Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kahnjar1
Salaams Ibrahiim......Re the silver collar. Not likely to have been part of the scabbard as it is far too small to fit. It does however fit snugly onto the hilt.
Iain..... Your comment re the blade is noted and I intend to leave it as is.
The hilt is still an open book, but I believe that there was originally a leather?? covering of some sort. Even then the hilt would be quite thin to grip, BUT....we are perhaps missing something here.
I use as an example, 19th Century British Military Uniforms, which, for the 20th/21st c man are far too small to wear, or even in some cases to put on. Obviously the "modern" man is of bigger stature, so it would be reasonable to assume, also has much larger hands than the 19th c "version". That being the case, maybe the hilt is NOT too small after all. I do not have evidence of Arabian stature in the 19th c, but I do know that modern Asian races are considerably smaller than the average European, and have MUCH smaller hands.
Perhaps this is the answer??
Stu
|
Hi Stu,
Makes sense.
I was wondering not just about the size but the balance. Perhaps its just a trick of the photos but the balance looks like it would be very forward of the guard? Of course I always figure that ethnographic weapons that feel awkward usually just means we don't know how to hold them right!
No doubt the users of the period had no issues!