[Sean Flynt]

I'm working on an article about the prevelance of swords listed in the Viginia Muster of 1624/25. I'm planning to touch on at least all the topics listed below.

• Total number of swords in the colony
• Number of swords per adult male
• Number of swords in x number of households
• Avg. number of swords per household
• Biographical/geographical info. on owners of largest numbers of swords (20-40)
• Number of swords vs. number of firearms
• Distribution of swords (storage in central locations vs. individual ownership)
• Requirements/advice concerning import of swords to the colony
• Restrictions on sword ownership/use
• Bibliography
• Kinds of swords in use (incl. archaeological evidence and contemporary accounts)

Do any of you have any other questions you'd like to have answered about swords in this period and geographic area?

[Eugene George]

Makers and locations of manufacture would be interesting if possible. Any specific regulations that can be cited as well.

Good luck on a very ambitious and weighty project.

[Glen A Cleeton]

I'm sure you must have seen this page;
Jamestown 1624/5 Muster
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/vcdh/jamestown/M...ction.html

I wish there were databases as complete as this for Charleston, later in the century.

Type of swords is certainly always at the top. I imagine most were English and Spanish.

Cheers

GC

Looking for mid seventeenth century entry records

[Scott Bubar]

What an interesting project, Sean. I'll look forward to seeing the article.

The only other question I can think of at the moment is monetary value.

[Sean Flynt]

Thanks, all! I'll work all of these topics into the article (which IS based on the online muster, by the way, as well as some earlier demographic studies of the muster and the usual text refs (Peterson, Hume, etc.).

[E.B. Erickson]

Hi Sean,
I've been doing some research for an article that I was going to write entitled "Broad and Backswords in the English Colonies". Looks like we have some overlap concerning sword types. Since it's going to be awhile before I finish mine, would you like a few references/photos to augment what you've found? Assuming I have some info that you haven't already accessed, of course!

--ElJay

[Sean Flynt]

Oooh! Can't wait to read that one! I've noticed that basket hilts are very well represented in the archaeological record of early colonial Virginia. H. Peterson and I.N. Hume are my main references for sword types in use in colonial Va. ca. 1620 because both discuss/show excavated examples. Neumann has wonderful technical information, but offers little or no provenance for his weapons. A few other of my books and articles may help fill in gaps, but I'm not planning to do a standard lit search to see what journal articles have been published on the subject.
Since this is a secondary concern in my article, I'll probably just provide basic information (a paragraph or two) about types of swords in use and refer readers to more in-depth pieces, including yours. Having said all that, I'd love to see your bibliography just to satisfy my own curiosity about how much has already been written on your subject. Have you found much scholarship dedicated to the subject, or have you had to piece together the picture from larger sources?

By the way, I find it very interesting that some early colonists were designated as "targeteers" and armed only with a target and (basket hilt?) sword. Scottish Highlands enthusiasts, including those who claim that the 19th c. "Rebel Yell" and mass Confederate charge owe their existance to Highland martial values and tactics, might find much to interest them in this early colonial period.

[Sean Flynt]

ElJay: Sifting through my library last night I found a book I forgot I had, but which helps fill in some details in both our subjects-at least as far as weapon origins are concerned. You're welcome to use these quotes and citations if you find them useful. I'll certainly refer to them in my own article. The book is "A History of Metals In Colonial America" (Holland, James A. University, Alabama, University of Alabama Press. 1981). It notes that while iron ore and wood/fuel were readily available in the Virginia Colony, and while the Virginia Company hoped colonists would exploit that resource and become more self-sufficient and even export surplus iron (the company sent to the colony blacksmiths and craftsmen to build a foundry and even advertised for gun-founders), the colonists tended to be more interested in finding precious metals (pp. 21-23). Anecdotal evidence of earlier iron producton aside, Holland writes "Far better concrete evidence has been provided by archaeological excavation of the Jamestown site, which revealed the possible presence of an operating forge by 1620. Some smelting of iron may have occurred before that using a kiln-pit, a method of reducing iron dating back to prehistoric times." According to Holland, one of the most ambitious foundry projects was ended by the massacre of 1622. (p. 24)
The point, of course, is that all the colonists' iron/steel weapons had to imported.
Holland writes elsewhere in his book:
"The locksmith and another urban craftsman, the cutler, both suffered more than other ironsmiths from competition with imported English goods. This was especially true for cutlers because the steel necessary to produce their stock-in-trade had to be imported throughout nearly all of the colonial period. Hence most cutlers carried a full line of imported edgeware which they ground and serviced as part of their trade." (p. 83)
"Only in the decade after the Revolution was steel beginning to be produced in quantity near the urban centers of Philadelphia and New York." (p.83)

[E.B. Erickson]

Hi Sean,
Thanks for the info about the plan for the colonials to do their own iron smelting. I hadn't heard that before, but it does make a lot of sense to have a colony that would have been self-sufficient in the weapons dept.

