Sword for ID on SFI

Rick · 9th June 2005, 01:58 AM

I added the pictures to your post Andy .

IMO if this is a depiction of an elephant it was done by someone who had never seen one in the flesh .

Still thinking it's N.W. Indo Persian , but the engraving is unsophisticated which to me would indicate a less advanced tribe or culture .
Definitely a ceremonial piece or we would have seen one before this .

Conogre · 9th June 2005, 03:25 AM

Rick, I'm ashamed of you...."definitely"?
I for one don't think that it's ceremonial, rather just the opposite, and while it may be a one-of-a-kind, it may also be that this simply is the first one that's surfaced, such as my "Philippine bellied chopper from Hal" that remained unique of at least 6 years until the Spanish museum photos were published here and Tom obtained one.We're often tempted to think that all that is known is already known, while in truth, I suspect that more has been forgotten than we'll ever know.
I do think that I'd favor an Afghan/N. India place of origin, and if it's the latter, I suspect that more will surface eventually (and hopefully, at least one in front of me!**grin**)
To me the knuckle guard sems almost to have been welded/brazed on to the existing hilt, and I actually edited it out w/photoshop to see what the effect was, still complete and serviceable looking.
While the holes may have contained gems or such, it's also possible that they were vent hole from the mold so as to keep bubbles from forming in the bronze while it was being cast.
That small notch on the inner grip is what Justin noted, comparing it to a similar feature in many Ottoman knives.
If this is a composite piece, my own gut feelings are that 1) it was made to be used, 2) that it's NOT recent, and 3) it was likely made at a village level with no thoughts of the dreaded "T-word" involved.
Mike

Jim McDougall · 9th June 2005, 04:02 AM

This is an extremely interesting piece and I responded on it on SFI, not actually realizing I had linked over

I agree very much with the aesthetic influence of Arabian saifs, which include by association the Moroccan 'nimchas', however I am actually thinking more of those of the Yemen and Hadhramaut. The rather hexagonal shape of the grip seems remininscent of these (which Dr.Elgood notes were often manufactured in Hyderabad ). In my post on SFI , I had noted the shape of the knuckleguard as well as the raised nock on the inside of the grip as suggesting the Ceylonese kastane, however in reading the posts on this thread and upon reconsidering ,I tend to agree with the tulwar associated shape more. With this I am inclined more toward the Northwest Frontier as has been suggested on this thread than my original inclination toward the south.

It seems that many of the weapons of India have atavistic inclinations, that is they seem to be interpretations of venerable iconography and representations of ancient weapons in various art. In this case this weapon seems remarkably like closed hilt examples of the Spanish kopis (evolved from the falcata) as shown in "Swords and Hilt Weapons" p.22. This same type closed or voided hilt is also reminiscent of the medieval European dusack which was essentially a heavy, curved blade with opening for the hand to grip the piece.
While it is uncertain exactly how such classical weapons might have influenced this apparant interpretation , it is known that often such representation does occur in many ethnographic weapons in varying degrees .
Another feature that suggests the northern regions of India, in reviewing the additional illustrations, is what appears semi-circle sickle marks along the back edge of the blade. This motif, occurs on some Indian weapons blades as motif in this manner, and is also found on some blades in the Caucusus, where trade with these regions was well established.

This heavy, chopping weapon seems most unusual, and does seem related in degree to the Khyber 'Salawar Yataghan' previously noted in the manner it is hilted.

I didn't notice the peacock in the motif had 4 legs

!! But despite that, regarding the peacock I thought the Mughals sort of liked them....and the Rajputs used Peacock plumage as sort of insignia from what I understand.

This is really an unusual variant Andy!! Thank you so much for sharing it.

Best regards,
Jim

tom hyle · 9th June 2005, 12:33 PM

Errata/disagreements of fact/terminology:
The dusaks referred to were, I think, the training weapons, with the guard an extnesion of the blade (which I hear was commonly thin steel covered with hide). Real fighting dusacks are more ordinary sabres/hangers, though I think broad bladed. So many of us have seen those wood cut prints and wanted one of those swords that were never swords, only to find out they were the training weapons; I'm gonna make one from sawsteel one day anyway!

