Teodor,
Both of us are handicapped by the quality of picture, but no matter how carefully I looked, I could not see the heterogeneous structure of the walrus ivory. Looks old, dried and randomly cracked elephant ivory to me. Regretfully, none of us here can hold it in our hands and make an informed opinion.
You are completely correct on one point: the handguard. All Omani ones ( that I know) were iron, whereas Moroccan ones were made of brass or iron, and were less massive. Just like the French one. On the other hand, Moroccan ones had their handled made out of wood, horn or ( the luxurious ones) turtle shell. I cannot recall any utililizing ivory. Do you know of any?
I looked at your example from Hales' book. True enough. But the older and higher-class Moroccan have the same configuration as the Omani examples, including the protruding " comb" on the back surface of the pommel, whereas the low-end handles from both localities were all wooden and without it.
I think that without well-documented and fully reliable provenance we might have major difficulties attributing the French one. And with rather active trade connections around the Islamic areal, we just cannot be sure.
One thing we know: the attribution and the provenance by the dealer are totally unreliable; the Caucasian part of it is plainly wrong, and the Mysore part of it is based on a misspelled name of Tipoo and nothing else.
In short, a typical conundrum familiar to all collectors of Oriental weapons....
As an aside: Elgood in his recent book demonstrates quite a lot of blades from the Jodhpur Armory marked with illustrious Rajput names. All is well until he dryly mentions that the names were added by the order of the first director of the Jodhpur museum:-))
|