How to id a European kaskara blade?

[Mefidk]

Hi folks - I wonder if anyone can help with an opinion on this?

I recently obtained two kaskara that's with what look like trade blades, but I am unsure whether they are or not. I've seen very similar swords described as both trade blades and locally made, so I wonder if there is any way to nail this down?

One blade is pretty good, the other seems almost identical in size (87 & 86 cm long respectively), and form but is in pretty poor condition. The hilt on that one was loose so I've removed ready for cleaning and to see the tang. Both blades bear the often discussed 'comet' mark but no other marks are present. The fullers are very similar, wide, shallow and not perfectly executed. This makes me think that they are locally made, but the steel quality seems to be higher than those of the locally made swords of the region that I own. I wondered if the tang could give any clues since we don't normally get to see this? The tang does not seem specifically designed to fit the hilt, being held in place by green cloth padding as can be seen on one of the pictures, so more or less any shape would have done (I guess).

Thoughts and pointers on this gladly received - at the moment I'm 50:50, low quality trade blade: locally made, so even a leaning would be good

Chris

[Jim McDougall]

These are most interesting, especially as they are of the same type blade with profile, fuller and length, yet the contrast in condition is dramatic.
The first in an almost deeply pitted condition with the second in the more familiar refurbished condition and reptilian grip , both swords having this curious marking. The marking visible on the refurbished kaskara seems almost drawn on, I cant make out the mark on the badly corroded one.

These type blades seem to be 'Kasallawi' of modern make, with steel used often from recycled steel such as springs etc. The curious mark which in previous discussions is often suggested to represent a native interpretation of a 'flaming grenade' or the fly markings of the Kull family of makers c.1847-60....however later was suggested to be possibly a comet. Also, these marks are found on Tuareg swords far to the west and not typically on kaskara until relatively modern times. One kaskara carrying this mark was recorded around 1961 in Egypt in a presentation.

The mark seems to be more modern than the copies of European marks and it would seem earliest descriptions of it occur with various Tuareg chiefs during the 1916-17 Kaocen Revolt when several of these were captured during battle (Briggs, 1965, Plate XX; swords of Raidera, Adembar and Rabadine). It seems to have been recognized as early as c.1878 (lineage of the Adembar sword).

The considerably poor condition of the one sword of the pair seems to be in paradox with the apparant reasonably modern period which is indicated by the character of these blades and the mark. Possibly one was left in a relatively unprotected out building while the other was refurbished?

[Mefidk]

Many thanks Jim - your explanation fits well and goes a long way to explain why I was unsure about these. I was under the impression that these were 1880-1900, so I had not thought of more modern steel. It is very difficult however to see the difference between this and trade blade steel in terms of quality. Flexibility seems pretty much the same as a trade blade, so I suspect it is not leaf-springs but something else. I've attached a couple of pictures of a takouba that I believe is made from leaf-spring steel. It has rather a different feel to the blade (more rigid) and a more course structure to the steel (although this is a difficult thing to appreciated from pictures)

As to the different conditions of the blades I suspect you are right about storage. These came in from the same source as the probably 14thC takouba currently being discussed on the forums. Two teleks also came with these, both rusted into the scabbards, the scabbard from the rusty kaskara is in pretty small pieces, possibly as a result of removing the blade. I think that some of these got wet at some point in the not too distant past, and the takouba was lucky not to be one of these. So on the plus side I would say that there are two types of oxidation present on all of these - new and old. The old looks like nice black patina (you can also see this on pics of the crocodile hilted one, under the langet), the new is fresh and active rust. I guess that patina could have developed over the last 50 or 60 years, if that is the age we would put on these, and that the better kaskara was cleaned whilst the other was left untouched?

[Jim McDougall]

You're quite welcome Mefidk, and I very much appreciate your detailed response. It is interesting to know more on the provenance on these and the assemblage of weapons which were included in this apparantly diverse lot.
I spent some time going through the outstanding paper written by Ed Hunley in 1984 and in the archives here, "Sword and Knife Makers of Kassala", which was interestingly actually a precursor to the 1987 work of Graham Reed ("Kaskara from Northern Darfur, Sudan", JAAS, Vol.XII #3).

Hunley wonderfully describes the edged weapon industry which was apparantly all but dormant largely in Sudanese regions until around the 1960s. The description of the use of automotive springs as material for blade making is well covered, and it would seem there were numerous sources for stock including the railroad yards in Atbara for example. It is fascinating that these productions of weapons, though modern, are very much in the old traditions from the times of the Mahdiyya and the Sudanese are understandably proud of thier heritage.

