Quote:
Originally Posted by drac2k
All of the above bear similarities to this sword, but they don't quite fit the bill. The guard and the handle as well as the length of the blade(21"), and its configuration don't match.
I think that it is a Southern Indian Sword and possibly from Malabar and I know I've seen a similar example somewhere, but I can not remember from where.
|
What you have here is a good example of the enigmatic
Congavellum! These are allegedly old Nayar implements, however beyond that information about them dries up rapidly. We don't even really know what congavellum translates to (i.e. if it just means "sword" or "big sword/curved sword/etc.") or what language it even comes from. Of course
if the nayar attribution is to be trusted then it's users likely would have spoken some form of Malayalam, however, to put it simply, you can't punch "congavellum" into google translate and get an answer that way
. I also say "
if" the nayar attribution can be trusted as this is one of the many quagmires surrounding these weapons - they are attributed to the nayar, but nothing about them is particularly nayar in aesthetic. As an example of what I mean by nayar aesthetic, notably, the Kayamkulam Val, another sword type attributed to the nayar, often features a snake-like design on its grip, which works out as the nayar were known for their snake worship.
In regards to your example specifically - it's a good one! Your blade looks really solid, and probably dates to the 18th century, while the hilt is rather... less so in quality, and probably dates to the 19th C. Indeed, as you noted with the blade and handle not seeming to match, most congavellum historically seem to have had their handles replaced with some frequency. Most that survive seem to feature 18th century blades with 19th century replacement handles or replaced handle parts (things like the guard, pommel plates, etc.), although there are rare occasions that untouched 18th or even 17th century examples can be found with their original grips.
In terms of how you can date congavellum, their form often decays into the 19th century, much like those of most other Indian weapons. This is to say that often times the shape of the blade gets shortened and more exaggerated (more curved and sickle-like specifically). The workmanship on the handle, too, gets sloppier and often times the complex pommel assembly (formerly featuring a series of plates with upcurling ends) gets replaced with a simple tiered pyramid shape (which is what your example has). Though, as always, there are occasional good quality examples from the 19th century, and, conversely low quality older examples intended likely as "beaters" or made for lower class/caste peoples.
Given their mysterious origin it's rather hard to say anything interesting about their actual use. Likely, most 18th century examples functioned like machete-swords, indeed putting the "chopper" in "malabar chopper", however it is possible by this point these swords were mostly ceremonial/status pieces. Earlier examples from the 17th century, however, were notably more sword-like in form, and were likely used as such.
Attached is an image of three congavellum from my collection, in which the top most example likely entirely dates to the 17th century. It is curious that your example has a blade quite similar in form to mine, however I still suspect that it is from the 18th century, not 17th, as it lacks the wear present on older congavellum blades, and also the feature of such a wide, pronounced fuller was not one that was commonplace until the 18th century. Earlier examples more commonly only have a single narrow fuller along the back.
The other two congavellum pictured from top to bottom are likely an 18th century blade in an early 19th century cast brass hilt, and an entirely 18th century piece with the pommel assembly (plates) replaced in the 19th century.