A Yelman is a "dropped" (ie suddenly widened) sharp part length false edge at the tip, as seen on the nimcha above with the bare blade. The part of the handle that grips the blade is a bolster. Long flat bolsters like this are seen in some traditional work, some of which has been mentioned; it would probably be more useful to consider where that work comes from than to look for an unusual practice or occurance (ie "one of" assemblage etc.).

Thoughts:
Looks a LOT like an elephant to me, and I assure you I've seen them. Bi-lobed head top; wrinkled forehead; trunk; looks a lot like an elephant; the angling of the cheeks seems about right, too? perhaps you are thinking of a loxodon? (African elephant) Perhaps a female elephant? Female Asian elephants commonly have no or small emergent tusks, and tusks are not as usually treated with the emphasis in Hindu elephant art that they are in African (think of statues of Ganesh, for instance). Where, not so much are, but where were elephants in the recent historical past? How far North and West? I have this book called Elephant; the animal and its ivory in African culture. It devides the continent by chapters on various cultures, and one fascinating (?to me?

) thing that arises again and again is the elephant as an important symbol and artistic motif in areas where there have been no elephants for even centuries. Perjaps so in India, too?
There is a slight resemblance to the knucklebowed kopis, mainly in the arrangement of the knuckleguard and bolster (and indeed, though the linked one above isn't one of them, there are salwar yataghans with very similar guards; score one for the widespread of kopis and its features; direction of distribution not implied.....score one for Asian knucklebows not modernly coming from Europe, too.); the blade much more closely resembles a known local modern type; it is a khanda blade, part of a khanda blade, or close relative; this seems fairly clear? Breakage is a possibility if it's a rehilt, or a modification due to obsolescence (or foreign-ness?) of the khanda. Thanks for the closeups. The hilt seems to be lost wax cast. There seems to be a slight sloppiness around each end of the knucklebow, suggesting it is soldered (brazed?) on (but could be from the casting/moulding process), and the butt looks like a seperate plate that has been soldered on. The angling is all different, but I note a resemblance to kukuri butts. The copper eyes and line of crescents are proably the only things that remind me of Berber work. The off-center hole in the butt seems mysterious.
The brasswork does not resemble that on flyssas, which is thin hammered sheet over a wooden core.
The finger stall, while looking different, may have similar handling contributions to the narrow area before the pommel on tulwars (etc.).

fearn · 9th June 2005, 01:26 PM

Thanks Tom,

I thought I was too young for senior moments, but I should have remembered the bolster...if that's what it is.

One thing that Andy can straighten out is the construction of the handle. I'm having trouble believing it was cast in lost wax, given that the handle is at least partially hollow. Certainly, the decorations are engraved, rather than cast in--the lines seem to all be one width, and it's a lot easier to have raised decorations rather than incised ones in lost wax, especially incised ones that are so crude and look like they were incised... More to the point, I'm trying to figure out how to make a three-part mold that could be used to cast this handle, a failing miserably. It would be a real chore to create the wax master of that hilt, especially if it's mostly hollow.

Anyway, about the "bolster": my hypothesis is that part is what is connecting the blade to the hilt. I suspect there is little if any tang, and that little bit protruding behind the bolster and under the grip might be the back end of the blade or tang. I'm not sure what you call such a thing. Positionally it's a bolster, but it's not an applied scale, which is what I thought bolsters were.

Andy can help out with that. The other question is how hollow the hilt is: is it simply the pommel, or does the hilt ring hollow into the grip? If so, I suspect it was brazed together from pieces (actually, I think that anyway), rather than being cast in one piece around the blade. An accomplished brass worked could have assembled that from 3-4 pieces: one for the bolster, one for the handle, one for the flat bottom of the pommel, and one for the knuckle guard.