The curious marking of this geometric 'comet' shape remains a bit of a puzzle and despite the suggestions that it is some kind of interpretation of the fly or 'doll' markings is in my impression a bit far fetched. Even in the most Picasso-esque interpretation to me this shape does not allude to either.
I am not convinced that the shape is toward cosmological lore either, so it would seem another symbolism is the source. Whatever the case, it seems to be a relatively late development and not particularly indicative of a European source.

With my admittedly deficient understanding of metallurgy and relying on photos rather than actual handling of these weapons it is hard to make reliable judgement so I appreciate your accurate detail in describing these blades. As we agree, it seems one of these swords from similar period of production ended up in compromised situation and was exposed to conditions lending to its deterioration. It may have been among other miscellanea in one of the shed type buildings Ed Hunley describes in the suq area in Kassala, or similar situation, but apparantly static for some time in that place.

I have always understood that of course depending on the workman and perhaps various factors in production, many of these native blades can be quite flexible. As you note the spring steel can typically be pretty rigid. There seem to be a number of weapons produced as well from sheet steel and these have again different characteristics in the corrosion and effects in the blades.

Thank you again for posting these, and the excellent questions. Its great to return to the study on these North African swords and have the opportunity to learn more on them from these kinds of examples.

All the best,
Jim

[Iain]

Hi Chris and Jim,

As someone who doesn't think these are particularly modern time for me to chime in.

Ed will be able to better answer this but my impression from discussions before was that well formed cross guards were often a good indication of age. The guard of the croc kaskara here, in particular does seem of a higher than usual quality when compared to a Kassala product. In particular note the ends, which are not as flat as the usual Kassala examples.

Turning to the blades I do not believe these are car springs or sheet steel. I could very well be wrong but the appearance from photos and Chris' notes seem to back this up. Particularly the coarseness of the steel and the corrosion patterns.

Due to this I think both are at least early 20th century? Again, I am far from expert but these do not correspond well with tourist bring backs from the last 40 years or so, at least in my recollection.

The mark is of course another kettle of fish! I am also not particularly convinced it is derived from a European mark and find the comet theory potentially compelling, obviously what is needed is for someone on the ground to confirm that. I obviously need to reread Briggs as I completely forgot he mentions this mark!

All the best,

Iain

[Mefidk]

Just a couple more thoughts about these swords. I mentioned that I thought the tang might give a clue. The rusty blade with deep patina came in wooden hilt with a very worn grip. There is distinct evidence that this is wear and not water damage. The wood itself is old dry and fragile. What I think might be significant is that the hilt did not utilise an iron peg passing through the tang, which according to this thread http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13638 is the purpose of the hole. So my thought it that this has been re-hilted at some time, but if so how did this happen and the current hilt get into this state if the blade is only 50 years old? I also noticed that the blade itself has been sharpened and shows a distinct narrowing in the fiths 3 & 4 from the hilt - again not something I'd expect to see on a young sword that as been left in an outbuilding.

I think the key issue here is the 'comet'. Do we really know that this was not found on kaskara before 1960? The marks themselves are deeply inscribed. I've rubbed gently at the rust with a scotch-brite pad and I can now see that there is a difference in the marks between the two blades. The rusty blade mark is not identical e.g. that if we imagine the mark is a figure carrying a staff or flag, then the flagstaff on the other mark extends quite a way above the head of the figure in the rusty version and barely at all on the clean version. There is a difference in the rectangular mark at the top of the head too. I've tried to capture this and the blade wear in the pictures below - but more cleaning will be needed to bring the mark out clearly. To help I've traced the marks visible from this angle. The cross-hatching visible on the clean blade is also present on this blade but it requires a different angle of light to bring it out.

Another possibility is that the mark has been added to an earlier blade, but I don't know whether this is likely. Not all trade blades seem to carry stamps though, and not all have been added to by native stamps, so perhaps this is possible but unlikely.

So I agree with Jim that more research on what this mark means and where and when it came from is needed, but I'm not yet convinced that these swords are a young as suggested.

