[RobT]

David,

Please allow me to take your points in order. This will allow you and other forum members to spot any flaws in my reasoning.
As far as age goes, I am more inclined to say that the condition of all the components of the piece, rather than it having been made from a file indicates 20th century manufacture. Even if the file were not Nepali made, the British have been a presence in Nepal for a long time and it could have been one of theirs. As an example, 19th century Assam daos were often fashioned from hoes taken from tea plantations and often still carry the name or logo of the English firm that made the original tool.
As an aside, I am very sure my piece is a weapon but I’m not 100% sure that it is a combat weapon. I can’t agree that it was used for vegetable harvest or clearing brush because it’s too large and heavy for that, Nor can see it being used by by a butcher for livestock slaughter because the quality is too good. However, I can see it functioning as a sort of déclassé ram dao in a small village.
Back on topic, I would now like to address the hilt and ferrule matter. I find it hard to accept that a smith from outside of Nepal (or Northern India adjacent to Nepal) would have a khukri ferrule and a Nepali style hilt just lying around and I find it equally unlikely that a smith from outside of that sociocultural area would choose to fashion a blade to fit such items. It sounds like the tail wagging the dog. Besides, who could he sell it to? Who would want to buy a sword with a hilt and ferrule that looks weird? Blades get around but hilts, hilt furniture, and sheaths don’t. Blades from Western Europe were exported all over the world but they are found without exception fitted with native hilts and sheaths.
While the blade profile of my sword to some extent matches that of some Philippine blades, the blade features aren’t a good match. First of all, many of the traditional blades are chisel ground and the ricassi are of a shape typical for such Philippine blades (the modern made versions are an exception).
That leaves us with the sheath. A wood sheath wrapped with incised black leather stitched up the back is stereotypical of the Indian subcontinent. So too is the practice of binding the upper part of the wood pieces together with twine under the leather. AFAIK, that style of binding isn't found anywhere in the Philippines. While a leather flap can be found on many Visayan sheaths, the style of the flap on my sheath doesn’t really match the Philippine ones.
In conclusion, we have a hilt that is typical of Nepal, we have a ferrule that is typical of Nepal, we have a sheath that is typical of Nepal, and we have a blade of an unknown type. Would not the most logical conclusion be that this is an unknown type of short sword from Nepal or an area within close proximity to Nepal?

Sincerely,
RobT