American Tradition January 2011

T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E C O N T E M P O R A R Y L O N G R I F L E A S S O C I A T I O N VOLUME 2, NO. 1

JANUARY 2011

T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E C O N T E M P O R A R Y L O N G R I F L E A S S O C I A T I O N

Volume 2, No. 1 • January 2011 EDITOR Mel Hankla

CONTENTS 2. EDITOR’S NOTE

ASSOCIATE EDITORS Art DeCamp Frank House William Russell Young ART DIRECTOR H. David Wright PRODUCTION MANAGER William Scurlock COPY EDITOR Sharon Cunningham PHOTOGRAPHY Ric Lambert ADMINISTRATION MANAGER Rachel Nolen RESEARCH DEPARTMENT James Blake Henry Bishop Dan Brawner Kyle Carrol

4. Contemporary Longrifles as Interpretive Statements: Resolving the Paradox Mark Silver 20. Queequeg’s Tomahawk: A Cultural Biography, 1750–1900 Timothy Shannon 36. The Fine Artists of the CLA: Drawing on an Historical Perspective George Lower

52. Book Reviews Moravian Gun Making of the American Revolution Reviewed by Henry Bishop North Carolina Schools of Longrifles 1765–1865 Reviewed by Arron Capel The Hartley Horn Drawings Reviewed by Rich Pierce

AMERICAN TRADITION is the official publication of the Contemporary Longrifle Association and is published twice a year for the membership. Annual membership dues are $50.00. To join the CLA or for more information, contact: The Contemporary Longrifle Association, P.O. Box 2247, Staunton, VA 24402. Phone: 540 886-6189. Email: cla@longrifle.ws. Website: www.longrifle.com

56. SOURCES & RESOURCES Russ Young

Front Cover: To the left is an original pipe tomahawk by Carlos Gove, circa 1845. In the middle is an contemporary copy of the eighteenth century pipe tomahawk made by Richard Butler at Fort Pitt, illustrated on pages 32–33. It was a joint effort by the husband and wife team, Frank and Lally House. To the right is an interpretive piece by Clay Smith

CONTACTING THE EDITOR: For editorial inquiries, contact Mel Hankla at <melhankla@amhiss.com>, phone 270566-3370. Mail written material to: Mel Hankla, PO Box 156, Jamestown, KY 42629 American Tradition

•

Photograph by Ric Lambert

t h e j o u r n a l o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a ry l o n g r i f l e a s s o c i at i o n

•

j a n u a ry 2 0 11

Editor’s Note

RIC LAMBERT

American Tradition

delves into why these artists paint their chosen subjects and explores personal philosophies of their passion for America’s history. This issue also boasts three full-page book reviews, all newly published volumes, each very important in the growth and study of our longrifle culture. And lastly, back by popular demand is Russ Young’s column “Sources & Resources.” I wish once again to mention that the focus of American Tradition is articles pertaining to the “art of the Longrifle Culture.” Our goal is not only to educate, but also to showcase the work of CLA artists to serve our membership more uniformly. We are very proud to report that the works of 138 CLA artists have been presented thus far. Not to exclude any artists, we offer the opportunity to all CLA artists and/or collectors to sponsor any artisan. You will find seven artist sponsor pages in this issue. These sponsorships finance the addition of eight pages of additional information and exquisite photography in each issue. These sponsor pages are reasonably priced at $400 for an inside page, $500 for inside front or back covers, and $600 for the back cover. If you are interested in being a sponsor, please contact me at 270-566-3370 or [melhankla@amhiss.com]. Pages are limited and will be awarded on a first come, first served basis. It continues to be an honor to be the editor of American Tradition: The Journal of the Contemporary Longrifle Association, and I am very proud to present Volume 2, Issue Number 1. I anxiously look forward to your comments.

Mel Hankla

• t h e j o u r n a l o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a ry l o n g r i f l e a s s o c i at i o n • j a n u a ry 2 0 11

