The “ regulation Khyber Knife” in the Afghani Army at end of the 19th – beginning of

[mahratt]

Ariel, as I wrote in Russian forum, a saber from a book about Shamshir likely remounted to the new hilt in the late 19th century.

Sword the link that I exhibited at the Russian forum - so far the only known. One items - an artifact that can only be a subject for speculation. But can not be used for serious theory.

Bayonet, which thou hast set up does not look like its hilt on Afghan items. I can find you other European stuff with Hilt to the D-guard and to the "shield" extending from the quillon over the ricasso. . But that does not mean that they are - a prototype of Afghan items.

I am sorry for my English.

[Gavin Nugent]

The sabre Ariel has pictured is of a type, now the 4th such type I have seen so I suspect it is a weapon of rank with liberal use of a blade preferred by the owner. All hilts were of the same form which appears to be a regulation type hilt.

Interesting is the Enfield made sword Ariel presents.
The Enfield history is long in India and surrounds and I suspect many enfield locks made it in to Afghani rifles too....I wonder if there are records of manufacture and contracts available??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_1853_Enfield

A subject worthy of further research.

Gavin

[mahratt]

Gavin, the question to begin with is - if someone can show the same sword Enfield? At least in the book.

And, of course, a subject worthy of further research

[Mercenary]

Am I only one who see in description Bonhams auction "what are probably SPURIOUS marks: Enfield/1857"? May be the item is common later Afghan regular sword?

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Am I only one who see in description Bonhams auction "what are probably SPURIOUS marks: Enfield/1857"? May be the item is common later Afghan regular sword?

Not the only one

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you very much Ariel, and thank you for the interesting input on the sword with ENFIELD markings which was sold at Bonhams. Actually I had been working on that aspect and following the idea that perhaps that particular supplier may have had some contractual circumstances with regard to materials for Afghanistan. It is known of course that they were key suppliers of bayonets in the periods prior to the 2nd Anglo-Afghan war of 1880.
Apparantly in numerous cases these bayonets were fully fabricated in Germany, but were specifically for the issued rifles. I had wondered, as Gav has well suggested, if perhaps there might have been some contract via German producers to manufacture these type swords established at Enfield . Unfortunately thus far sources with whom I sought this data have been unresponsive.

I think Mercenary brings up a most valid point in that perhaps these are indeed spurious markings, as apparantly effectively suggested in the original sale description at Bonhams. It does seem quite possible as the placement in configuration may reveal more.This does not eliminate the possibility of variation , but certainly offers plausibility to these being spuriously placed, a common case in many weapons produced as copies for generations in these areas. Most common case in point of course many East India Co. locks etc.

With regard to the Nepali weapon, while it is quite interesting, I cannot place any particular similarity to the more workmanlike hilts of these 'regulation' type Afghan hilts, and agree with what Mahratt has noted. To me the Nepali hilts look more like 18th century English hanger hilts with langet. The production of such components for use by units in British occupied regions is however supportive of the concept establishef of thier supply to such regions.

Ariel, I think your suggestion of these hilts being supplied by British in period pre-2nd Anglo-Afghan war of 1880 is well placed, and agree this form must have become used when the Mashin Khana began production, but need more proof of prototype of these earlier forms. I cannot retrieve the markings of Enfield for the Bonhams example so it might be compared to other Enfield markings.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

To me the Nepali hilts look more like 18th century English hanger hilts with langet. The production of such components for use by units in British occupied regions is however supportive of the concept establishef of thier supply to such regions.

Jim,
All true and carefully considered, as usual.

The Nepali bayonet saw service in the British Army since 1830s: Brunswick rifle, the same one that was given by the Brits to the Nepali troops later on. No doubt there is a lot of local embellishments, and the "lion rampant" on the semicircular langet may be either Nepalese or British. The animal-like head of the D-guard next to the base of the bayonet looks "local" to me. There were many examples of European weapons of a similar construction, but we are talking about a British-dominated area; more than likely it imitated a genuinely British pattern.

The presense of a similar hilt on a sword of Daoud Shah in 1879 shows convincingly that similar handles were present in Afghanistan long before the Mashin Khana. Thus, unless we demonstrate the spuriosness of the Enfield markings, its pattern fits with the Daoud Shah's example.


The only thing I wanted to point out, is that the "regulation pattern" handle of the 1880s-1890s did not spring forth as a sudden invention of the local weapon industry: it was there in one form or another for quite some time and was likely introduced to the area by the British. It mutated into several final forms depending on the locality and timing.