It is an interesting discussion: blade vs. handle.
Many would agree with you on the primacy of the blade. This may be true for the actual cutting and many authors stress the blade as the main identifier of the origin of the sword.
Polish authors have somewhat different perspective: they say that it is the handle that gives the national character to the sword and it is the handle that determines the fencing technique (must be very different between , say, guardless shashka and Polish Hussar sword with a thumb ring). Blades break and are replaced but the handles were often considered the "soul of the sword" (kind of "my Grandfather's hand held it"). I read that in India blades were considered replaceable but that every effort was directed at keeping the handle and "feeding" it with new blades. Perhaps, that was the reason why...
This is not to say that one excludes the other, but the order of examination and attribution of a particular sword goes " blade- handle" in one tradition and "handle-blade" in another. Superficially it makes no difference, but in reality it does: the relative weight of evidence is tilted and one can, for example, attribute a sword with a typical Ottoman Kilij blade but a Persian handle to Persian manufacture/tradition rather than the other way. Indeed, a sword with a recurved blade and eared, guardless handle is an Ottoman Yataghan, but the same blade with a "Tulwar" handle is an Islamic Sailaba and with a "Khanda" handle is an Indian Sossun Pata.
What's your opinion?
|