Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No. 12

A Survey of Louisbourg Gunflints

by T. M. Hamilton and Bruce W. Fry

Some General Comments on Specific Problems On Dutch Gunflints

Before Witthoft had announced his conclusions that the spall-type gunflints were made from flints taken from the Riss outwash in The Netherlands, the senior author pointed out that they appeared to fall into three distinct sub-types. Sub-type A was made from chert, and sub-type B "from a true flint which does not match any known samples from French or English quarries." Sub-type C can be "matched with conventional gunflints or flint samples from known quarries" (Hamilton 1964: 53). Now that Witthoft has identified certain flints as conforming to those coming from the Riss outwash, we are satisfied that some of sub-type A and the majority of sub-type B come from that source, but we cannot agree with him that all of the so-called Dutch gunflints had their origin, in fact, in The Netherlands (Witthoft 1966: 26).

10 Flints from the Lartigue property.

At the time the senior author wrote his 1964 paper, he had seen only two chert gunflints made in the Dutch style; one was in the museum collection of the Nebraska State Historical Society, a surface find, and the other was from a small sample of gunflints from Fort Frederica, St. Simons Island, Georgia (Fig. 8). Later, he read that Charles H. Fairbanks had concluded from the chips found on the parade near the guard room door, that gunflints had been made at Fort Frederica (Manucy 1962: 81). While making a survey on trade guns for the Museum of the Great Plains, he consulted with Mr. Albert Manucy in St. Augustine, Florida, on this specific question, since this presented the first promising evidence that gunflints had actually been knapped in the Americas by Europeans. In the course of the conversation, Manucy presented the senior author with a nodule of flint, evidently brought over from England as ballast, from the surface of which spalls had been systematically struck. Manucy stated that he had brought this nodule with him from Fort Frederica when writing his report, but that he unfortunately did not have any of the gunflints in question. This nodule measures approximately five by three inches, is of a common greyish flint and still bears the chalk cortex—evidence of its European origin—on perhaps one-sixth of its surface. The spalls were apparently struck at random wherever a likely striking platform chanced to present itself as the work progressed. This nodule is shown in Figure 8 a, b.

The senior author then consulted W. H. Glover and Ross Hopkins at Fort Frederica, Mr. Hopkins generously spent his entire day going over what material they still had on hand and answering questions. Unfortunately, no nodules similar to that donated by Manucy could be found. Most of their flint material is now in storage at Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, Georgia, and should include some of the used nodules as well as the majority of their gunflints. However, there were still enough gunflints present to prove that they had been struck from nodules of the same type of flint as the sample. Furthermore, several of these Dutch gunflints still bore traces of the chalk cortex, which further strengthens the relationship since Witthoft observes that none of those from The Netherlands shows "any trace of the cortex of an outcrop-nodule" (Witthoft 1966: 25). There can be no question that these specific Dutch gunflints were struck from nodules with a chalk cortex, so the burden of proving that they were not made at Fort Frederica must now rest upon anyone still maintaining that Dutch gunflints were made only in The Netherlands from nodules found in the Riss outwash. From the above evidence the authors feel that the origin of sub-type B (spall gunflints made from mined flint of unknown origin) is still unanswered and a visit to the Ocmulgee flint repository is long overdue.

As Witthoft so ably points out, the identification of the source of flint artifacts is extremely risky. At the present stage of our knowledge we must depend upon megascopic analysis which leaves plenty of room for disagreement between equally objective individuals. However we are firmly convinced that sub-type C (spall gunflints which can be matched with conventional gunflints or flint from known quarries) is indeed a distinct variety of gunflint. In fact, the senior author found many sub-type C Dutch gunflints in the material sent him for study by Father René Lévesque of Laval University, Quebec, from his excavations at Sept-Iles and Mingan (Hamilton 1970). Therefore, it is the senior author's opinion at this time that the term "Dutch" should be used with reservation; that it should refer to a style of manufacture rather than to its source, and that until conclusively proven otherwise, its three sub-types should always be kept in mind.

On Fireflints and Firemaking

Witthoft makes two observations which clearly concern us when examining the gunflints from Louisbourg. He comments that "Early French gunflint blades were knapped into comparatively long sections, which were finished into wide flints. Perhaps the sectioning technique was not yet perfected, and the narrow segments were difficult to make. At any rate, most older French flints were too wide to fit the usual gunlocks of that time and were only adaptable to firemaking and to the massive locks of military muskets." Approximately one-third of these early French flints, according to Witthoft, had "concave edges shaped by use against the firesteel. Prior to 1760, French flints were designed more for firemaking, Dutch flints more for guns. However, many Dutch flints also show use against the firesteel" (Witthoft 1966: 28).

The problem of the wide, or what we in deference to the old French specifications call the "long", flints will be discussed later, but first we must clearly establish what is meant by the term "fireflint."