Great fun trying to figure this out though

Chris

[Jim McDougall]

Chris and Iain, thank you so much for these straightforward observations and for the great explanations along with them. It is great to engage in these kinds of discussions where we exchange views and ideas regardless of polarity, as it is a total learning experience.
I must say that after reviewing earlier posts, notes and rereading through Briggs I am compelled to agree that these two kaskara may very well be much earlier in the 20th century. It seems likely the clearly more recently refurbished example is of the same blade type as the heavily aged one, the elliptical one third blade length channel from blade root is similar on both though I dont believe exact.
What steers me away from European origin for these blades is the lack of forte block. In looking at some other examples of blades which were apparantly of Solingen origin and intended for export such as those by Clauberg and Peres, these typical had such ricasso blocks and were marked. There were likely however blades unmarked, but I believe would have been configured similarly.

I am glad the patinated blade is shown with tang exposed, and this blade has the same aperture and shape as the Peres type blades. What is puzzling of course is that there is no block ricasso, so it seems we may presume native make for these. The same type fuller appears on the unusually hilted swords apparantly from Tunisian Berber regions.

I think we may look toward blades entering North Africa post Khalifa and during the Condominium. While it seems doubtful that any weapons producing in occupied Sudan of course was unlikely, however Darfur and these regions remained loosely outside British control with Ali Dinar emplaced as the sultan and the region essentially autonomous.These regions were very much as a frontier and more associated with Saharan and Berber tribal activity than with the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan as I have understood. There were even Tuareg factions as far as El Fasher, and it would seem contact through Tunisian regions Berbers might well have brought blades in .

In those Tunisian regions the Senussi Brotherhood was quite prevalent, a Sufi following to which Ali Dinar also belonged. The Senussi were in the years toward WWI apparantly aligning with Ottomans and the Germans in the developing Great War. This development was key in the final situation for Ali Dinar who was declared outlaw by the British and killed by them in 1916.
It would seem that in this period, blades may well have been coming in through Tunis and through Berber and Senussi headed Darfur and adjacent regions. It would seem that native bladesmiths may have duplicated blades and possibly adapted interpretations of German markings.

It seems these might be from this period to the years following, and probably produced in remote regions outside the controlled regions in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. I am not sure how much we should rely on the crossguards on the refurbished examples as these were so often refurbished, and often parts may have been interchanged. The obviously intact well aged example though may give a good view of early guards. In Ed Hunleys work, he notes that guards were fabricated in four pieces pre-1940 when the single piece forged guards were developed.

The 'comet' mark seems to be copied almost perfectly on the rehilted blade from that on the aged and worn one (note even the two 'jots' in the orb).
In Briggs (p.81) he notes that Nickel had suggested this may have been some stylized image of the 'flaming grenade' from the 'doll' figure of Peter Mumm and used by Weyersbergs in the 19th century. I can see the similarity to the fly image from the doll and the Milanese mark, but cannot see even a Picasso like potential with these 'comet' figures.

The only comet used by German makers was that of the Schimmelberg group mid 19th c and later which has a star type symbol with crescent like 'tail' and 6 other stars......this does not have the separated tail which is implied by these geometric devices.

It should be noted that these geometric devices were found on the blades of Tuareg chiefs from the Tuareg rebellion in 1916-17 and had apparantly been in use for some time. As noted the Tuareg factions did have contact with Darfur as well as into the regions into Libya and Tunisia as previously mentioned, and perhaps this symbol cross diffused into 'kaskara' parlance via that venue.

[Mefidk]

Thanks for the further input Jim - the marking is a puzzle is it not!

My feeling about the figures you show is that whilst the marks are not perfectly represented, 3 of 4 are clearly very similar to the original they are supposed to be copied from, but our focus mark is really a stretch. Given that the other examples we have of this mark are all relatively similar, would we expect that the artist messed the original up so badly but that everyone else could copy his work so well? So I'm with you on this, not even picasso would produce representation of the fly mark like this. The long vertical marks (staff) are also on all the examples I've seen so far, which does not bear any similarity to any of the European stamps - so I'm inclined to think this mark represents something else.

Poking around in the forum threads I came accross this one: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=11950

In this thread RDGAC posted four kaskara from his museum collection, one of which both bears the 'comet', similar fuller and size of blade and has an identical cross-guard to my rusty example. Unfortunately this one was precisely the one that did not come with any guarantee of date collected But if it was as suggested in the early to mid 1880s, then we have an example of the mark on a kaskara with a date comensurate with Briggs' takouba example.

I wonder if RDGAC has dug up any more information since this thread, it would be extremely useful?

