Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

ariel · 1st July 2007, 03:12 AM

I do not remember the source (Rawson? Pant?), but it asserted that the Indians valued handles more than blades. A very prosaic explanation of the handle in question is that the blade was damaged beyond repair and discarded. Also (is it my eyesight?) , I cannot see any damage line at the base of the missing langet. Does brass break cleanly? Was the scar polished off?
The presence of a hollow filled with gummy substance is strange to me: the assumption is that that's what held the blade. But Indian cement was black, hard and, when old and damaged, crumbly. The "soft and sticky" stuff cannot be the original cement.

1st July 2007, 03:12 AM	#16
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I do not remember the source (Rawson? Pant?), but it asserted that the Indians valued handles more than blades. A very prosaic explanation of the handle in question is that the blade was damaged beyond repair and discarded. Also (is it my eyesight?) , I cannot see any damage line at the base of the missing langet. Does brass break cleanly? Was the scar polished off? The presence of a hollow filled with gummy substance is strange to me: the assumption is that that's what held the blade. But Indian cement was black, hard and, when old and damaged, crumbly. The "soft and sticky" stuff cannot be the original cement.