![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Room 101, Glos. UK
Posts: 4,238
|
![]()
Cool ngbandi one, i see the large end cone is intact, the OP's one looks like it may have been broken or cut off to enable better pronation of the wrist that these wide disks (like on a talwar) restrict the bending of the wrist.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,269
|
![]()
That is an interesting theory; I have owned several and they all seemed to have a similar-sized piece missing from the handle. I had only thought it to be a strange coincidence or a characteristic of the type of wood they used, but your suggestion makes sense.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 445
|
![]()
Thanks everyone!
Very helpful information and interesting thoughts. Regarding the missing bit from the pommel - it may be this occurs on many examples of this type of sword simply because the brass tacks weaken the wood causing it to break along the lines created by the tacks. If this were an intentional feature the handle could simply be carved differently. However, if considered an ergonomical improvement, it is oriented to allow greater range of movement when the blade is oriented to used the inside edge. This usage would be quite effective if the point is the intended striking area. Much like the mambele, or from other regions, the lohar, zahgnal, etc, using an arching swing to deliver a stabbing point is a devastating attack. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|