Manding sword

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Most of the time they use springs of old trucks to do the blades.
Kubur

Trucks of no use were not that plentiful but sure did exist.

I know of tourist swords from the 50s & 60's being made from tin cans that Europeans discarded. Swords could be made right there in front of you with these smelted tins.

I have read about rail way lines being torn up and turned to sharp pointy things in Ethiopia.

Steel rod used for spear heads.

Almost anything bought to Africa through EU contact was used in many regions.

What iron ore producers and native smiths there were, in native context made weapons suitable for war as the ore was very precious.

One of the type discussed that I sold a few years back and have not yet found another of this quality to replace it.

http://www.swordsantiqueweapons.com/s241_full.html

[Jim McDougall]

Kubur, exquisite blade of late 18th into 19th c. with Cassignard (Nantes) style decorative motif. It is always outstanding to find these kinds of vintage blades in these Manding sabres, which indeed typically were examples of French origin.

Gav, thank you for adding these exemplars from the spectrum of sources often providing material for blades and various sword components in these colonial areas. In native and frontier contexts, recycling was absolutely necessary when not simply convenient. Countless numbers of these old blades circulated through these regions for more generations than we can imagine.

[blue lander]

These are all very nice swords that are obviously antiques, but I still don't think my sword is all that bad. It isn't very old, its in rough shape and the blade was never used in combat, but I still think its an authentic ethnographic example that some Manding fellow carried for ceremony or whatever rather than just a tourist bring back . Other than the modern blade, the hilt and scabbard seem to be made with "native" technology.

As for the lack of edge, I know when you buy a south American machete they usually come without an edge. You're expected to put an edge on it yourself.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by blue lander

These are all very nice swords that are obviously antiques, but I still don't think my sword is all that bad. It isn't very old, its in rough shape and the blade was never used in combat, but I still think its an authentic ethnographic example that some Manding fellow carried for ceremony or whatever rather than just a tourist bring back . Other than the modern blade, the hilt and scabbard seem to be made with "native" technology.

As for the lack of edge, I know when you buy a south American machete they usually come without an edge. You're expected to put an edge on it yourself.

Exactly Please read my post #14.

[Kubur]

Blue lander you have a very nice ethnographic sword from the 20 c.
For sure it is not a tourist piece!

[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