Takouba supposedly from the 30's

[Kubur]

Hi

I have no problem with 1930ties.
You should look this web site
http://takouba.org/catalog/
You should find yours...

Regards,
Kubur

[thinreadline]

Its hard to say, it could be , but equally may well be much later . Was the seller an African arms specialist or an antique dealer. If the latter he may be ( inappropriately ) referencing the geometric patterns and the vivid lime greens as 'African' Art Deco !

[blue lander]

The seller didn't seem to have any expertise. He just "thought" it was from the 30's with no explanation for why. I didn't pay much for it so I wouldn't be horrified if it was newer.

[Martin Lubojacky]

Hi blue lander,
I would say (just feeling) the sheath is conterporary (due to the relatively fresh colour; witnessed how they made such sheaths a few years ago). Newertheless the sheath is not definitely from the thirties. Also the pommel is dicky (if it is Tuareg from thirties, it would be better worked).
Martin

[thinreadline]

Yes I would agree with Martin on the pommel , it does seem poorly executed for the supposed period . My point about the 'Art Deco' dating is based on a similar experience at an antiques fair, where a seller had a similarly decorated scabbard which he 'surmised' was from the 1930s due to the similarity of the patterning to a piece of Clarice Cliff pottery he was also selling ! I really dont think the fashionable European Art Deco movement had much impact on sub Saharan Africa in the 1930s ! I am afraid some dealers just 'wing' it when it comes to ID & dating of items. I remember years ago how a quite eminent member of the Antiques Roadshow admitted to me that when he first started out in the antiques trade , his boss told him , never admit you dont know what an item is or what its age is, just make it up ... nothing deters a potential customer more than a dealer who appears not to know what they are selling !

[Shakethetrees]

A good, acceptable, answer might be to just say it is twentieth century, and if further focus is needed to call it pre war or post war.

WWII brought a lot of materials and outside exposure to places that were before the war, isolated from outsiders.

A lot of debris wound up following armies to North Africa (as well as everywhere else!). Magazines, stuff from the civilian market, etc., could have been picked up from trash piles or traded and, to use a recently coined word that is now currently in fashion, "repurposed" in unexpected ways. One thing that comes to mind are the Chinese daggers with fake tortoise shell grips, where cellophane or some other clear flexible material was wrapped over cigarette box paper to create a poor imitation of shell. How well this held up over time is reflective on the their scarcity.

Sometime even construction methods have been upgraded due to this exposure. The surplus of available steel and brass and other metals and new materials made piecing together in the old manner not necessary anymore. Aluminum crept into the picture, used in grips and mountings from Afghanistan to the Philippines and elsewhere.

New tools and the availability of electricity and acetylene torches had a tremendous impact on manufacturing, leaving its fingerprint primarily as grind marks and welding beads not ground and finished out.

The study of these traditional weapons made using non traditional materials could be an interesting study on its own.

But I digress...

My point is to say that all of this should be taken into consideration when dating a weapon, or any other bit of cultural material, for that matter.

We are living just past the largest shift ever witnessed where old methods and materials disappeared and new ones emerged.

[blue lander]

Would it be a stretch to put it pre WWII? I think its older than my other takoubas because the pommel cap is solid brass rather than stacked discs, and the fullers look forged rather than chiseled.

[thinreadline]

Originally Posted by Shakethetrees

A good, acceptable, answer might be to just say it is twentieth century, and if further focus is needed to call it pre war or post war.

WWII brought a lot of materials and outside exposure to places that were before the war, isolated from outsiders.

A lot of debris wound up following armies to North Africa (as well as everywhere else!). Magazines, stuff from the civilian market, etc., could have been picked up from trash piles or traded and, to use a recently coined word that is now currently in fashion, "repurposed" in unexpected ways. One thing that comes to mind are the Chinese daggers with fake tortoise shell grips, where cellophane or some other clear flexible material was wrapped over cigarette box paper to create a poor imitation of shell. How well this held up over time is reflective on the their scarcity.



Sometime even construction methods have been upgraded due to this exposure. The surplus of available steel and brass and other metals and new materials made piecing together in the old manner not necessary anymore. Aluminum crept into the picture, used in grips and mountings from Afghanistan to the Philippines and elsewhere.



New tools and the availability of electricity and acetylene torches had a tremendous impact on manufacturing, leaving its fingerprint primarily as grind marks and welding beads not ground and finished out.

The study of these traditional weapons made using non traditional materials could be an interesting study on its own.

But I digress...

My point is to say that all of this should be taken into consideration when dating a weapon, or any other bit of cultural material, for that matter.

We are living just past the largest shift ever witnessed where old methods and materials disappeared and new ones emerged.

What an excellent summary , very well thought out.