As far as my research, I'm piecing things together as you are. Petersen's "A&A in Colonial America" provides a starting point for me. Hume's "Martin's Hundred" has some useful bits (plus an account of the only 2 close helmets ever to be found on an American archaelogical site). I was able to take a trip to Jamestown a few years back, and sketched some swords that they had on display in their museum. One of the things that I'm finding interesting and perplexing is that there are several common English sword types that don't seem to have seen use in the colonies. But then, I'm still looking around, and may turn up one of the absentees yet.

--ElJay

[Scott Bubar]

[Patrick Kelly]

[Sean Flynt]

RE: Sources-Hume's The Virginia Adventure is another excellent source. The Jamestown museum offers all but one of its archaeological bulletins as a set for $35. I've ordered that in the hope that those will have some info. I've found a few more references, one of which includeds a recommended list of items for colonists to bring with them to the New World. This list, with prices, was compiled by a colonist as advice to others. It's wonderful, because it not only gives a price for a sword (5s), but also gives prices for myriad other essentials so you can get some idea of the relative monetary value of a sword.

Sword types: So far I've seen/read about baskethilts, falchions, rapiers and complex hilt military swords, but haven't seen or read about simple-hilt (straight quillons) swords.

[E.B. Erickson]

Hi everyone,
OK, here's the absentee list.

Hounslow hangers. Very common from about the mid 1640s (?) to the late 1600s. Petersen has one on p.81 with a colonial provenance, so it's not strictly speaking totally absent, but only ONE???

Mortuary swords. The Jamestown museum has one on display, but it's not excavated, not from Jamestown, and they give no provenance; it seems to be there as an illustration of a typical English backsword. I'm not aware of any of these common swords having been excavated on any colonial sites, and I don't know of any with family histories preserved in museums.

English hilt type ca.1630s. This one doesn't have a convenient label, but this type of hilt consists of an upturned shell on the right, a smaller one on the left, and a scrolled quillon. The knucklebow often has a shell at it's midpoint, and is joined to the knucklebow with a screw. I've seen one with an additional sidebow joining the right hand shell to the pommel. Pommels are usually large and of flattened inverted pear shape, but I know of one that has a cap pommel. Although these aren't as common as the above types, they are a typical English style that, as far as I know, hasn't shown up over here.

Have any of you seen any of the above types with a colonial connection?

What I'd like to be able to do is access small local museums to see if they have anything. Maybe I should try to mobilize the sword collecting fraternity!

--ElJay

[Sean Flynt]

Most of those types post-date the period I'm looking at, but I seem to recall mortuary hilts, H. hangers and cutlasses illustrated in Neumann. I don't recall if those were just generic examples or were identified as period imports. I'll check on that...

[E.B. Erickson]

Hi Sean,
Yes, Neumann does have all of those types in his book, but I don't recall any particular colonial provenance for them. I'd look, but my copy of his book is back in the States! I suppose if he has listed a sword as being in a museum, you could contact them to find out if their sword has a documented colonial history.

You really ought to get a copy of Hume's "Martins' Hundred". It fits right in with your time period, and is a very good and well written account of an archaeological dig.

--ElJay

[Sean Flynt]

Yes, this is my #1 complaint about Neumann's book. It isn't clear whether or not he's showing examples of particluar types or provenanced arms used in the colonies. Still a great catalog of arms, though.

I second your recommendation of Martin's Hundred. It was the first book on the early Enlgish colonies in my library. It's not only a great source of information about the material culture of the colonists, but also is a good, readable introduction to how archaeologists work. That reminds me...the Jamestown Rediscovery journals arrived yesterday. For those interested in all things colonial, they're worth every penny of the 35.00 USD. Color photos, maps, reconstructions, plans, etc. The articles are scholarly and informative but written for a non-academic audience.The seven volumes in the set contain two articles on the early colonial military and colonial arms and armor. The latter is a broad overview of the topic, but still nice to have. It shows a very interesting iron umbo from a 16th c. buckler. Another photo shows a 15th c. breastplate excavated in the colony! Talk about hand-me-downs....Swords get short shrift in the journals for some reason. There is one very nice sequence showing an excavated complex hilt in various stages of restoration alongside a similar weapon depicted in a portrait of the same period. They call it a rapier hilt, but it's not clear how they determined that without knowing what kind of blade the hilt was matched to. They may be assuming that complex hilt=rapier, or simply assuming that their hilt was on the same narrow blade shown in the portrait.

