Very Nice Nimcha

[midelburgo]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Fernando,

Here are a couple of pics, but they are very difficult to make out, though the stamp on one side is much clearer than the other.

Let me know if you are able to decipher anything from it.

It could be a Venetian arsenal winged lion?

What remembers me of this another ¿Nimcha? What do you make out of it?

[Jim McDougall]

The deeply stamped circular cartouche seems a convention which runs typical in Algerian context sabres (which is how Briggs. 1965, terms the probable nimshas in his collection then). In accord with the drawings in his article, "European Blades in Tuareg Swords and Daggers", JAAS, Vol. V, #2, 1965, p.37-92......on p.78, he describes two of these 'sabres' as having these as having circular marks containing Arabic characters in illegible combination, but while in this same blade location.....only on one side.

Though he suggests the blades, both with identical three fuller configuration, are either Italian or German and of 16th or 17th c. As one of the blades has ANDREA FERARA, this profoundly suggests Solingen, and likely end of 17th into 18thc. Briggs notes that these markings were probably stamped later, but prior to 'damascening' on the blade.
This further suggests some type of arsenal or acceptance (?) kind of stamp which was apparently placed on these blades (in this blade location) as the blades were received.

In Charles' example (OP) the flared tip blade in my opinion in unlikely to be German, quite likely Italian (as these are comparable to some storta blades I believe) and seems earlier. That suggests this application of these cartouches was in place much earlier than the blades noted in Briggs.
Perhaps it could be some sort of talismanic blessing (?) to the blade, otherwise I would presume the acceptance stamp. In that case there may be some kind of administrative purpose.

[CharlesS]

Is it possible that they are arsenal marks rather than maker's marks??? In other words, where they came from or belong vs. who made them. I realize, of course, that often the maker and the arsenal would be the same.

...just an idea.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Is it possible that they are arsenal marks rather than maker's marks??? In other words, where they came from or belong vs. who made them. I realize, of course, that of often the maker and the arsenal would be the same.

...just an idea.

I think we crossed posts Charles. As I indicated in my post just prior to yours, I believe these are likely 'arsenal' or more likely stamps having to do with administrative purpose such as already 'taxed' (?) or accounted for. The Ottomans were keen on these kinds of matters if I understand correctly.

These have nothing to do with makers marks or origins of the blades in my opinion. Makers stamps were at the forte (root) of the blade not in this location as seen on these Algerian received trade blades.

[fernando]

Dear Jim, may i extract a piece of your post to realize you are correcting my (more than) humble approach in that, arsenal marks are not makers marks; sure thing, as so i cared to mention both possibilities in my previous post. In any case, and playing positive, despite an arsenal stamp (stricto sensu) might not define the original blade provenance, it sure tracks the path it traversed to meet final assembly, a bit of info that helps building the sword history. On the other hand, i am perplex at the distinction you seem to make at the discussed stamps being, or not, located in the forte. I fear i don't follow you; both Charles's and Midelburgo's examples have them located in the blade forte; or do you define forte (first strong third) as a different location in the blade ?
All yours .


.

[Kubur]

Burgo post is very interesting, thank you

Yes you have maker marks, export / import marks and arsenals marks.
This one seems very deep for an arsenal mark, look at Irene arsenal marks they are just engravings... )II(

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Dear Jim, may i extract a piece of your post to realize you are correcting my (more than) humble approach in that, arsenal marks are not makers marks; sure thing, as so i cared to mention both possibilities in my previous post. In any case, and playing positive, despite an arsenal stamp (stricto sensu) might not define the original blade provenance, it sure tracks the path it traversed to meet final assembly, a bit of info that helps construct the sword history. On the other hand, i am perplex at the distinction you seem to make at the discussed stamps being, or not, located in the forte. I fear i don't follow you; both Charles's and Midelburgo's examples have them located in the blade forte; or do you define forte (first strong third) as a different location in the blade ?
All yours .


.

Fernando, I did not mean my comments, which I admit got a bit complicated, as any kind of correction but just as an observation on my own account.
Arsenal marks are not as you say, usually an origin for a blade, but where it 'arrived' at some point and was either held for and used in furbishing swords.
Very good point in these marks establishing a factor in the blade/sword history.
I think the forte thing is more a matter of my own perception, I always think of the forte as with makers marks, to be located near the center of the blade near the guard, sometimes even under the langet etc.
The block forte is often seen on European blades, and such marks are on this section of the blade.

These circular cartouches are situated unusually near the cutting edge of the blade but indeed in the upper section of the blade near the guard, which may broadly be regarded as part of the forte. Perhaps you are right, defining the forte might be regarded as the upper third of the blade...just always thought of it as the root near the guard.

[ArmsAndAntiques]

I had never seen the Italian connection with the early Nimcha hilts being attributed to an older Italian form, however the example Midelburgo posts shows what is clearly a derivative form of the crabclaw style Italian hilt in it's crossguard. The hilt itself is a variant on the 17th C. or earlier form with the sharp pommel and the flattened sides.

However the crossguard is the first time I've seen this form, and to me proves, or goes some way in doing so, that the cross-pollination between the European forms also extended to other types of hilt shapes and forms,especially at what would have been an early date. However, that isn't surprising considering the many European captured slaves that were forced into service among the Corsairs and Ottoman empire, I can imagine some of them that were forced into combat, or went willingly, would have their favorite forms interpreted through local types.

Excellent find and an important addition to the nimcha formology pantheon.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I always think of the forte as with makers marks, to be located near the center of the blade near the guard ... The block forte is often seen on European blades, and such marks are on this section of the blade...These circular cartouches are situated unusually near the cutting edge of the blade but indeed in the upper section of the blade near the guard, which may broadly be regarded as part of the forte. Perhaps you are right, defining the forte might be regarded as the upper third of the blade...just always thought of it as the root near the guard.

Dear Jim, i would not evolve into why different cultures find it more handy to use different spots of the forte area to stamp their marks; if either technical issues ... or aesthetical.
But going etymological and in actual fencing lexicon forte, a term we currently use over here in its full acceptation, comes from the Latin forte=strong, robust... and, for the case, undoubtedly means the strong first third of the sword.
Sorry ... if i am such a drag .