Looking at the hilts on both my swords - the croc grip kaskara has an almost identical guard to RDG examples 1 & 2, but none of these look like they are formed from four parts (no X, although his No3 example does have one), so I wonder if that can be used as a reliable benchmark for dating? As Iain noted the croc kaskara guard is of high quality and does appear to me to be old. Incidentaly one of the RDG swords also has the iron peg clearly visible that was not used on my rusty sword's hilt, hence why I think the grip was perhaps replaced at some time.

Chris

[Iain]

Typed this up in the train today but hadn't seen Chris' last post (excellent points to be sure!), still I'll post these few musings...

This is developing into a fascinating discussion! Not just about these two swords but as always, back to the all pervasive questions of trade, regional politics, steel and marks.
To focus for a minute on the two sword that are the subject of this thread, in my opinion the well aged blade is likely 19th and here is why:

a. The tang is formed particularly well

b. It has likely been rehilted and has thus done some time in the field (note Chris' excellent observation about the unused tang hole)

c. The patina (dark patina) is consistent with some age.

d. The form and execution of the fuller is smoother and has much smoother edges than the croc sword.

Is it a European blade? I am not sure. I agree ricassos are a pretty surefire way to identify the trade blades, but does it rule out anything without a ricasso? Again, I am simply not sure. As usual we have a small body of evidence and incomplete records to go on. This particular blade strikes me as something of above average quality. Granted I am only going on photos, but sometimes I just have a feeling. I have seen a few other (notably Kull) blades that don't have a ricasso block... So I'm just not sure.

Touching briefly on the mark, first, thanks to Jim for nudging my memory with the scan from Briggs! Seen in this context the origin from the "fly" and the two marks labeled as figure B I think there is something of a rude progression there. Regarding the age and ethnic attribution of the mark... I am always hesitant of taking some pretty sparse data (a few captured takouba in the early 1900s) and trying to read a lot into it, much as I liked to just for the sake of some structure! I am then leary of IDing this as a firstly Tuareg mark that transmitted to Darfur. Maybe it was, or maybe it went the other way. This is the maddening thing about marks, applied locally they give almost no trail based on blades or mounts to say who first started using them first. For example looking through Morel's essay did not turn up the mark and he was fairly comprehensive in his studies and examined quite a few examples. That leads me to think this mark was perhaps not particulary common on takouba, but we do see it popping up a lot on kaskara! The short version is I don't know but I'm getting really, really curious.

[Mefidk]

sorry in all the excitement about the rusty blade I failed to point this out (and I now see the pictures were not clear), but the croc kaskara does indeed have a ricasso - can we therefore assume this one is a trade blade?

Attached a better picture

I'm not sure if it will help this discussion but I could start another thread with images of the other pieces than came with these two and Iains takouba (when I have photos of them all). Unfortunately I know nothing more than they all came up for sale in the same auction lot.

[Iain]

I have to admit I'm struggling to make out the ricasso but that might just be the angle and the overhang of the guard. Right now I just think I'm seeing the end of the fuller? Most likely I'm just blind though.

Just a quick note, that as this is the current kaskara thread going on the forum, might be a good place to put this short article I ran across today. Some interesting terminology at the end.

http://news.sudanvisiondaily.com/det...?rsnpid=203766

[Mefidk]

No your not going blind, it is really difficult to see, bad picture.

The fuller also has me confused - it is poorly done, and it actually extends into the ricasso which looks to have been all but ground away leaving only very faint marks on both sides of the blade. Not knowing enough about trade blades I wonder if any came without a fuller and possibly some enterprising bladesmith corrected the 'mistake'? That would explain the incongruity between blade quality and the messy fuller.
I will try to replace the picture with one using incident light to bring it out the ricasso marks - then again I might be wishfully seeing things that turn out to be trickily placed horizontal scratches

[Iain]

Looking forward to the better picture, but I think I see it now, was looking in the wrong area.

Looking again I can clearly see the thick, squared off edge and were it slopes and lookes like it has been ground down. Unless I am going blind I'm pretty sure I see little squared off corners on the top and bottom surface of the blade there, right on the edge.

[Mefidk]

Managed a better picture - but now looking at it blown up like this I think I'm leading you up the garden path. No idea what this is but it looks like incisions rather than a shoulder

[Iain]

May as well post it for posterity. I am more than ready to admit I am probably seeing things that aren't there.

[Mefidk]

Iain - I replaced the picture in the post above.

I guess we can agree that we don't have a ricasso here, but my original question is still valid. If we do find a ricasso on one of these can we conclude it is European?

