Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 21st April 2013, 07:22 AM   #4
VVV
Member
 
VVV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS
Thanks Michael! What features of the pierced hilt suggest that it is later than the blade?? It has a very nice patina.

Regarding the date, are you suggesting the type/style could be earlier, just unknown to him until then??
I just have the impression, based on the motifs and how deep they are carved, that this style of hilt is later.
It is always hard to judge age from pictures so I go more on the choice of motifs and the workmanship.
But if it has more patina than what it looks like on your pictures I might be wrong in this case.

On the date, I am a bit skeptic on Shelford stating a certain year without mentioning what he bases his statement on.
So if 1902 was the first year that Shelford saw them they might be a bit older.
But not as old as the parang niabur and even the langgai tinggang, of course.


Michael
VVV is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.