Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Gavin Nugent · 8th February 2013, 08:57 AM

Drawn from recent discussion in another thread I offer my opinions.

Thank you Ibrahiim, this is as I thought you indicated. However, I do not agree that these are only dance swords. Yes, they were used in dance and in today’s circles are known as dance swords but this is not as a be all and end all to the sword.

The original untouched example I presented has a very fine stout and non flexible fighting blade in it, certainly not a dance sword....I should clarify though, if I put it in the floor boards and lent on it, it would bend 2"...but to compare, the Dagestan Shashka presented in my gallery is a very good fighting sword with all the Shashka qualities, feather light, razor sharp and vine flexible and the Shashka I can bend over 45 degrees with some effort. So having a flexible blade or not doesn't account in all instaces that it is a dance or ceremonial sword. Perhaps a blacksmith can chime in and correct me if I am wrong but often the lack of or removal of carbon can account for flexible blades.

I would suggest your post in this thread in post #6 is a correct way of viewing this sword, fighting, with a shield. I think the W. H. INGRAMS notation in post #18 is not it's sole purpose of but just a cultural observation of the time, one that has continued today as a matter of ceremony.

I know the chicken and the egg theory was discussed in the same thread about its presence in Africa where I suspect it too was used only for fighting as a trade legacy from the east.

The wonderful photos of Tipu with the same sword type, in my opinion supports these swords where a cultural fighting sword and proudly displayed as such.

The gaps in time from the period of early types with quillons you present through to the early 20th century is too great not to consider these as fighting swords even the flexible ones of old.

Regards

Gavin

8th February 2013, 08:57 AM	#335
Gavin Nugent Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,818	My opinion Drawn from recent discussion in another thread I offer my opinions. Thank you Ibrahiim, this is as I thought you indicated. However, I do not agree that these are only dance swords. Yes, they were used in dance and in today’s circles are known as dance swords but this is not as a be all and end all to the sword. The original untouched example I presented has a very fine stout and non flexible fighting blade in it, certainly not a dance sword....I should clarify though, if I put it in the floor boards and lent on it, it would bend 2"...but to compare, the Dagestan Shashka presented in my gallery is a very good fighting sword with all the Shashka qualities, feather light, razor sharp and vine flexible and the Shashka I can bend over 45 degrees with some effort. So having a flexible blade or not doesn't account in all instaces that it is a dance or ceremonial sword. Perhaps a blacksmith can chime in and correct me if I am wrong but often the lack of or removal of carbon can account for flexible blades. I would suggest your post in this thread in post #6 is a correct way of viewing this sword, fighting, with a shield. I think the W. H. INGRAMS notation in post #18 is not it's sole purpose of but just a cultural observation of the time, one that has continued today as a matter of ceremony. I know the chicken and the egg theory was discussed in the same thread about its presence in Africa where I suspect it too was used only for fighting as a trade legacy from the east. The wonderful photos of Tipu with the same sword type, in my opinion supports these swords where a cultural fighting sword and proudly displayed as such. The gaps in time from the period of early types with quillons you present through to the early 20th century is too great not to consider these as fighting swords even the flexible ones of old. Regards Gavin