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Iain and Chris,
It looks like we are the discussion panel as other entries havent come in, and I think we've shown pretty much the evidence at hand, so we are at the fun part..deductive reasoning and observations arms forensics.

The real conundrum here is the close similarity on these two blades and the enigmatic marking which despite being documented in Briggs, has little other recorded documentation as to its origins or possible meanings. The patinated blade has characteristics suggesting it is a genuinely old blade with corrosive areas and pitting reflecting considerable age, there even seems to be some of the blade scale mindful of the goethite on very old iron.

As we have seen from the examples RDG posted some time ago, there are provenanced examples stated to be from campaigns c.1882 one of which has this distinct type elliptical fuller.

We have considered that trade blades were likely coming in through areas in Tunis around this time as they had been for quite some time. These regions as well as into Algerian regions received many of these blades into the Berber tribes and the Tuareg who were in control of many of the trade routes. Here I would note that the Tuareg chiefs having blades with the marking anomaly as shown in Briggs (op.cit.) were from some of these regions, the swords with these blades captured in 1916-17. It is noted the mark had been taken from other similar as early as 1878.

The two blades Chris has have remarkably distinctive similarities, however they also have subtle differences returning us to the question..are these European trade blades? We have agreed that these are most probably from much earlier period than I had originally assumed, and are likely of the early 20th century. We know some trade blades likely were entering into the Sudanese regions in Darfur during this time despite political obstacles with the Anglo-Egyptian condominium. There were also large numbers of trade blades circulating in the networks which had already likely been there for several generations.

We have assumed that Solingen was likely producing some 'blanks' for trade export into some colonial regions, considering the political climate just prior to WWI, it seems reasonable that production may have been stepped up to provide erstaz supplies for potential upheaval in North African regions. As I have mentioned, the Senussi Brotherhood in Libyan, Algerian and Darfur regions were aligning with Ottoman factions to ally with Germany against the British and French occupying the Condominium of Egypt and Sudan.

Perhaps the ricasso type blade entered the regions prior to this presumed upward shift in these kinds of blades going to Africa, and the other type without ricasso from the later production had the same character in the blade profile and elliptical fuller. Perhaps it is possible that the blades without ricasso were native copies of the form which had been coming into these areas since the 1880s.

With these considerations it would seem that the blade with ricasso, obviously refurbished was from the 1880s period, and the marking was added at this later time to carry forth whatever traditional symbolism this mark may allude to. As we have established, it was used as late as mid 20th century as seen on the sword awarded to the political figure in Sudan in 1961.
The marking is not apparant on other Tuareg examples in the wider regions of thier habitat areas, though is seen as early as 1878 presumably. It does not seem to be an interpretation of the European marks mentioned (Kull nor the Mumm 'die puppe') so it likely has independant origin. It does not seem to be an astral or cosmological symbol alluding to the Mahdi in my opinion, but the geometric character seems closely followed in apparantly copied examples.

The mark on the refurbished sword seems more in line with the Briggs markings, while the example on the heavily patinated example seems more degenerative or stylized...which is most curious as it would suggest it was applied at quite early date. Perhaps by the 1916 period some examples were notably different or as always, different application by different artisans.
But then there is a curiously telling point.....the pair of 'jots' in the upper part of the sphere......these seem to be artistically oriented adds which of course are in shaded or dimension adding lines in drawn images. Why the subtle geometric variation such as separated 'lines' on the block type part of the mark..yet these 'shadings' or otherwise unessential jots are added faithfully?

Well, those are my ramblings in looking over our discussed material.

All the best,
Jim

[Iain]

Hi Jim and Chris,

Time to add some more of my own ramblings then.

Mainly I want to touch on an important point Jim raises regarding export blade blanks. One of the main issues I have trying to research and determine what is a trade blade boils down to the fact that some blades are nicely marked for us. Does this mean unmarked blades were not produced for the African market in Solingen? We really have little to go on but the old fall back of how a particular sword "feels". I have wondered if there are any records that could be checked on product and export. If a German member wants to get involved to help out please contact me.

In terms of a ricasso being necessary to term a blade European, I don't think so. I have seen a few of the Kull 1847 style pattern and none have ricassos, also blades from Clauberg without like this one: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10557

Incidentally that Clauberg blade has the same style of fuller and from rereading the thread should at least predate 1872...

