Thank you Evgeny for the response, and Kubur has noted (#33) that no third quillon presence seems evident. The reason I brought up the dual quillons was to support that such variation did exist in Maghrebi nimcha, and were apparently relegated to Algerian versions (the Moroccan had three quillons).
I well understand wishful thinking in examining and identifying a weapon, but for me truth and correct as possible classification also have their own virtues. Often the investigation of a weapon brings to light wonderful historic aspects of its presence in certain contexts which might not otherwise have been revealed.
The fact that this is probably not a Genoan weapon indigenous to this Black Sea region as it dates long after Genoan colonial presence had dissipated there does not preclude the fact it might still be an Italian blade. However, its means of arriving in the area it was found MAY have been through the conduit of the Ottoman forces with Maghebi weapons in this region in the 18th c.
Even if found to be a weapon which indeed came from these Black Sea regions, the blade still could be North Italian or Styrian, as these centers produced blades well through the 18th c. These same blades which often reached North Africa also went to many foreign ports including East European, Russian, Balkan etc.
Whatever the case, the fact that this sword was found in situ in the location you describe gives it stellar provenance on its own merits.
|