Fearn

Andy Davis · 9th June 2005, 02:17 PM

Right lets, see I've had the thing under a magnifying glass and I still cant see any sign of brazing and all brass, still seems to be one section. I have had a probe in the hole at the base and it certainly is hollow there but cant get further into the body of the handle as those two holes in the side form a tube within the handle. It might be an extra clue, if not obvious from the handle but the knuckle guard is hollow on the underside.
I will have a friend of mine, with experience of metal working & casting, have a look at it tomorrow, in person, to see what he thinks.
By the way, a few people seem to think this is very heavy, not really, its exactly 2lbs and feels very useful and practical in the hand.
And when I bought it, I thought it was only myself and the dealer who didn't know what it was!
Cheers
Andy

Jens Nordlunde · 9th June 2005, 04:38 PM

When we start to guess from where a weapon origins, there is one thing which many seem to forget, that many foreigners lived, and often got high positions at the court, in India, although they came from far away, like Ibn Battuta (first half of the 14th century) who came from Tangier, or Bernier (last half of the 17th century). One coming from N or NE Africa could very well have ordered a sword like the one discussed, with Indian decoration. I agree that it is likely to origin from Afghanistan or NW India.

You can actually cast an item in lost wax and get it hollow inside. What you do is to make a core of wet sand and cover it with wax, decorate the wax, cover the wax with clay, but to make sure that the distance between the clay and the wet sand will be the same during the process you will need to put small nails through the clay into the wet sand. If this method has been used there will be rests of sand on the inside of the hilt.

tom hyle · 10th June 2005, 12:35 AM

Bagobo and T'boli hilts are lost wax cast in one piece, and have a hollow, tapered cave inside for the tang and often a hollowed butt, too.
Are you saying the butt plate appears to be of one piece with the rest of the hilt? On old work, solder that exactly matches the colour/alloy of the joined pieces is rare, if not nonexistent; if there are soldered seams as on a tulwar hilt, they should be visible to close inspection in person. Down the edges of both grip and bolster, as well as around the butt and at the ends of the knucklebow, are good places to look. The little projection on the hand edge of the bolster appears to be all brass and decorative in nature. It would not be unusual to cast an object to achieve the general shape, or to cast parts to be soldered together, and then decorate the item by other processes. A bolster is a (metal) structure at the base of a blade that in modern Western thought is spoken of as bolstering (strengthening) the blade and/or the joint of blade and handle. Bolsters are integral (forged in, of a piece with the blade) or applied in a variety of ways; soldered, pinned, or with a hole thru the middle of the bolster for the tang/blade. Integral spear/chisel/arrow type bolsters and flat pinchy bolsters that may hark back to tangless daggers/swords seem to me to be two seperable threads of development, as perhaps does the habiki and other E Asian sheath tensioners, but there is a good deal of crossover. on bichaq and yataghan, the flat overlay that sometimes extends out over the base of the blade, much as seen with this piece, is usually spoken of as being part of the bolster, which structurally is usually true; ie it is an extension of the same piece of metal.

Tim Simmons · 10th June 2005, 05:29 PM

This is a very intereting knife.I wonder what sort of, and whether it ever had a scabbard.I feel more and more ,it is from Nepal or NW India and village made.It probably had a turquouise or coral eye in the handle.It may well have been a fighting weapon but I bet it sent more goats on thier way.Tim

Rick · 10th June 2005, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

This is a very intereting knife.I wonder what sort of, and whether it ever had a scabbard.I feel more and more ,it is from Nepal or NW India and village made.It probably had a turquouise or coral eye in the handle.It may well have been a fighting weapon but I bet it sent more goats on thier way.Tim

I would tend to agree with you Tim . Despite Mike's cries of shame !

If this was not a sacrificial piece then it was most likely carried by a person of note in the community .
Either one of these scenarios fits my loose interpretation of ceremomial .

tom hyle · 11th June 2005, 01:16 AM

Ceremonial-practical, though; remember that sacrifices are usually eaten (and in this region there are known customs of beheading animal sacrifices), and at one time the job of a leader could consist principally of leading the militia in combat, when to plant or when to move being often highly traditional, for instance. This particular piece strikes me as very practical, but let us consider kora. The fighting ones have a "rondel" type handle, with disk guard and pommel, and I think a seperate piece for the grip? But the temple/sacrificial ones have a hollow metal, rather Persian looking handle with quillons and lagnets. If anything though, I almost think there's too much decor on the hilt compared to not enough on the blade for a N Indian/Himalayan sacrificial sword? On another hand the giant kukuris are AFAIK used for slaughtering and perhaps for butchering (the ordinary ones are said to be used for butchering, as well). I personally suspect that one day we'll see more of these and it will become a known style.

