Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helleri
Taking a second look. That doesn't actually look stamped. Most hallmarks that are stamped on are not cut in like that. Stamps are mostly relieved or at the very least have outlying marks from where the edge of the stamp struck the surface. It occurs to me that this could have been carefully done by hand with engraving tools....Is it possible that a maker may have forged some vaguely euro-like marks in order to raise the value on a less remarkable blade?
|
Well observed. This is more supportive of the armourers in those Northwest Frontiers of India, where these British M1796 blades were very much favored for tulwars. Actually the regulation M1796 was superceeded in 1821 by the three bar hilt pattern with a different type blade more for cut as well as thrust and far less heavy as these.
The native Indian warriors favored these more substantial blades for their dramatic slashing potential.
Actually the M1796 remained with native units in the Raj as their chosen sword style and these stirrup hilts were even produced by private contractors for India into the early 20th c.
It seems odd that the native armourers in the remote regions such as the Khyber itself would go to the lengths of adding such marks to a blade, but they certainly did so with the gun locks through the 19th c. and into the 20th. This is why you see EIC marks appearing on so many reproduced pieces. This could be a native version of the rampant lion mark of the EIC.