Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Philip · 19th November 2016, 07:35 AM

Congratulations, Cerjak : a most interesting example of a schiavona. I agree with your early 17th cent. dating of this one. From my observations, your hilt has a noteworthy feature which seems to peg it as a "proto-type 2" , to use Ewart Oakeshott's classification.

Do you have Oakeshott's EUROPEAN WEAPONS AND ARMOUR FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (1980 edition)? Chapter 10 has a very detailed discussion of the history of the schiavona, whose hilt form is identified by 4 different variations, types 1, 2, 2a, 2b. Germane to this thread are the distinctions between 1 and 2. To make a long story short, types 1 and 2 are of totally different construction from each other (although to the uninitiated they probably look the same down to the distinctive "testa di gatto" pommels). It is seen in the arrangement of bars that make up the "basket" itself. Oakeshott traces type 1, the simplest form of the four, to mid-16th cent. Venetian antecedents. It has leaf-shaped bars, the lowest ones crossing at the bottom of the basket, the 3 main diagonals not joined by any struts. Yours does not follow this form.

Type 2 is more complex, with stylistic embellishments pointing to possible non-Italian origin. (added to the fact that examples of the same hilt style are encountered elsewhere in Europe but not in Venice). The lower bars do not cross in front, and instead of 3 unjoined diagonals there are two, connected by 4-5 short struts or bridge bars. Yours fits this mold quite well, except that the diagonals have only one strut, which is shaped to create a cardioform opening below. This single bridge leads me to believe that your hilt is a predecessor to the full-blown, mature version. A nice touch to any collection of these swords!

The likely Germanic origin of the blade meshes quite nicely with Oakeshott's assessment of the origin and development of the type 2 hilt.

Types 2a and 2b differ from 2 only in the number of diagonals joined by struts, and enough examples dating to the mid 18th cent. have Venetian provenance to lead scholars such as Oakeshott to believe that they are elaborated and Italianized type 2s.

19th November 2016, 07:35 AM	#6
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	let's not forget the hilt Congratulations, Cerjak : a most interesting example of a schiavona. I agree with your early 17th cent. dating of this one. From my observations, your hilt has a noteworthy feature which seems to peg it as a "proto-type 2" , to use Ewart Oakeshott's classification. Do you have Oakeshott's EUROPEAN WEAPONS AND ARMOUR FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (1980 edition)? Chapter 10 has a very detailed discussion of the history of the schiavona, whose hilt form is identified by 4 different variations, types 1, 2, 2a, 2b. Germane to this thread are the distinctions between 1 and 2. To make a long story short, types 1 and 2 are of totally different construction from each other (although to the uninitiated they probably look the same down to the distinctive "testa di gatto" pommels). It is seen in the arrangement of bars that make up the "basket" itself. Oakeshott traces type 1, the simplest form of the four, to mid-16th cent. Venetian antecedents. It has leaf-shaped bars, the lowest ones crossing at the bottom of the basket, the 3 main diagonals not joined by any struts. Yours does not follow this form. Type 2 is more complex, with stylistic embellishments pointing to possible non-Italian origin. (added to the fact that examples of the same hilt style are encountered elsewhere in Europe but not in Venice). The lower bars do not cross in front, and instead of 3 unjoined diagonals there are two, connected by 4-5 short struts or bridge bars. Yours fits this mold quite well, except that the diagonals have only one strut, which is shaped to create a cardioform opening below. This single bridge leads me to believe that your hilt is a predecessor to the full-blown, mature version. A nice touch to any collection of these swords! The likely Germanic origin of the blade meshes quite nicely with Oakeshott's assessment of the origin and development of the type 2 hilt. Types 2a and 2b differ from 2 only in the number of diagonals joined by struts, and enough examples dating to the mid 18th cent. have Venetian provenance to lead scholars such as Oakeshott to believe that they are elaborated and Italianized type 2s.