Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

ariel · 29th April 2014, 04:32 AM

I looked again at Gracie's book. And... I think I might have found the answer:-)

If one looks very,very carefully, many jambiyas worn behind the belt seem to have a set of sturdy staples or even rivets at the junction along the side of the scabbard, implying metal rings underneath the belt. If so, they just created a single piece: belt/scabbard that was worn together as one unit. That assured firm fixation of the scabbard behind the belt and prevented jambiya from being lost. An interesting thing, is that the same feature is present on the belt/scabbard unit dated 1707. So, it is not the feature of the new jambiyas. Perhaps, vice versa, - the old ones.

Still, the last one in my series is puzzling: the rings just stick out behind the scabbard. What were they attached to?

29th April 2014, 04:32 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I looked again at Gracie's book. And... I think I might have found the answer:-) If one looks very,very carefully, many jambiyas worn behind the belt seem to have a set of sturdy staples or even rivets at the junction along the side of the scabbard, implying metal rings underneath the belt. If so, they just created a single piece: belt/scabbard that was worn together as one unit. That assured firm fixation of the scabbard behind the belt and prevented jambiya from being lost. An interesting thing, is that the same feature is present on the belt/scabbard unit dated 1707. So, it is not the feature of the new jambiyas. Perhaps, vice versa, - the old ones. Still, the last one in my series is puzzling: the rings just stick out behind the scabbard. What were they attached to? Last edited by ariel; 29th April 2014 at 12:55 PM.