoption of the French Model 1733 Cavalry pistol using bullets weigh¬ ing 18 to the livre (.65"), smaller bores had used weighing from 22 to the livre (.61") to 28 to the (.56') (Boudriot & Lorain, 1971). It is interesting to that we have three barrels from Michilimackinac

balls livre note with

bores ranging from .63" to .60". Also, an English barrel and a French barrel have been found on other sites,

There

Diameter in inches .48 .49 .50 .51 .52 .53 .54 .55 .56 .57 .58 .59 .60

.61 .62 .63 .65 .64 .66 .67 .68 .69 .70 .71 .72 .73 .74 .75 Total

were a total of 488 undeformed

Quantity 2 0 3 6 21 479 11 69 65 84 44 15

149 2 1 2 2 1 13 25 0 0 0 1 0 0 448

balls recovered.

Comments

32 to the livre 28 to the “Calibre 25 to the “Calibre

livre 32” bore livre 28” bore

20 to the livre (French musketoon

ball?)

18 to the livre (French Infantry ball) French musketoon

bore, 16.7 mm

French Dragoon bore, 17.1 mm French Infantry bore, 17.5 mm English Infantry ball

English Infantry bore

As for those balls .52" in diameter and smaller, they could be either for pistols or small smoothbores. The smaller sizes could have been for rifles, but the only archaeological evidence we have that rifles were pre¬ sent is a lockplate, which could have come from a pistol as well. A .53" smoothbore

Fort Michilimackinac

34

trade gun of English

in the late 1770s.

manufacture

has been found at an Indian site in North

Carolina so there is no make guns for the Indian French calibre 32. Any have been used in such

question that the English did trade in sizes smaller than the of these smaller balls could a gun.

VI. Shot All the shot submitted

from Michilimackinac

is

either cast or made by the process first publicized by Prince Rupert in 1665 (Baird, 1974); though drop shot, invented in 1769 (George, 1974:209), could very well be present. The cast shot was obviously made in a gang mold and would classify as either buck or swan shot, ranging in size from .45" to .247". The Rupert shot was made by pouring the melted lead through a brass colander-like affair mounted a foot or so above a pan of water. The lead, fluxed with arsenic, was poured through live coals in the colander and dripped through to the water below. Since not enough time elapsed in the drop to permit surface tension to form a perfect sphere, the resulting shot is slightly ovoid in cross-section and has a slight dimple on the more flattened side. The sample ranges in size from .217" to .078" and was probably screened into

various sizes before sale so it could be used on every¬ thing from geese and fox to songbirds and gophers. Figure 26 Representative shot from Michilimackinac. The top row is composed of buck and swan shot, cast in gang molds and ranging in size from .471" to .350" in diameter. Shot in the second and third rows were made by the process first publicized by Prince Rupert in 1665, and all show the characteristic dimple. The second row is from .215" to .180" in diameter, while the third row measures from .150" to .087". Though drop shot, invented in 1769, could well be present, none has been observed in the samples sub¬ mitted. Reproduction

ratio 1:1.

Figure 26.

35

It is impossible for me to fully acknowledge the help I have received from each of the following, but I do wish to express my sincere appreciation. David A. Armour, Mackinac Island State Park Commission Donald Baird, Princeton University Jean Boudriot, Paris, France Rene Chartrand, Parks Canada, Ottawa Charles Fairbanks, University of Florida

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Mrs. Marie Gerin-Lajoie, Ottawa, Canada S. James Gooding, Editor, Canadian Journal of Arms Mrs. T. M. Hamilton, Miami, Missouri

Collecting

Charles E. Hanson, Jr., Museum of the Fur Trade, Chadron, Nebraska Donald P. Heldman, Mackinac Island State Park Commission Roy T. Huntington, Charlottsville, Virginia Pierre Lorain, Paris, France Harold L. Peterson, National Park Service, Washington Mrs. Natalie Stoddard, Editor, Canadian Historic Sites Lyle M. Stone, Archaeological Research Services, Tempe, Mrs. Lyle M. Stone, Tempe, Arizona

REFERENCES BAIRD,

1974

“His Highness Prince Rupert’s Way of Making Shot, 1665,” Canadian Journal of Arms Collecting, Vol. II, No. 3.

BLACKMORE, 1962

HAROLD

L.

British Military Firearms, Arco Publish¬ ing Co., New York.

BOUDRIOT, JEAN 1963 Armes A Feu Francoises, Series 2, Paris. 1964

Letter dated 10/16/64 to Donald

Baird.

BOUDRIOT, JEAN AND PIERRE LORAIN 1971 Letter dated 9/28/71 to T. M. Hamilton 1972

Letter dated 2/24/72 to T. M. Hamilton.

1975

Letter dated 9/20/75 to T. M. Hamilton.

FAIRBANKS, CHARLES 1974 Letter dated 6/6/74 to T. M. Hamilton. GARDNER, 1963

ROBERT Small Arms

Makers, Crown

Publishers.

GEORGE, JOHN NIGEL 1947 English Guns 8r Rifles, The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. GOODING, 1975

36

CITED

HAMILTON,

DONALD

S. JAMES “Trade Guns of the Hudson’s Bay Com¬ pany, 1670 to 1700, Canadian Journal of Arms Collecting, Vol. 13, No. 3.

Arizona

T. M. (Compiler)

1960

“Indian Trade Guns,” Missouri Ar¬ chaeologist, Vol. 22, Columbia, Missouri. HAMILTON, T.M. 1968

“Early Indian Trade Guns,” Museum the Great Plains, Lawton, Oklahoma.