Cheers,

Iain

[Jim McDougall]

Good points Iain, and good note on the pre 1872 Clauberg with this kind of fuller. It seems that the ricasso presence would most likely be with the type blades destined for the regulation military pattern swords for which Solingen was a primary source. These were of course for numerous countries and the ricasso along with other particular blade features were probably set with the type swords they were intended for.
If there were blanks fashioned for native commerce they would not have had to meet such stringent requirements, and as they were not exactly of the regular standards makers may have left them unmarked. These perspectives are of course purely speculative, especially as we presume all trade blades were usually marked and of higher quality in accord with the product standards long in place.

If I understand correctly, the advent of the Industrial Revolution brought more production for many types of materials, including of course sword blades, and production volume in various countries detracted from Solingens exports for regulation type blades. Solingen sought other outlets to augment falling requirements for thier products and I believe began marketing into colonial settings among others. It would be interesting if we could find records of blade exports from Germany into colonial regions in this latter 19th century to early 20th period.

These type blades are certainly far from the triple fullered, usually thuluth covered examples we normally see from the Mahdist period, and which seem to have continued for a time during the Khalifa.

All the best,
Jim

[Mefidk]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Good points Iain, and good note on the pre 1872 Clauberg with this kind of fuller.

Iain was right on the money in fact!

Some observations on the four kaskara blades I currently own (Fig 1). I have given the attributions as far as I know it (or feel fairly sure). I hope these might be useful, and perhaps others could contribute to the data? I've used figure numbers which I know will vanish in the post, but I have also attached (or tried to) a pdf with figures and captions for reference (if its hard to work out which figure is which).

Firstly Kaskara 1, the blade shown in the thread earlier with the crocodile hilt (and scabbard - not shown). Cleaning under the langet and some rather tricky photography resulted in its identification as a W. Clauberg blade (see Figs 2 & 3 - showing al askeri = the soldier or standing knight & what I believe to be W CLAUBERG, although the W CL is the only part that is clear). In this thread: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10557 it was suggested this mark was used up to 1872 and primarily before 1850. So we have a reasonable idea of the date range.

In the following I have focused on the blades rather than hilt of scabbards since these seem to be refurbished often and so little can be gained from determining that the hilt is new (although an entire old hilt would possibly be more telling). An old guard may tell us little.

Having established the Clauberg we have a basis to work from to examine the other blades. So firstly some comparative measurements including a somewhat standardized measure of flex (since this seems to crop up often). I measured flex as the deviation in mm from horizontal at 46cm down the blade when a 4cm wide 2.1kg weight is placed at 46-50cm . It is necessary to tape a small piece of wood to the blade to stop the weight sliding down and off the blade as it bends. Other measures were using a micrometer with an accuracy of 0.05mm or ruler to nearest 1mm.
Measurements

Kaskara 1 (Clauberg Blade, Crocodile skin grip) :
Flex 50mm
Length: 860mm
Width (base) 36.90mm
Thickness (5cm from base) 5.30mm
Fuller: 15 x 212mm. Does not extend to the hilt starting 17mm from blade base.
Marked: Enigmatic mark, WCLAUBERG, standing knight
Ricasso: Yes, partially sharpened at base

Kaskara 2 (19C European Blade, 20C Kassala fittings) :
Flex 52mm
Length 932mm
Width (base) 44.15mm
Thickness (5cm from base) 4.15mm
Fuller: Full length, starting at the base of the blade 20mm wide.
Marked: None visible
Ricasso: Yes, blade partially sharpened at base.

Kaskara 3 (Native, Nile Valley? style hilt?) :
Flex 41mm
Length: 856mm
Width (base) 36.00 mm
Thickness (5cm from base): 4.95mm
Fuller: Three narrow central fullers, approx 3.3mm wide, central fuller 495mm, others approx 340mm. Start 4cm from blade base.
Marked: Half moons on either side
Ricasso: No, but lower edge of the blade is partially sharpened

Kaskara 4 (Rusty, Same style grip as Kaskara 3) :
Flex 51mm
Length 852mm
Width (base) 39.45mm
Thickness (5cm from base) 5.00 mm
Fuller: 144m wide 220mm long
Marked: Enigmatic mark either side.
Ricasso: No blade sharpened along whole length


Some thoughts. The ricasso on kaskara 1 and 2 is very weak, in kaskara 1 is only really visible on one side of the blade (Figs 4 & 5). Fig 6 shows another sword from another thread with a very similar blade profile, a clear ricasso, but also similar post-production sharpening. What is striking about kaskara 4 is that there is a clear edge sharpened all the way to the hilt. This is clear on Fig 7 where I've compared kaskara 1-4 sideways on looking at the base of the blade. It seems that repeated sharpening would wear away at both the ricasso shoulder but also at the unsharpened edge of the blade. It is also clear that either the bladesmith or subsequent user sharpened the whole of the blade, both sides. This may explain why native blades do not have a ricasso - they simply did not see a use for it.
For another potentially very old example see http://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7668 This one has the same blade style as Kaskara 2, but if you look carefully (easiest with picture 3) I think it is clear that the ricasso has been ground off. Note the oblique grinding marks.

