Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Ian · 27th August 2005, 06:02 AM

as we delve deeper into the relationship between the Dutch klewang and the M1917 US Cutlass.

It appears that the Dutch klewang debuted in 1898, and that the M1917 US Cutlass copied the blade style exactly. There is even a M1941 US Cutlass that used the same cut out hilt as found on the Dutch version, and is indistinguishable from it.

A helpful, but brief article on these swords, by Rick Wagner can be found here http://www.angelfire.com/wa/swordcollector/cutlass.html and it has some relevance to the present discussion in that it describes the use of Dutch klewang by occupying Japanese forces during WWII.

Who wins the debate? Well I guess Henk does, because the US cutlass is a copy of the Dutch klewang, so all versions are derivative of the original.

BTW, our own Carter Rila wrote an article on the Dutch klewang and its adoption by the US in 1917.

Ian.

27th August 2005, 06:02 AM	#17
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,023	The plot thickens ... as we delve deeper into the relationship between the Dutch klewang and the M1917 US Cutlass. It appears that the Dutch klewang debuted in 1898, and that the M1917 US Cutlass copied the blade style exactly. There is even a M1941 US Cutlass that used the same cut out hilt as found on the Dutch version, and is indistinguishable from it. A helpful, but brief article on these swords, by Rick Wagner can be found here http://www.angelfire.com/wa/swordcollector/cutlass.html and it has some relevance to the present discussion in that it describes the use of Dutch klewang by occupying Japanese forces during WWII. Who wins the debate? Well I guess Henk does, because the US cutlass is a copy of the Dutch klewang, so all versions are derivative of the original. BTW, our own Carter Rila wrote an article on the Dutch klewang and its adoption by the US in 1917. Ian.