West African sword for I.D. & comment

Iain · 5th March 2016, 09:08 PM

The use of the sandwich mount in Takouba seems to take place most often with a blade that does not have a sufficient length or tang to achieve the desired length and mount desired.

I'd say this is clear in 80% or so of the swords with this type of mount I've handled. A few, it's not entirely clear if the plates are simply there to re-enforce the base of the blade like the attached (ex my collection).

This particular one has a tang, but this could well be a local addition the blade in order to secure the hilt and not the original.

Iain · 5th March 2016, 09:11 PM

Others, like this mid 14th century blade are a clear case of remounting because of a shortened blade and no tang. In this case a single piece of steel is split to make a new forte and a new tang was part of or attached to that forte.

So, short answer, I think its mainly out of necessity to mount the blade in the absence of a tang.

The closest thing in terms of outside influence I can think of are how some Indian blades are mounted like firangi, with langets extending over the blade. However those, from what I recall are more like extensions from the hilt and quite integral, versus what we see in Colin's piece and my own examples where the new forte or plates do not seem to be directly integral to the hilt.

Iain · 5th March 2016, 09:21 PM

Finally to return to the main topic, I think in Colin's images its quite clear his blade was remounted because of a tang issue or break. The blade clearly terminates before entering the hilt which means the plates were necessary to facilitate a forte and form a tang.

I've attached an image with a little tweaking to hopefully make clear what I mean/see.

5th March 2016, 09:08 PM	#1
Iain Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Olomouc Posts: 1,719	The use of the sandwich mount in Takouba seems to take place most often with a blade that does not have a sufficient length or tang to achieve the desired length and mount desired. I'd say this is clear in 80% or so of the swords with this type of mount I've handled. A few, it's not entirely clear if the plates are simply there to re-enforce the base of the blade like the attached (ex my collection). This particular one has a tang, but this could well be a local addition the blade in order to secure the hilt and not the original. Attached Images

5th March 2016, 09:11 PM	#2
Iain Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Olomouc Posts: 1,719	Others, like this mid 14th century blade are a clear case of remounting because of a shortened blade and no tang. In this case a single piece of steel is split to make a new forte and a new tang was part of or attached to that forte. So, short answer, I think its mainly out of necessity to mount the blade in the absence of a tang. The closest thing in terms of outside influence I can think of are how some Indian blades are mounted like firangi, with langets extending over the blade. However those, from what I recall are more like extensions from the hilt and quite integral, versus what we see in Colin's piece and my own examples where the new forte or plates do not seem to be directly integral to the hilt. Attached Images

5th March 2016, 09:21 PM	#3
Iain Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Olomouc Posts: 1,719	Finally to return to the main topic, I think in Colin's images its quite clear his blade was remounted because of a tang issue or break. The blade clearly terminates before entering the hilt which means the plates were necessary to facilitate a forte and form a tang. I've attached an image with a little tweaking to hopefully make clear what I mean/see. Attached Images