So to kaskara 4. Size, flex, fuller, markings match closely to the Clauberg blade, but no makers marks are visible. This blade has been very well used and sharpened many times. This is clear from the sharp edge that reaches the bottom of the blade and also the missing blade material in Fig 8. The blade profile is very different in the native blade as is the flex and general feel, so I am inclined to believe this is an old and well used European blade - but until I get it cleaned up and look for any residual marks under the rust I must admit the weight of evidence is not 100% compelling.
What would be interesting would be to know more of the dimensions and flex of other blades to see if there is some general rule of thumb that might arise (a sample of four is not very satisfying). Of course identifying routes and times for the trade blades arrival in the region would also be really useful, but very tricky.

Chris Topping

[Mefidk]

Oops, not entirely without technical hitches since the order of the pictures was altered - the first one is fig 6 and the other with no figure number is figure 8.
I've tried to attach the pdf to this post but seems like it does not want to do this

[RDGAC]

Hi all, just a quick post with a couple of things.

Firstly, just thought I'd mention that it might not be worth mentioning, re:the peg you've spotted on one of our four (specifically the one with the acid-treated or otherwise de-rusted blade), that, since the cross-guard was also treated in whatever did the job, I suspect that the sword was dismantled to perform the operation. This probably occurred many years ago, and it seems pretty likely that the peg may be a replacement put in after the process had been completed.

Secondly, and on a related note, is it worth trying to take the hilt off the example in question? I've noticed that, on the tab of metal positioned just below the downward arms of the cross-guard, there appears to be some kind of marking. Moreover, if there's any information on the tang, removing the grip would allow me to see that, too. It all looks very straightforward...

[Mefidk]

I think what is interesting about the peg is that it is not present on my rusty swords hilt, nor has it ever been. But there is a hole in the tang for a peg, hence my assumption that it has been rehilted at least once. Whoever re-hilted yours probably did a better job and replaced the peg.

Originally Posted by RDGAC

Secondly, and on a related note, is it worth trying to take the hilt off the example in question? I've noticed that, on the tab of metal positioned just below the downward arms of the cross-guard, there appears to be some kind of marking. Moreover, if there's any information on the tang, removing the grip would allow me to see that, too. It all looks very straightforward...

I wonder if whether you could do the same trick as I did and clean under the langet enough to be able to make out what, if anything, is written there? I used a scotch-brite pad gently for a while (its easy to pass under the tab and does not scratch the metal). Once I had the surface rust removed shining a light under there revealed the marks.
Personally I would not dismantle unless (as in my case) the hilt is already really loose. Also I just had to pull, no peg to remove.

What would be really great would be if we could get comparative measures for your blades too - start to build up a database. Its especially interesting because you have blades with provenance - I'm looking for a green with envy smiley right now

I think I can figure out how to make that flex test easy to replicate for others, so we all get comparable figures, if there would be any interest in that?

[Iain]

Hi Chris,

Please do post the system you are using for flex, more samples are obviously needed to draw conclusions and if the process is pretty simple I would hope others will participate.

I've just bought a kaskara which I hope will arrive in a week or two and may have one of the Clauberg blades (if I'm lucky) and I'll be happy to test it as well.

Chris, if you like I can host the PDF and put a link back here?

Cheers,

Iain

[Iain]

So I got the kaskara. Not a Clauberg, now I have no clue what it is!

First the dimensions.

Overall: 94cm
Blade: 81.5cm
Max blade width: 3.6cm

This seems close to the Clauberg you have Chris, but... I don't have the standing knight or letters. Under the guard on both sides I've got a strange, but very well executed wasp! Took the best photos of it I could. Blade seems pretty well made, good flexibility. Certainly some shoulders back towards the base and nicely sharpened.

It's a little smaller than some of the other kaskara I've had pass through my hand and the unknown stamp makes me wonder if the blade is native. However the mark is executed pretty darn well.