MSa

“The Tunica Guns,” Museum, Harvard.

MSb

“The Rhoads Site Guns,” Illinois State Museum.

HANSON, 1956 MAYER, 1943

CHARLES

on file at Peabody on file at the

E., JR.

The Northwest seum. JOSEPH

of

Gun, Nebraska

State Mu¬

R.

Flintlocks of the Iroquois, Research Rec¬ ords of the Rochester Museum of Arts and Science, No. 6, Rochester, New

York.

PETERSON, HAROLD L. 1975 Letter dated 3/6/75 to T.M. Hamilton. STONE, LYLE M. 1974 Fort Michilimackinac

1715-1781: An Ar¬

chaeological Perspective on the Revolu¬ tionary Frontier, Publications of the Mu¬ seum, Michigan State University.

CATALOGUE

NUMBERS

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates that no catalogue number is available. Figure 1. A. 4580, 4580 & 4580 B. 5406 C. 4580 Figure 2. A. 5860

E. . 722 & 812 D * F. 167 &1387

1952, 3927, 1372, 3519, 2027 &3685 K. 807, 106, 268, 1862. 769, 929, 1. 885, 775 795, 1472, 175, 1914

2650 717

D. 1079 * & &* 1006 C. 930 E.

D. 1680 C. *

J.

G. 3350 H. 1231

Figure 4. E. * A. 5480 B. 331 C. * & 6735 D. 4607-4607

E. 2474 F. 3967 G. 2449 I. 3906

& 3699 Figure 5 A. 3628 B. 1678-1144 763-967 C. *

H. *

Figure 6. A. 1420, 1938,

Figure 12. A & B. See text. Not from Michilimackinac. D. 3296 C. 953 4204 * 1100 F. 4175 E. 1019 * 2463 F. Figure 13.* & 1530 3001 &

2989

2741

2141 4204 H. G. 1051 766

I. 2055 J. 1656 N.

Figure K.14.1036

849

P. O.

2020 849 & 2020

L. 2414 M. 1026

k

k

1430 Q. 17 S. 2917

k

C. D. 969

'J1

Figure 8 E. 4346, 3683, 2526 & * F. 172

3705 2335

958 897 2520 4129 * 443

H. 5036 & * I. 2213

2114 290

V.

k

Figure 9 G. 1000 * ★

4245 2111 4511 2445

*

D. 1451-1439-1680

Figure 7, A. B.

1170, 1470, 2041, 208

C. 2668 3273 D. 917 2 E. 1 F. 1231

A. 3385 B. 4024 &

Figure 3. A. 167 &1387 B. 722 & 812

B.

3166, 2364, 947 1476, 3943, 1442, 2449 (I)

G. 3350

C. . 4023 B *

2970 1938

H.

Figure 10. A. 3367 B. 2301 2527

797 U. 3630 W. 3716 X. 3621 2325

k

Y. 325 Figure 15. A. 2499 B. R885 . *

H. G.

*

198

1665

C. 1868

1342

1593

2143

858

697 D. 3323 E. 777 F. 2785 Figure 16. A & B. C. 1146

4415 * 37

Figure 17. A. 1488 B. 178 C. 3283 D. 3213 E. 779

F.

740 G. 3942 H. 1448 I. * ★ K. 3026

Figure 22. H. 2886 I. 3460 J. 2520 L. 645

L. 1264 Figure .18. M. 1

S. 1 T. 2245 J-

0. 917 N. *

U. V.

P. * R. 1971

w. X.

Q. *

Figure 19.

A. B. C. D. Figure 20.

* * * *

A. * . * Figure B21. A. 3286 B. 2980 C. 2886

38

E. F. G. H.

917 1672 1038 *

848 2003 I. *

3296 1727 P. * 0. 3296 84 R. 3025 T. 2615 S. F.

Figure 23. A. K533 . * C. 757 D. 1270 E. 1012

3173 H.I. * * G. 5310 K. 1004Q.

B. * Figure 24. M. 1000 N. 966

0. 1869 P. 645

R.

E. 1 F. 1004 2615 G.

Figure 25. 1

856

T. 7144 S. 1004 2087 126 V. U.

D. 2886

2628

1672 L. *

* 2228

M. N.

1087

Q. J.

About The Author T. M. Hamilton is well known to American archaeologists and gun collectors for his work in identifying gun parts recovered from Indian village sites and frontier posts with 17th and 18th Century contexts. An archer as well as an experienced blackpowder shooter, Mr. Hamilton has also done extensive research on the various types of bows developed by the American Indians and Eskimos. At present, Mr. Hamilton is working on a detailed study, tentatively entitled Colonial Frontier Guns, scheduled for publication by Shumway in late 1977 , which will summarize the information accumulated to date; not only the various gun types recovered achaeologically, but also the bore sizes, balls, shot, and gunflints. Information from individuals having presumed frontier guns or archaeologically recovered guns or gun parts will be welcome. The address: T.M. Hamilton Miami,

Missouri.

65344

-

Hamilton, T M Firearms on the frontier ;

010101 000

633 2 63 UNIVERSITY 022 0 TRENT to

Vm

Date Due

■ J/ MAR 1

$ ^ vrt

h 1996 / 1999

1V

*

ms

A Li