Yawn...OK, I seem to remember that this is a forum that is open to all opinions, not only one's own (
). Whereas some Forums which will remain nameless choose to scorn any theories but those of the chosen, I feel that this Thread points out that NONE of us have really pinned this bird down. I acknowledge that this might be an eagle, it might be a crane, it might be Woody Wood Pecker...but I still hold that I believe, IMHO, that it probably is Spanish colonial or Mexican.
Eagle hilts were indeed common and popular throughout Europe, in the Americas and Spanish outposts. Although the Chinese and Japanese used cranes and other fowl in their art, not so much on their sword hilts. Likewise, hanger-type blades were extremely rare in those cultures.
Arabic? Please! It's a hanger-type sword, hardly popular or common in the Arab world. If you postulate that it is such, it would be a one-off. Note the classic Euro guard and opposite-facing quillons. We see these on Dutch, French, British, Spanish, German, etc, etc. We also see them in a very similar style from 19th century American (yes, I said it...American) eagle heads. NO, I no longer think this is N. American, but I do feel it is an early 19th c, piece. I think by pinning down the time-line, we eliminate some of the candidates. Some German hirschfanger continued to have opposing animal heads on their quillons, but by the end of the 18th century, most countries found it passe. Gone were the Dutch hangers and early English hangers with lion/eagle quillons. On the other hand, Mexican swords and espada continued to have animal-type hilts featuring eagle heads, snakes, etc.
As far as other ethnographic interpretations of this sword, I still doubt that a sword with a (read carefully) fine cast hilt with such detail in the feathers would appeal. Likewise, the hilt styling is Euro/American/Span colonial, the blade type is also. Note on this hilt the raised area on the pommel where the tang is located. This is a feature I have never seen on an Arabic, Chinese, Malay, etc, sword. Hence, my reasoning.
Regarding the Medicus Collection, I have the most profound respect to this world-reknowned collection and do not challenge its authenticity or merit. In bringing up the Lattimer collection, for which I too have the book, I believe some of the swords owned by the family are, in fact, mislabeled. This happens in all great collections and should not detract from the value these artifacts have in regards to educating. Case in point (for those who have Hartzler's book)-
Fig 54, labeled as "Spanish or French naval dirk, late 18th" is, in fact, a wavy-bladed Philippine bolo commonly identified on this forum.
Fig 57, labeled a "French style dirk", is a common mid/late 19th century Mexican eagle-pommel dirk seen on this forum.
Fig 58- see above.
Fig 129, listed as a European short sword, is another common 19th c. Philippine bolo.
Fig 210, a hunting sword from the mid-Atlantic colonies, is blatantly Spanish colonial or Mex period.
Fig 211- ditto.
I could go on, but my point is two-fold. One, when I mentioned 'Mexican' pieces in the Lattimer collection, this is what I was referring to. More importantly, I was trying to point out that eagle-head swords were MOST popular and repeated in N America and in Span colonies into the 19th century. Many of the eagle head swords in this collection bear swords with Spanish inscriptions. This doesn't mean they were Spanish made, but it does elude to the fact that here in the Americas, figural hilts were extremely popular. Is it really such a stretch to see that the new Mexican Republic would not look to the American eagle-head swords from the same period for inspiration?
That is my argument and you can take it for what it's worth. Now, I will batten down the hatches and wait for the grievous onslaught that is sure to follow. Please forgive any misspellings and such as I have been up for almost 36 hours. Time for bed