H. DAVID WRIGHT

s we step into the 15th year of the Contemporary Longrifle Association, I cannot keep from taking a long lingering look back. We humans, creatures of comparison, often judge things on previous experience. Remembering the first CLA meeting at the Radisson Airport Hotel in Cincinnati in 1997, it’s amazing how the organization has changed. The evolution, the growth of the entire Longrifle Culture is phenomenal; I cannot help wondering how different the world of the contemporary longrifle would be without the establishment of this dynamic organization. One year ago we presented the premier issue of the CLA’s membership magazine, American Tradition. There was much anxiety among the staff awaiting response from the membership. Six months ago, during the production of issue two, we were riding a high created by the ecstatic response to issue one. In the production of this issue, again there is angst, this time knowing a criterion was set by the first two issues that must be sustained. I feel confident members will find this standard has been upheld. In this issue Mark Silver continues his discussion of John Bivins’ classifications of contemporary makers with his article, “Contemporary Longrifles as Interpretive Statements: Resolving the Paradox.” Just as adept as the first installment, Mark defines how many contemporary arms are not reproductions, but rather original works influenced and inspired by artistic concepts developed long ago. It is followed with one of the most comprehensively researched articles ever written on the tomahawk. Professor Timothy J. Shannon of the University of Gettysburg shares an abridged version of his monumental article, first published in Duke University’s EthnoHistory Journal, “Queequeg’s Tomahawk: A Cultural Biography.” Shannon’s in-depth article discusses the theory, history and symbolism of the American tomahawk as never before presented. The references for this article fill an entire page and provide invaluable resources from years of his research. George Lower, co-founder of Lord Nelson’s Gallery and host of the famous Gettysburg’s “History Meets the Arts” show, gives us, “The Fine Artists of the CLA; Drawing on an Historical Perspective.” This article

American Tradition

•

t h e j o u r n a l o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a ry l o n g r i f l e a s s o c i at i o n

•

j a n u a ry 2 0 11

Part two of three parts examining the contemporary schools of gunmaking

~ Resolving the Paradox ~ Mark Silver Photography by Ric Lambert

American T Trraaddiittiioonn

•• t t hh e ej oj u or un ra n la o l fotf htehceocnotne t mepm o pro arry a ry lon lo gn rg i frl ief a l es saoscs ioat c iiat o ni o•nj a•n uj u a ly ry 2 0 1 11 0

In his discussion of the three approaches to contemporary historical gunmaking in the introduction to Robert Weil’s 1980 book, Contemporary Makers of Muzzleloading Firearms, John Bivins says of the Interpreters:

… this work may be a strong architectural recognition of existing early rifles, and actual decorative motifs from early work may be used. The interpreter, however, seeks a combination of details that represent the best of the early period, and consequently this gunmaker does not limit his study to a single specimen by one maker nor even necessarily all the work of one maker within a school. It is not unusual for the interpreter to cross school boundaries to some degree in seeking what he considers to be the best designs. Further,

though the interpreter respects relatively tight parameters of time and place… he also recognizes the artistic limits placed on following original designs closely. For [this] reason, he adds his own interpretations of designs, often carrying a historical framework well beyond the intent or capability of an early gunmaker. This description allows a great deal of builder latitude, perhaps a bit more than makes me entirely comfortable. But, let us leave that for a while and consider some of the realities of interpretive work. In the previous installment of this series on documentary work, I asked the question. “Can a builder today work as quickly and with the same mindset as his earlier counterpart while recreating a serious documentary project?” My

Flintlock rifle in the Germanic style, c. 1700–1710, by Mark Silver. Stocked in European walnut with the lock, set triggers and mounts filed from hand-forged steel. Relief chiseling derived from the Paris pattern books published by Louis XIV, c. 1660–1690, decorates the lock and all the mounts. In this form of relief work, the background is meticulously cut away and worked into the overall surface. The silver wire inlay is composed of multiple strands .005” thick laid side by side creating a thick and thin effect. Beneath the early Germanic “spoon” bow-form guard are some of the tools used to decorate the rifle: gravers for fine line and relief work, and a carving knife, a thirtyyear-old gift from the late John Bivins.

American Tradition

•

t h e j o u r n a l o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a ry l o n g r i f l e a s s o c i at i o n

•

j a n u a ry 2 0 11

Above: Close-up of the breech area showing the engraved 24K gold inlay, decorative breech molding of large chiseled and punched beading combined with filed convex bead and engraved running leaf.

Quartering view of lower buttstock and lock area showing handforged set triggers and guard with pierced and relief-chiseled layered leaf and multiple strand silver wire inlay. The wood box lid with its carved border and relief-carved wire inlayed version of the typical sheet metal front end cover makes a bold Germanic statement amidst the profusion of Paris-derived decoration.

American Tradition

â&#x20AC;˘ t h e j o u r n a l o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a ry l o n g r i f l e a s s o c i at i o n â&#x20AC;˘ j a n u a ry 2 0 11

Full-length view of Mark Silver’s rifle in the Germanic style, c. 1700–1710, an interpretive piece inspired by the work of early 18th century gunmakers Michael Wagner of Cronach and Johannes Schintzel of Berlin. Note the complex intertwining of relief carving and wire inlay between the lock and rear pipe.

