[Iain]

Originally Posted by Mauro

Thanks Iain. I enjoyed your booklet and your efforts and I hope that some of the problems that you evidenced so clearly now will be solved in the next years. However, as any good paper it generated some questions.

Pag.9 : Origin : Early Islamic swords :
There are many similarities between these swords and the European medieval swords so that it will be difficult to establish if the influence came from the Islamic or from the European sword.

The hilt form of a takouba is much closer to early Islamic forms, with hollow plate form guards and flatter, thinner pommels. Well that is at least how I see it.

Pag. 10 Origin : Omani saif. : difficult to establish. The only similarity is the form of the blade

I was not making a particular comparison, only showing the Omani sword as an example of another descendant of early Islamic swords. However there are some similarities with wide bladed takouba. The flat wide blades, the hilts are follow a similar segmented construction of all metal.

Pag. 13: Origins European Blades examples
2 “Second sword from Jean-Paul Cazes, wolf appears to be a locally imitation. Other mark appears genuine. Likely Solingen.” I suggest you to add the details of the marks and the reason of your statement because otherwise it is difficult to confirm it. I do not want to be misunderstood. Most probably you are right but I would like to understand which is the reason of your attribution.

3. “Third sword from Chris Topping, formerly in my own collection. Possibly a European blade but the half moons almost certainly applied locally. Likely Solingen”. Why you says the half moon was applied locally. Which evidence ? Half moon symbols are also found in European blades and , according to many authors, also copied locally but I would be able to distinguish. Do you have a key ?

The attribution for the sword with the wolf and the wolf being a local imitation is based on a few factors. Usually the wolf is not off center in the fuller, this one is. The depth of the mark is much different than the maker's stamp at the base of the blade. Compare to the first sword on that page and you will see just how poorly done that wolf is. But it is always tricky trying to tell with these blades and I could be wrong! However in this case the sword owner agreed with me and had similar feelings.

With the number of fake stamps applied in these regions, it will always be a bit of a guessing game I think.

The second sword, it may be an entirely native blade, but the steel quality is well above average. The reason I think the half moons are local is for a couple reasons, the depth of the stamp is uneven, the mark was applied to almost everything locally and Briggs if I recall correctly suspected that most if not all of these half moon stamps were applied locally. But I'd need to dig up Briggs' paper again to be sure. I would say there is no real key to distinguish, I wish there was! I am very cynical with any sword from the Sahel and usually assume its a fake.

Pag.14: “Similarly marked swords were held in the arsenal in Alexandria.”. Please add a reference to the arsenal. This sword is also very peculiar and much different from that more commonly found because it has a oval flattened pommel and a quite smaller guard.

The mounts are old and correspond to other older oval pommel takouba although it is a bit different in style. That is why I think these mounts are probably the oldest I have seen. They are also much better made! Please see the attached image for one sword that was previously in Alexandria now in Istanbul I believe.

Pag.14: Origins: Basic Indigenous forms.
I have never seen a Takouba without the brass handle. Is there a unique piece that connect the blade to the pommel or there are rivets ? The manufacture of the Chamba short sword, especially how the guard is blocked look more similar to the Medieval sword than the Takouba. However, this example has a curved blade and a point two characteristics difficult to encounter in takouba. I know that there are Chamba examples with straight blade but in any case it is difficult to establish who influence who.

Takouba hilts are invariably constructed in the following way:

• Grip: Metal tube, may have small metal tubes inside to reinforce it.
  
  Guard: Usually one or two piece steel frame wrapped around the blade. Then over top can be leather or the box like brass decorative plates.
  
  Pommel: Usually at least two pieces (not counting stacks).
  
  Solder: everything is soldered except on some old pieces where it's more of a compression fit.

The Chamba comparison was not about construction however, but about the pommel form and how a basic short sword with that kind of pommel is very practical for a smith to make and how that might give some clues into why that pommel shape is then found on other weapons.

Pag.16: Pommel Evolution.
Most probably you are right tracing this evolution looking at the characteristic of the pommel. However, because the area of diffusion of the Takouba is so large and there are many tribes is it possible that local variations of the pommel, at least in the past, were associated with different tribal groups ? At pag 40 you show a series of takouba from different tribes with different pommels and I think that also you do not dismiss this hypothesis.

I have looked long and hard for tribal variation in pommels. I would say there is some for sure, some Tuareg regions preferred flatter pommels (parts of Air I believe), Bornu pommels seem to be large and oval mostly. Hausa pommels a little different. But in general there is a shift into the 20th century into using the pommels with stacks - everywhere. This can be seen in period photos.

Thanks again.

Thank you! Really great comments and it pushes me to try and solve these little puzzles and publish a new version.