Gav, thank you for that information and for the link ...that was a great and informative thread and I had forgotten it altogether. I had no idea these hilts were made in 9 pieces!
B.L. as far as my opinion on this, I would say leave it alone and focus on the blade, which clearly has its own history before being 'refurbished'. As Spiral has noted, the eloquent smokescreen used by these upper echelon firms use the term 'associated' and often even 'composite' (rather like the term 'antique' describing garage sale junk, just with a higher price). In collectors jargon these kinds of pieces are 'put together' or 'mules'.
Indeed in many colonial regions and tribal cultures the enterprise of creating souveniers for tourists as well as occupying forces etc is a thriving commerce. However, to paint this entire strata of arms with the broad brush of tourist junk and dismiss any possibility of genuine tribal use is often a bit arbitrary despite its high probability.
In the expanse of Afghan regions into the remote tribal areas of northwest India it remains possible for such ersatz creations to remain in use in at least some degree, and has been the case for many years. Native artisans who produce reproductions or traditional items for commercial purposes are remarkably skilled, and this profoundly rough work to me still seems like field work with pragmatic intent.
I have seen 17th century blades mounted with modern, but traditional hilts, which are admittedly less than appealing. However this at least has some age to all components, and in my perception a good context for this fascinating blade. I'd leave it alone, and enjoy imagining the possibilities of the life of the blade in earlier times.
|