Manding sword

[spiral]

For something to be defined as an arm does it not have to be an actual weapon?

For me it does but other well educated & serious collectors obviously disagree..

It would be interesting to hear views & opinions..




spiral

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by spiral

For something to be defined as an arm does it not have to be an actual weapon?

For me it does but other well educated & serious collectors obviously disagree..

It would be interesting to hear views & opinions..




spiral

Interesting question Spiral. I thing you are right, there is a good deal of latitude in the perspective of the study of arms, and of course much of it has to do with perception. There are many 'weapons' which are used ceremonially and ritually and technically do not fall into the scope of weapons which might be used in combat.
Many such weapons such as the 'temple' swords in Indian used by the Nayar's and the curious phurbu or 'ghost dagger' of Tibet, most certainly are not actual weapons, but serve ritually in ceremonies in what we might perceive as a metaphysical sense.

Obviously there are many court and dress swords in various circumstances which would fall severely short in a combat context, yet as we know there are equally as many which remain deadly despite their often ostentatious character.

In these kinds of circumstances in native tribal cultures, as discussed earlier, there are many instances where traditional arms have become more of a dress accoutrement, particularly where they have been long supplanted by firearms as weapons, or in metropolitan context where warfare is not necessarily imminent.

With all of these kinds of essentially non-combative and ritual or ceremonial arms, they are typically included in virtually most references on arms as they represent the traditions often held with similar forms actually used combatively.

I have seen many 'weapons' which border on almost ridiculous, yet they still represented the tradition of arms in many cultures where better examples were not readily present but these ersatz creations served the purpose as either regalia or ceremonial implements.

I suppose it is more about what they represent than what they are in fact capable of. The sword itself has been considered obsolete in most of the world (with obvious exceptions) yet maintains its place traditionally in military dress swords, fraternal swords, and others.

Best regards,
Jim

[blue lander]

I don't see the lack of edge as a big deal. Some elbow grease and a few minutes with a bastard file would be all it'd take to solve that problem. Who knows if it would keep an edge though. The blade had a nice spring temper and on the whole is quite sturdily built. It feels just as usable as a truck spring takouba or kaskara.

I think all we can infer from the blunt edge is that its original owner never intended to use it as a weapon. I think saying it was built to be a costume piece or a wall decoration for some foreigner , IE it wasn't made in the traditional manner or up to weapon grade quality, would be going too far. I think I read somewhere that the Mandinka were known for their leather work, and the blades were just whatever they could get their hands on.

Back to the sword itself, I noticed the "teeth" in the back of the blade are only on the curved part of the blade. Could these actually be impact marks from a hammer? Like perhaps they heated a straight sheet of metal up and pounded a curve into it?