9th June 2005, 12:33 PM	#4
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Errata/disagreements of fact/terminology: The dusaks referred to were, I think, the training weapons, with the guard an extnesion of the blade (which I hear was commonly thin steel covered with hide). Real fighting dusacks are more ordinary sabres/hangers, though I think broad bladed. So many of us have seen those wood cut prints and wanted one of those swords that were never swords, only to find out they were the training weapons; I'm gonna make one from sawsteel one day anyway! A Yelman is a "dropped" (ie suddenly widened) sharp part length false edge at the tip, as seen on the nimcha above with the bare blade. The part of the handle that grips the blade is a bolster. Long flat bolsters like this are seen in some traditional work, some of which has been mentioned; it would probably be more useful to consider where that work comes from than to look for an unusual practice or occurance (ie "one of" assemblage etc.). Thoughts: Looks a LOT like an elephant to me, and I assure you I've seen them. Bi-lobed head top; wrinkled forehead; trunk; looks a lot like an elephant; the angling of the cheeks seems about right, too? perhaps you are thinking of a loxodon? (African elephant) Perhaps a female elephant? Female Asian elephants commonly have no or small emergent tusks, and tusks are not as usually treated with the emphasis in Hindu elephant art that they are in African (think of statues of Ganesh, for instance). Where, not so much are, but where were elephants in the recent historical past? How far North and West? I have this book called Elephant; the animal and its ivory in African culture. It devides the continent by chapters on various cultures, and one fascinating (?to me? ) thing that arises again and again is the elephant as an important symbol and artistic motif in areas where there have been no elephants for even centuries. Perjaps so in India, too? There is a slight resemblance to the knucklebowed kopis, mainly in the arrangement of the knuckleguard and bolster (and indeed, though the linked one above isn't one of them, there are salwar yataghans with very similar guards; score one for the widespread of kopis and its features; direction of distribution not implied.....score one for Asian knucklebows not modernly coming from Europe, too.); the blade much more closely resembles a known local modern type; it is a khanda blade, part of a khanda blade, or close relative; this seems fairly clear? Breakage is a possibility if it's a rehilt, or a modification due to obsolescence (or foreign-ness?) of the khanda. Thanks for the closeups. The hilt seems to be lost wax cast. There seems to be a slight sloppiness around each end of the knucklebow, suggesting it is soldered (brazed?) on (but could be from the casting/moulding process), and the butt looks like a seperate plate that has been soldered on. The angling is all different, but I note a resemblance to kukuri butts. The copper eyes and line of crescents are proably the only things that remind me of Berber work. The off-center hole in the butt seems mysterious. The brasswork does not resemble that on flyssas, which is thin hammered sheet over a wooden core. The finger stall, while looking different, may have similar handling contributions to the narrow area before the pommel on tulwars (etc.). Last edited by tom hyle; 9th June 2005 at 01:01 PM. Reason: un-neccessary detail again, plus more about the elephant

9th June 2005, 02:17 PM	#6
Andy Davis Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: England, Northumberland Posts: 85	Andys observation Right lets, see I've had the thing under a magnifying glass and I still cant see any sign of brazing and all brass, still seems to be one section. I have had a probe in the hole at the base and it certainly is hollow there but cant get further into the body of the handle as those two holes in the side form a tube within the handle. It might be an extra clue, if not obvious from the handle but the knuckle guard is hollow on the underside. I will have a friend of mine, with experience of metal working & casting, have a look at it tomorrow, in person, to see what he thinks. By the way, a few people seem to think this is very heavy, not really, its exactly 2lbs and feels very useful and practical in the hand. And when I bought it, I thought it was only myself and the dealer who didn't know what it was! Cheers Andy

9th June 2005, 01:58 AM	#1
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	I added the pictures to your post Andy . IMO if this is a depiction of an elephant it was done by someone who had never seen one in the flesh . Still thinking it's N.W. Indo Persian , but the engraving is unsophisticated which to me would indicate a less advanced tribe or culture . Definitely a ceremonial piece or we would have seen one before this .

