Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
So, how should we call these swords?
They are a bewildering hodge-podge of parts and styles: Persian blades, Indian handles, Arabian decor...
Indo-Arabian? Arab -Mughal?
For myself, I choose the construction of the handle as the defining point. Blades were imported, decorations borrowed or just made by itinerant artisans, but the national character of the sword was embedded in its handle. It was a hallmark of tribal beliefs and tastes, it reflected the traditional way of wielding it, it largely defined its techniques.
That is why shashka is Caucasian, Kastane is Sri Lankan, Pulwar is Afghani, Yataghan is Ottoman ( with even more ethnic variations), Choora is from the Khyber Pass and Kattara is Omani.
I would easily call it Baloch or Sindhian, or Hyderabadi.
Others can choose their favorite definitions, but calling it just "Arabian" would be a big mistake IMHO.
|
Well put, the hilts are profoundly reflections of the cultures and regional affectations where the spectrum and varieties of blades are mounted.
The term 'Arabic' is far too collectively used to be effective in trying to properly classify a sword in response to its overall features. Even swords that are known to be from Arabia itself were carried far and wide in the vast geography included in their trade.
It is localized nuances that typically give us the denominators necessary in more precisely classifying a weapon, and these of course are most often in the hilt.
I would say Baloch, Sind or Hyderabadi would be quite logically placed here.
I had overlooked that ring emplaced in the pommel on the hilt of this sword, and do agree this seems to be an affectation from India's northern regions. If I recall correctly many, if not most, Afghan oriented edged weapons typically have a ring attached to the pommels.
I have always thought of these as a lanyard attachment but may be used as a festoon link likely as well.
The rings on the Omani khanjhar scabbards are purely decorative links in the belting configuration on the scabbards, in which the number of these rings seems to be significant either regionally or otherwise.
Eric, thank you for the kind return note, and as for learning here....emphatically I say.......me too!!!!
As Ariel has said, that's what this forum is all about