The only way to recognize the subtle difference between an 18th-century fireflint and a gunflint which has broken against the frizzen is to assemble a fire kit and master the technique of striking a fire. It will be quickly found that there is only one effective stroke—a straight strike from the edge of the flint toward the tinder—which produces the best shower of sparks. As a consequence, the tyro will soon produce a fireflint indistinguishable from those found on historic sites. By examining such a fireflint with the aid of a magnifying glass of moderate power the following observations can be made:

1) A used fireflint has concave edges, sides or back, depending upon the particular area used in striking. It is impossible, using a firesteel, to maintain a straight edge on the flint.

2) In seeking the best shower of sparks there is a tendency to turn the flint over from time to time to get a sharper edge. This results in a bifacial striking edge.

3) In forming the concave bifacial striking edge only a few large flakes are removed, and those are incidental. Instead, many minute flakes are removed by the firesteel, giving the striking edge a sort of mottled appearance.

It follows, therefore, that a flint with a concave edge and large flakes but lacking the minute flake scars is a broken gunflint in which the concave edge broke out against the frizzen. Figure 5, c is an example of such a broken gunflint.

A fireflint can be any flint used with a steel to make fire, but a used gunflint, even though it shows extensive use against a firesteel, is still a gunflint. For instance, gunflints are often found with concave edges, possibly not as exaggerated as in Figure 5, c, but still suggesting a fireflint. An examination of the face shows that it has been used with a firesteel, but the larger flakes are still sharp enough to indicate that it first splintered against the frizzen and was only later used for making fire. A good, common-sense rule is that unless the signs are positive that it was used against a firesteel exclusively, then it is a gunflint.

An 18th-century fireflint should be defined as an object which in size and shape is in marked contrast to known gunflints of that period and whose use marks show that that object was used exclusively with a firesteel.

We have gone to such lengths concerning the exact meaning of the term fireflint so it will be clearly understood why we insist that all of the French flints from both Battery Island and from within Louisbourg proper are gunflints and that none of them are true fireflints. In the illustrations, it is true, several fireflints are identified, but this is based upon use marks only, so by the definition above not a single example would qualify as a fireflint.

The only true fireflints identified are two flakes of greyish chert, included with the gunflints (17L12D1 and 17L2A2, shown in Fig. 9, c, d). Since the material is definitely chert and has a pebble rind, it is assumed to be native to the area and not an import.

We might add that ordinary chert flakes, such as normally found on any Indian village site, make excellent fireflints, throwing as hot a shower of sparks as any high quality French flint. For this reason, as well as that discarded gunflints could be had for the mere effort of picking them up from the ground, we question whether there was enough demand on the 18th-century frontier for true fireflints to justify the cost of importation.

On the Width of Early French Gunflints

As noted at the beginning of the discussion on fireflints and fire-making, Witthoft commented on the tendency of early French flints to be too "wide" to fit the usual gun locks of that time, and suggested that the "sectioning technique was not yet perfected" (Witthoft 1966: 28). This is indeed one of the most puzzling characteristics of the gunflints of this period, but, as will be apparent from tables 3 and 4, it was not confined exclusively to the gunflints of French origin. Some of the largest gunflints yet found at Louisbourg are made in the Dutch style.

The facts are that the French military locks in use during the first half of the 18th century were not as large as the gunflints of that period suggest. Furthermore, during that period there was little difference in size between the frizzens and cocks used on French wall guns and muskets (Boudriot 1963: Cr. 10, Pl. 3). It follows that there was no such thing as a distinct size made for the rampart or wall gun and still another for the musket; both took the same size. This holds true particularly for the time during which the Fortress of Louisbourg was in being.

To be specific, the following tabulation shows the greatest width of the top jaw of the cock and the width of the frizzen on the various models of French muskets which are likely to have seen service at Louisbourg (Neumann 1969: personal communication).

Frizzen widths on other French weapons of the period are as follows (Gordon 1969: personal communication):

On the Pseudo-Dutch Gunflints

Skertchly (1879: 41, 77), who spent much time studying the English knappers and acquired proficiency in the trade himself, throws some light on the question of the pseudo-Dutch gunflints found in the Battery Island cache.

He makes the following observation:

The flakes from which the arrowheads and some other implements were made had a single back, that is, one rib running down the centre of the back. . . Now these flakes were struck with a round or ovoid pebble . . . The old English gunflints were also made from single-backed flakes, or from flakes which had no ribs whatever, and these were struck with an oval hammer. The backless English flakes and many of the single backed ones, are still struck with the ovoid English hammer (Skertchly 1879: 41)

In Skertchly's Figure 58 he illustrates an "Old English Gun-Flint." There is no indication of exactly what he meant by the term "old" but the gunflint shown is exactly like many of the gunflints found in the Battery Island assemblage which we have called "pseudo-Dutch." In no place, however, can we find any reference to the colour of these "Old English" gunflints, so presumably they were made either from black or greyish-black flint, which are the only English flint colours mentioned by him. Neither of these colours would apply to the pseudo-Dutch which are, instead, somewhere between the colours of honey and brown sugar in hue. Therefore, we do not believe that the pseudo-Dutch are actually old English gunflints, though Skertchly may explain how they were made. For our part, we do not see how an ovoid hammer would necessarily strike off a ribless flake; it would seem that that would depend more upon the shape of the previous flake scars and the spot chosen for striking with the hammer than anything else.