9th June 2005, 03:25 AM	#2
Conogre Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Clearwater, Florida Posts: 371	Rick, I'm ashamed of you...."definitely"? I for one don't think that it's ceremonial, rather just the opposite, and while it may be a one-of-a-kind, it may also be that this simply is the first one that's surfaced, such as my "Philippine bellied chopper from Hal" that remained unique of at least 6 years until the Spanish museum photos were published here and Tom obtained one.We're often tempted to think that all that is known is already known, while in truth, I suspect that more has been forgotten than we'll ever know. I do think that I'd favor an Afghan/N. India place of origin, and if it's the latter, I suspect that more will surface eventually (and hopefully, at least one in front of me!grin) To me the knuckle guard sems almost to have been welded/brazed on to the existing hilt, and I actually edited it out w/photoshop to see what the effect was, still complete and serviceable looking. While the holes may have contained gems or such, it's also possible that they were vent hole from the mold so as to keep bubbles from forming in the bronze while it was being cast. That small notch on the inner grip is what Justin noted, comparing it to a similar feature in many Ottoman knives. If this is a composite piece, my own gut feelings are that 1) it was made to be used, 2) that it's NOT recent, and 3) it was likely made at a village level with no thoughts of the dreaded "T-word" involved. Mike

9th June 2005, 04:02 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	This is an extremely interesting piece and I responded on it on SFI, not actually realizing I had linked over I agree very much with the aesthetic influence of Arabian saifs, which include by association the Moroccan 'nimchas', however I am actually thinking more of those of the Yemen and Hadhramaut. The rather hexagonal shape of the grip seems remininscent of these (which Dr.Elgood notes were often manufactured in Hyderabad ). In my post on SFI , I had noted the shape of the knuckleguard as well as the raised nock on the inside of the grip as suggesting the Ceylonese kastane, however in reading the posts on this thread and upon reconsidering ,I tend to agree with the tulwar associated shape more. With this I am inclined more toward the Northwest Frontier as has been suggested on this thread than my original inclination toward the south. It seems that many of the weapons of India have atavistic inclinations, that is they seem to be interpretations of venerable iconography and representations of ancient weapons in various art. In this case this weapon seems remarkably like closed hilt examples of the Spanish kopis (evolved from the falcata) as shown in "Swords and Hilt Weapons" p.22. This same type closed or voided hilt is also reminiscent of the medieval European dusack which was essentially a heavy, curved blade with opening for the hand to grip the piece. While it is uncertain exactly how such classical weapons might have influenced this apparant interpretation , it is known that often such representation does occur in many ethnographic weapons in varying degrees . Another feature that suggests the northern regions of India, in reviewing the additional illustrations, is what appears semi-circle sickle marks along the back edge of the blade. This motif, occurs on some Indian weapons blades as motif in this manner, and is also found on some blades in the Caucusus, where trade with these regions was well established. This heavy, chopping weapon seems most unusual, and does seem related in degree to the Khyber 'Salawar Yataghan' previously noted in the manner it is hilted. I didn't notice the peacock in the motif had 4 legs !! But despite that, regarding the peacock I thought the Mughals sort of liked them....and the Rajputs used Peacock plumage as sort of insignia from what I understand. This is really an unusual variant Andy!! Thank you so much for sharing it. Best regards, Jim

