Fascinating topic Teodor! and the swords in this esoteric booklet truly present challenges, with this one especially challenging.
One thing I have thought in previous research on these swords is that they seem to have more commemorative and honorific value than distinct reference to the ownership and periods ascribed.
As swords of state, of course they must given great pedigree, and local officials did their best to accommodate.
As has been noted, this hilt seems to align with Ottoman hilt forms (yataghans pictured probably much later 18thc), and of the 16th century as were popular throughout their empire. Many influences seem to have come into this sphere, including Timurid elements as also noted. The 'dragon' feature on quillon terminals also aligns with the mythical creatures of India with the makara and yali.
The 'monster' forms in these hilt quillons seem to be wide ranged in the Ottoman interpretations, from varying grotesque dragon heads to stylized versions which are more vestigial. It does seem that mythical creatures like dragons and phoenixes were popular in Ottoman styles in 16th c. (Saz style). (pictured dragon)
Yucel if I recall, ascribes most of the historic Islamic blades in his references to have been rehilted in the 16th century, mostly with these kinds of hilts with downturned quillons.
These type hilts were of course known in North Africa with the Ottomans who held suzerainty in Algeria, Tunis, Libya and Egypt. They are found in varying mountings including nimcha and yataghan in those regions. Naturally these types were not limited to these regions, and via trade, diplomatic relations and of course warfare and territorial tribal expansions they in degree would diffuse accordingly.
The frustrating thing with study of most of these tribal states kingdoms, Sultanates etc. is that the history seems detailed through medieval periods, then typically fast forwards to late 18th into 19th century and more current geopolitical events. Therefore, without advanced study and specialized resources it is hard to assess more on these kinds of weapons of note.
It would seem that the powerful trade networks through Songhai regions and the Hausa would have experienced contact with Ottoman's to the north. A hilt such as this might well have come from a diplomatic embassy at some point during the reign of Kanda Kotal, thus indeed been from the period, though I am inclined to think this hilt is later.
The blade is I think as noted most likely 17th century and Italian, and such blades were known on schiavona of course. The nominal representations of the ubiquitous 'sickle' marks (generally regarded as Genoan) are seen with the singular mark, which is very much like an example from an Italian gunners stiletto c. 1650 (Wallace A858) . These are not typically taken to be makers marks though sometimes favored by particular ones, the actual purpose or meaning of them not known. They may be guild or other distinctively meant administrative symbols or perhaps even talismanic as often the case in many.
All of this long winded assessment is to support what Teodor has already well observed, but adding my own details. I dont have Bivar at hand, but my interest is really piqued so could not resist.
Interesting note Changdao on the Kanta 'name'. It is of course a common occurrence with these complex compound names in these cultures, where titles may be mistaken for a personal name. I'd like to know more on this as Im not familiar with regal titles in this context, it reminds me of the Pasha term in Ottoman parlance , which is of course of lesser station.
|