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

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

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.

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.

In examining this sword, I think most of the emphasis on my observations have been toward the very interesting hilt, which appears distinctly fashioned for chopping cuts. My mention of the dusack referred to the similarity to the woodcut illustrations described by Tom, but of course did not intend to suggest any lineage to these, as mentioned, 'training weapons'. What seemed most apparant to me is the gestalt of the hilt, which is strikingly similar to the example of kopis that appears as referenced. Again, these hilts seem designed for pronounced chopping cuts, which of course were the distinct dynamic of these unique blades.
I agree with Tom in noting the form of the bolster, characteristic of the Khyber/Afghan/Uzbek weapons, and suggesting as noted, northwest regions of India/Khyber.
While it is tempting to note the brasswork as suggesting North African possibilities, it would seem that this sword is from the regions discussed.
As I have noted previously, the 'sickle marks' along the back of the blade have been seen on blades of certain other unique native Indian blades. I actually have never seen these on North African blades, and would be very interested to know of examples if anyone has seen them.

The reference to the 'salawar yataghan' linked was noting the distinct similarity to the positioning of the grip and guard to the blade in the 'chopping' form that is apparant in the hilt of the sword we are discussing.The hilt on the salawar yataghan is actually an Anglo-Afghan form which was mounted on heavy straight sabres used by the Afghan army in the 1880's through 1890's....many of them as late as the campaigns of 1919.
This example is somewhat unique in being mounted with the typical Khyber blade, interestingly in somewhat the same fashion as our discussion sword.
The knuckleguard on these, while the hilt was departing from traditional hilt forms, still carries the curled back form seen on many tulwars.
The same feature occurs on this knuckleguard.

I think the reference to Arabian influence in this hilt with similarities to certain forms of sa'if is sound, while agree the 'nimcha' has less to do with what we are discussing. Such influence was profound in the Mughal sphere, and seems well placed in the regions of Northwest India where this sword might have originated.

The sickle marks (Moons?) on Berber work are seen on a lot of the modern decorator stuff; the curved double-edgers and newer flatter versions of the short sword I'm coming to think of as closer to flyssa (and to kodme) than to the nimchas it's usually thought of as a decayed form of; I think some of us know the type I mean? But I'm not sure it's seen on old Berbese work.
In terms of shape and other artistic concerns, there may be some resemblance to Arab swords/art; I was more thinking of the structure of the thing (which remains somewhat mysterious), but even looking at the overall shape, the big difference I see from nimcha is that the hook is a forward curve in the handle, with the back of the handle curving as well as the front, so it is more a curved/crooked handle than a hooked pommel, if you follow what I'm saying; contrast to nimcha, where the back of the handle stays straight(ish), while the hook is a block that extends from the front edge of the handle, with a matching nook in the hilt. Some Arabian swords, and Persian swords have a very similarly curved hook, but never with the finger nook, I think? Just rambling, I guess; trying to anylize this shape. Wasn't there a link to a pic of that salwar yataghan? It seems that its European-based hilt is one of which I've heard/read that the hilt (and I think sheath covering fabric) were the regulated part, and the blade was private issue?

In light of the discussions here, I revisited my initial rejection of any relation to the khyber knife linked from Oriental-Arms in the SFI thread.

I will concede that there are similarities between that form and the subject sword, particularly in the general handle construction and knuckle-guard. However, the blades are too dissimilar to my eye for me to assign much significance to the handle similarites.

I submit the noted similarities are only the consequence of mounting a handle to the base of a wide blade, and I'm inclined to explore the differences between the blade forms more closely.

It is my understanding that khyber knives (and their smaller relations) are not "choppers", as the subject sword appears to be. Instead, they are better suited in form to stabbing and, perhaps, slashing.

Just some random thoughts, as I'm short on time and away from my references.

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 ! ;) :D

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 . :)

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.

Third party observation
 

Had a friend have a good look at the hilt, who has a lot of metal working experience. He cant find any indication of cast marks removed or any indication of parts joinded together. The hilt is one single piece!
Cheers all
Andy

Andy, what you do is this, you take the sword under your arm and go to the nerest hospital, ask them to X-ray the upper part of the blade and the hilt, then maybe we will know if Fearn is correct in what he writes in mail #15 - it sounds possible.

Hi Andy,

Wow, I am impressed. That was a tricky bit of casting work for whoever did it.

Hey Jens,

That's an excellent idea. You can also add the X-ray to the sword's file, to increase it's value (provenance, don't you know... :D)

Fearn

The decoration looks like the decoration on a pichangatti blade I have from Coorg, but this kind of decoration was used over a rather big area.

Yeah, increase its value by about $800; put the bill in there, too..... :p
No casting or soldering marks means that it was cast. Often craftsmen remove all sprues and completely resurface castings. Several small casting flaws are visible in the surface of the hilt, such as are typical of preindustrial brass castings; not knowing whether there were solder lines that didn't tell us much though, as to was it cast in one piece or several (which could've been made in reuseable molds). Now we know. Pretty cool. Thoughts on is the transverse internal tube that goes thru the pommel part of the casting, or just the copper inner sleeve we see? Just the copper is my vote, though I doubt you can see well enough into that hole in the butt?
How 'bout an endoscopy, too?
Actually I know the xray would show this; just cracking wise ;)

Are the crescent marks considered the same mark with or without teeth? With teeth to inner or to outer side? (I don't think the teeth are always to the same side?) It doesn't seem enough is known to make assertions (?), but just a subject of thought.