answer remains no. How is this important and what does it lead us to understand about interpretive contemporary work and—by extension—18th century work? A central theme of our fascination with longrifles is understanding why they look as they do and how contemporary pieces relate to these original antiques. Understanding how they were created, the process of design and execution is of prime importance, not just academically, but as a practical matter that enables the artisan of today to create vibrant period-style works. Since we are talking about functional art, contemporary pieces must show the same freshness of creativity so evident in 18th and 19th century rifles. To accomplish this the builder must adequately assimilate the architectural and decorative detail of the project so that he or she can execute it with the same fluidity as our ancestral counterparts. Creating a piece with detailing and decoration that is either a significant reworking of original designs or actual new motifs that fit seamlessly into a tight 18th century context of style, while maintaining the freshness and spontaneity of early examples, is a major accomplishment. Successful interpretive projects require greater creativity than documentary work, if not greater skill. Laboring to turn out fresh work without having internalized a large chunk of early design vocabulary is very difficult and rarely meets with the success we would like. Many times when we first look at an original longrifle we are so enthralled with it that other possibilities are difficult to imagine. The piece looks so right just the way it is. How does a contemporary builder go about designing a version as fresh, creative and evocative of the period?

This could almost be a definition of art—the effective work of art. Gradually, although it is a demanding process requiring years of study and handling of period rifles, we begin to see those possibilities. Sometimes this act of looking at an original piece leads us to see more than is actually there. Perhaps it is the wear on a detail of carving that forces us creatively to fill in the blanks or perhaps the lack of clarity of a detail in a photograph that provides us the mental space for the creative process to come up with a significant alternative. Many times this leads to a design of greater complexity or sophistication, as our minds tend to gravitate naturally to intricacy. Today’s builders are unavoidably exposed to several centuries of firearms art — European, as well as American examples. They cannot possibly enter the mindset of the 18th century maker who had only seen a wood patchbox or perhaps a two-piece simple brass box, trying to envision the functional and decorative possibilities. Filtering our vastly increased understanding of what was to come is a tricky process fraught with pitfalls. Where does appropriate creativity end and rampant overspeculation begin? The answers are personal choices of the builder and the viewer that lead to finding our own dividing line between Interpretive and New School design philosophies. One consequence of our increased understanding of period work is that our view of what constitutes the

Top view of the rifle’s buttstock with its long, relief-chiseled dragon motif butt plate finial and complex double-beaded moldings, which add a bit of deceptively simple elegance framing the engraved designs. Note the large cheekpiece and extensive layered-leaf relief carving at the barrel tang.

American Tradition

•

t h e j o u r n a l o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a ry l o n g r i f l e a s s o c i at i o n

•

j a n u a ry 2 0 11

Chuck Edwards built this long-barreled British-style fowler to satisfy his client’s wishes by incorporating the profile and carving designs from several original guns, making it an interpretive, historically based work.

boundary of a style or school may become “muddier,” a bit more diffuse. Increased recognition of the similarities and connections between pieces can lead us to understand an iconic rifle as less of an archetypical example of a style or concise group but perhaps more as the mid-point of an evolutionary thread with strands shadowing away from it in several directions. All of the aforementioned design considerations and hurdles contribute not only to the headaches and fears of gunmakers but also to their fascination and, ultimately, to the fabulous diversity that is the rebirth of the American Colonial longrifle. This rebirth has also been the impetus and source of expertise for the extension of this interest into European arms—after all, American longrifles began as products of Europe’s most provincial areas, eventually evolving in new and vibrant directions. How does tool use factor into this scenario? Many of us believe that building with the conscious intent of evoking the visual feel of period work is best accomplished using period-style tools and appropriate techniques. The use of period tools directs, to a certain extent, how we work; it “nudges” us in the direction of 18th and 19th century

results and is many times the easiest way to accomplish our goals. Within the context of “one-off” custom pieces this need not be slower or more tedious, even if it requires more muscle energy. Twentieth century technology is an advantage only in the production of multiple very similar pieces or in especially labor-intensive areas, such as barrel and lock making. The application of 20th century methods to these two areas actually enabled much of the rebirth of longrifle making, which would not be possible without these modern technologies. Aside from the fact that remnant tool marks affect the final visual feel of a rifle, the use of the same type of 18th century tools contributes to creating a similar effect today. In the last article, we examined how different tools and techniques for setting in a carving pattern—gouges, V-tool or chisel-stabbed line—could dramatically affect final appearance. Assuredly, it applies to interpretive work as well. Let us extend that example a bit further into the design sphere; many types of period relief carving show clear evidence of having been composed with use of a limited tool kit of gouges.1 This limited range of available curves poses design restrictions on the pattern outcome.

Rifle by Jack Haugh, inspired by the work of 18th century maker John Newcomer. Note the Virginia-style patchbox, a period addition to the original rifle. Haugh utilized trophy motifs on the box lid engraving with tapered running leaf borders on the adjacent side plates. Note also the relief-carved detail delineating the comb and wrist as well as the custom-made lock.

American Tradition

• t h e j o u r n a l o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a ry l o n g r i f l e a s s o c i at i o n • j a n u a ry 2 0 11