Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

katana · 17th June 2007, 05:54 PM

Thankyou all for your input.

I didn't think this was a Pulwar because, as Ward has already mentioned, the quillions were not 'upturned' towards the blade.
Never considered this to be a Tulwar because of the lack of curveature of the blade. A Ferengi 'minus' the 'basket hilt' was a possibillity. But the overall impression was that this sword was a Piso Podang......now I am totally confused

Lew, you suggested 17thC - 18th C , is that due to the hilt design ?

17th June 2007, 05:54 PM	#6
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Thankyou all for your input. I didn't think this was a Pulwar because, as Ward has already mentioned, the quillions were not 'upturned' towards the blade. Never considered this to be a Tulwar because of the lack of curveature of the blade. A Ferengi 'minus' the 'basket hilt' was a possibillity. But the overall impression was that this sword was a Piso Podang......now I am totally confused Lew, you suggested 17thC - 18th C , is that due to the hilt design ? Last edited by katana; 17th June 2007 at 08:38 PM.