[Scott Bubar]

Thanks for the list, Eljay.

I'll have to meditate on this a bit.

My impression in general is that there really aren't all that many colonial weapons surviving from the 17th century, and the archaeological finds only scratch the surface.

What was going on in the middle of the century (during the ECW) seems pretty murky, at least to me.

My take on Neumann is that he was showing older swords to demonstrate development--his focus was the revolution.

Unless he identifies a sword as "American" (i.e. used by the colonists) or specifies that a European sword was used here by British/European forces, I assume he is showing a European example.

[Jim Post]

One of my general-purpose reference books, "Swords and Hilt Weapons," Prion Books Ltd., London, has a section on American sword and knives, by Frederick Wilkinson. Not a scholarly work really, but useful. The very short section on the colonial period reads in part:
"Early records from some of the colonies in Virginia show that the settlers held substantial reserves of swords. Rapiers, swept-and-cup -hilt, seem to have been widely owned, as excavations at Jamestown have confirmed, for archaeologists have unearthed complete rapiers as well as hilts and other fragments. In addition...the most common sword was probably the all-purpose hanger, which had a short, slightly curved, single-edged blade. The hilt, often of brass, usually had a side shell, a simple knucklebow and a horn grip...A number of basket hilts have also been excavated, almost certainly belonging to the longer-bladed weapons carried on horseback." (page 104)

Two swords are illustrated, a hanger-type with double shell guard and simple recurved quillons, English, c.1630 with a horn grip; and an abbreviated basket hilt, English, with a straight, single-edged blade. It has a large, pear-shaped pommel. The first sword has a simple cap. The basket hilt is said by Wilkenson to have been carried by John Thompson, "one of the early colonists of Plymouth, Massachusetts."

Your resources are better than mine and I realize that these examples are outside of your scope, but every bit helps!

Jim

[E.B. Erickson]

Hi Jim,
The sword owned by Thompson is an English type that was in use 1610(?) to about 1630(?). The Thompson sword is shown in Petersen's book along with one other of that type and a twin shell guard hanger. The Thompson sword is also on the Pilgrim Hall website, but it's a lousy photo! The good thing about the website is that they list materials, one of which is silver: what Petersen thought was engraved decoration was actually silverwork similar to that on the Twysden sword in the Met. We normally don't think of high quality (luxury) goods being used by the Pilgrims, but here's an example of such practice.

Hey Sean,
The type of sword represented by the Thompson sword has also turned up in Virginia. The illustration in "Martin's Hundred" on p.25 shows a guard from one of these, along with a basket, an axe, a doglock, and the cheekpiece from a burgonet.

--ElJay

[Sean Flynt]

Jim and ElJay: Thanks for the tips on the Thompson sword! Yes, every bit of info helps place my period of study in context. FLYNT: (SLAPS FOREHEAD AND SAYS "DOH!") Swords and Hilt Weapons is one of my favorites, and I'd planned to cite the excellent section on 17th English arms, but I didn't even think to dig into Wilkinson's article. Thanks for mentioning it.

I've now disaggregated some key numbers from the muster and found some surprises. Details and possible explanations will follow in my article, but at this point I can say that overall, as of 1624/25, there were NOT enough swords to equip every adult male in the colony. And this is just AFTER disease and warfare had dramatically reduced the number of colonists. Further complicating the picture is the discovery that in some households with many servants, there WERE swords enough to equip every adult male. I'm going to dig deeper into the records to see if I can eliminate some of the possible explanations for these results. Some possibilities: A gentleman with a family and significant property might be more inclined to make sure that his servants could serve almost as his personal militia, with all the equipment they migh require for defense of the plantation. More practical homesteaders and single men owning smaller plantations might already have been making the switch from the limited-purpose sword to the multi-purpose hatchet or large knife, as we know was happening by the end of the century. As ordinary tools, hatchets, axes and knives were not reported in the muster, so men like Thos. Flynt, who reported eight firearms and no sword, might actually have been well-equiped in the secondary weapon category.