Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kubur
It's what I was saying too about Ottoman swords and North African swords.
It's the hilt the ID of a sword.
Blades are traded or looted. To a certain extend the scabbard is interesting too.
|
Good point Kubur, when extant, the scabbard of a sword can offer most interesting details about the swords last or most recent disposition. The scabbard in many cases, almost invariably with ethnographic weapons, is far less durable than the sword itself, and while swords (especially the blade as you note) often have long working lives, the scabbards usually do not.
With European or other military swords, a weapon which either has no scabbard or is with mismatched one, may often be found to be a 'battlefield pick up' as swords were dropped in combat while the individual was either a fatality or continued away, with scabbard still with him.
With ethnographic weapons, harsh conditions and deterioration of less than durable materials usually led to refurbishing of weapons often, particularly the scabbards. This was especially the case as weapons were handed down through generations or changed hands by one means or another.
Another good point about the Ottoman instance in use for classification. Such use of the broad description of an empire which endured for many centuries and covered many cultural spheres is infeasible for accurate classification or typology. These I would consider 'Imperialized' categories, such as 'Byzantine' and other 'empire' terms in such use, and even the term Mughal often falls short when trying to accurately describe many items, as their empire , though situated in India, broadly transcended geographic areas.