9th June 2005, 01:26 PM	#5
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Thanks Tom, I thought I was too young for senior moments, but I should have remembered the bolster...if that's what it is. One thing that Andy can straighten out is the construction of the handle. I'm having trouble believing it was cast in lost wax, given that the handle is at least partially hollow. Certainly, the decorations are engraved, rather than cast in--the lines seem to all be one width, and it's a lot easier to have raised decorations rather than incised ones in lost wax, especially incised ones that are so crude and look like they were incised... More to the point, I'm trying to figure out how to make a three-part mold that could be used to cast this handle, a failing miserably. It would be a real chore to create the wax master of that hilt, especially if it's mostly hollow. Anyway, about the "bolster": my hypothesis is that part is what is connecting the blade to the hilt. I suspect there is little if any tang, and that little bit protruding behind the bolster and under the grip might be the back end of the blade or tang. I'm not sure what you call such a thing. Positionally it's a bolster, but it's not an applied scale, which is what I thought bolsters were. Andy can help out with that. The other question is how hollow the hilt is: is it simply the pommel, or does the hilt ring hollow into the grip? If so, I suspect it was brazed together from pieces (actually, I think that anyway), rather than being cast in one piece around the blade. An accomplished brass worked could have assembled that from 3-4 pieces: one for the bolster, one for the handle, one for the flat bottom of the pommel, and one for the knuckle guard. Fearn

9th June 2005, 04:38 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	When we start to guess from where a weapon origins, there is one thing which many seem to forget, that many foreigners lived, and often got high positions at the court, in India, although they came from far away, like Ibn Battuta (first half of the 14th century) who came from Tangier, or Bernier (last half of the 17th century). One coming from N or NE Africa could very well have ordered a sword like the one discussed, with Indian decoration. I agree that it is likely to origin from Afghanistan or NW India. You can actually cast an item in lost wax and get it hollow inside. What you do is to make a core of wet sand and cover it with wax, decorate the wax, cover the wax with clay, but to make sure that the distance between the clay and the wet sand will be the same during the process you will need to put small nails through the clay into the wet sand. If this method has been used there will be rests of sand on the inside of the hilt.

10th June 2005, 12:35 AM	#8
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Bagobo and T'boli hilts are lost wax cast in one piece, and have a hollow, tapered cave inside for the tang and often a hollowed butt, too. Are you saying the butt plate appears to be of one piece with the rest of the hilt? On old work, solder that exactly matches the colour/alloy of the joined pieces is rare, if not nonexistent; if there are soldered seams as on a tulwar hilt, they should be visible to close inspection in person. Down the edges of both grip and bolster, as well as around the butt and at the ends of the knucklebow, are good places to look. The little projection on the hand edge of the bolster appears to be all brass and decorative in nature. It would not be unusual to cast an object to achieve the general shape, or to cast parts to be soldered together, and then decorate the item by other processes. A bolster is a (metal) structure at the base of a blade that in modern Western thought is spoken of as bolstering (strengthening) the blade and/or the joint of blade and handle. Bolsters are integral (forged in, of a piece with the blade) or applied in a variety of ways; soldered, pinned, or with a hole thru the middle of the bolster for the tang/blade. Integral spear/chisel/arrow type bolsters and flat pinchy bolsters that may hark back to tangless daggers/swords seem to me to be two seperable threads of development, as perhaps does the habiki and other E Asian sheath tensioners, but there is a good deal of crossover. on bichaq and yataghan, the flat overlay that sometimes extends out over the base of the blade, much as seen with this piece, is usually spoken of as being part of the bolster, which structurally is usually true; ie it is an extension of the same piece of metal.

10th June 2005, 05:29 PM	#9
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,843	This is a very intereting knife.I wonder what sort of, and whether it ever had a scabbard.I feel more and more ,it is from Nepal or NW India and village made.It probably had a turquouise or coral eye in the handle.It may well have been a fighting weapon but I bet it sent more goats on thier way.Tim

11th June 2005, 01:16 AM	#11
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Ceremonial-practical, though; remember that sacrifices are usually eaten (and in this region there are known customs of beheading animal sacrifices), and at one time the job of a leader could consist principally of leading the militia in combat, when to plant or when to move being often highly traditional, for instance. This particular piece strikes me as very practical, but let us consider kora. The fighting ones have a "rondel" type handle, with disk guard and pommel, and I think a seperate piece for the grip? But the temple/sacrificial ones have a hollow metal, rather Persian looking handle with quillons and lagnets. If anything though, I almost think there's too much decor on the hilt compared to not enough on the blade for a N Indian/Himalayan sacrificial sword? On another hand the giant kukuris are AFAIK used for slaughtering and perhaps for butchering (the ordinary ones are said to be used for butchering, as well). I personally suspect that one day we'll see more of these and it will become a known style.