Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iain
Hi Ibrahiim we can't really use the Oakeshott typology in full for a case like this I think, the XI was rather too early for this being in use during the 12th century. I referenced his pommel typology not the general sword typology.  If we were to go down that route XIII might be more fitting although still too early in my view. As the large cuff is not original to the blade you won't find a match in Oakeshott for this.
Returning to the hilt and the decorative themes, more and more I'm favouring the central Asian provenance indicated by the auction house. The dragon theme in this form was popular during and after the Timurid period as can be seen on this jug handle. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/91.1.607
A blade such as this could have arrived in these environs in any number of ways, if I'm not mistaken the guard exhibits a two piece construction which could explain how it was fitted without removing the pommel. |
Salaams Iain, I agree ... Oakeshott does advise against such rigid terminology and I'm sure a more flexible approach is required. It looks like this is a mixed sword which follows the reason of such weapons as spoils of war then changed to suit a new owners favourite style. I have a picture sketch of a hilt from about 1290 as I recall and will publish that as it looks the same shape as the pommel at #1... I think each part of the weapon needs looking at as it could be a very mixed bag of tricks. The Wallace has a sword with a dominant cuff but I can't draw the conclusion yet of any link ..was that not made in Cairo?
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.