All thoughts comments appreciated.

Iain

[Mefidk]

Nice wasp Iain No idea what it means, but it does look very nicely executed.

Should be able to post my flex test over the weekend, so it would be interesting to see if the flex matches the Clauberg.

I can't see any sign of a residual ricasso on your pictures, but it does look as though it has been sharpened pretty aggressively at some point so I'm not sure that means anything. The one difference I can see is the depth of the fuller, but that may simply mean that this blade has not been mistreated as much as some of the others. In fact I'm wondering if this repeated sharpening might also be the cause of the shallow and wandering shape of the fullers on some of these old blades - on the other hand they might have been made that way

[Jim McDougall]

I've been going through all the standard references, Cronau, Gyngell, Lenciewicz, Boccia & Coelho etc. and no sign of a wasp anywhere. Since Italu once used the scorpion it was tempting to associate, and we have the fly from c.1847 Solingen. My take at this point is that it is a native marking tending toward some of the concepts connected to warrior attributes, i.e. cross and orb=drum for courage; the fly= jumping agility etc. It is in this case placed near the blade root under the langet much as some of the other marks, thus extending this imbued power to the blade. Obviously this is a speculative suggestion, but seems to correspond in a sense to other use of these 'talismanic' markings on these blades.

I am wondering if this now seemingly well represented type of blade with elliptical fuller upper third of blade might be of a type produced by the smiths in the Sudanese regions near Kasalla influenced by Solingen prototypes entering those regions c.1890s. The stamp may have been from one used by industrial manufacturers active in commerce there during the condominium and related to stamping of products handled there? Possibly the stamp is outside the arms perview, but well applied in the parlance of the other similar type markings?

[Iain]

Hi Jim,

I was hoping Ed might have some insights when he gets a chance to visit the thread.

Looks like I went through a few of the same materials as you, although you covered more ground for sure. I also produced a blank, not a sign of a wasp in anything takouba or kaskara related I have access to.

I think the blade is likely to be native at this point, the fuller isn't as long as on Chris' Clauberg for one thing. Still it's well made with good flex. I think the entry of this blade style was earlier, as the standing knight was in use by Clauberg from 1850.

The stamp does confuse me though, the style isn't something I'd associate with most native marks. I think if it is native, you are spot on with the talismanic attributes idea, similar thoughts crossed my mind.

Where's Ed?

[Edster]

Sorry, Iain, I can't help. In my limited experience I've never seen anything like it. The figure looks to be in one piece and seems too big, deep and well struck to be a native mark. One would really have to give the die a strong whack to get the imprint into steel and would have to do it after the fuller was formed and before the blade was hardened, although the blade at the upper end generally would not be hardened as much as on the sharp end. Also, it is apparently unique. All this being said, I still don't have a clue and can't hazard a guess.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Ed,
Thank you for joining in with this conundrum. Very good point on the character of the stamp and as well as being well executed,the wasp is deeply struck.

I think at this point, the suggestion on native application seems unlikely so I think we return to Solingen. After the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 it seems there was wild speculation financially in industrial sectors in Solingen and I think considerable consolidation and restructuring of many of the cutlery and blademaking firms. I would suggest that amid these burgeoning commercial situations perhaps subsidiary producers may have augmented supply to factors and larger firms.
This wasp may have been used by one of these producers which was short term or escaped record in the corpus of material on marks. If it was recorded perhaps it was among those lost during wartime misfortune.

It is interesting that often markings seem to be spin offs or allusions to other well established marks from earlier Solingen maker heritage, and the use of the fly was one, but more importantly there was the bee....the beehive was used by Samuel Hoppe much earlier. It is not a long reach from bee to wasp, and seems plausible that a smaller firm hoping to attract contacts from one of the larger firms might use a mark associated in degree with important traditional examples.

I think we have a pretty good idea that Solingen in this industrial boom was indeed likely producing blades for export to Africa during the Condominium.
These kinds of situations are well illustrated in England with firms producing for the Indian government such as Wilkinson, with much of thier material produced by Mole. There were outfitters like Bourne & Son using Mole blades as well and supplying the India Office for distribution to units in India. As we know, Wilkinson was also supplying native form shotel blades to Abyssinia well into the 1930s, as well as were Solingen makers, so we know blades were specifically made for colonial markets.

I did check through most of the Sheffield marks and material I have just in case there might have been some connection so at this point I feel this wasp is probably Solingen but unrecorded as probably from subcontract firm.

All the best,
Jim