I've had this for three decades now and I feel like I'm looking at it for the first time thanks to your many insights. Looking at the blade now it is clear that the fuller had parallel sides that continued on and the regrinding of the edge intersected one line while the last three cm of the back was ground in a gradual line past the top line. The blade is also very thick: 8.18 mm at the bottom of the back and 4.34 mm on the opposite side before the edge starts. This speaks to a much longer blade originally.
Montino speculated about a bayonet and I remember when I first picked it up I was so sure it was one I looked for the lug. I also agree with the emerging consensus that there is a story here. Whether bayonet or sword, it started as a fine piece of craftmanship and was skillfully transformed to a form consistent with local custom. The battered sheath tells us that it probably ended up in the hands of a poor Pathan and those people have always counted their weapons among their most prized possessions. I remember how colourfully they decorated and how meticulously they cared for their old Lee-Enfields and seemed to carry them everywhere.
The mark would still seem to be a key clue whether original or added later. Perhaps I'll see whether someone at an Asian Studies department would have a look at it.
Rick
|