Question about integral bolsters

[Emanuel]

Hello,

A question has been bugging me for a long time now.

Where does the integral bolster on bladed weapons come from?

By integral bolster I mean that the blade, bolster and tang are all formed from one piece. Simplistically, the bolster is produced when the blade is roughly formed. Two steps are made in the stock metal. The blade is drawn to shape on one side, the tang on the other, leaving a portion of thicker material between blade and tang.

Why it exists can be explained by the need to reinforce the blade where it is weakest, subjected to the most stress.

It exists on swords and spears in the East and South-Sast Asian context. But when does this feature enter European and west Asian bladesmithing technique?

The integral bolster was not a feature of the Bronze Age, or the classical Greco-Roman period. Neither the machaira, nor the kopis, Dacian falx or the Thracian Romphaia had such a feature.

In the past, whenever I picked on this feature I was told not to worry about it, that it is know and it is just there. Whether or not a sword had an integral bolster was irrelevant.

As far as I can think however, only four weapon shapes in the Mediterranean sphere share this feature in pre-20th century times:

- the Balkan karakulak
- the Kabyle flyssa
- the Laz biçag (Black Sea Yatagan)
- Central - east Anatolian yataghan

The dated examples of the swords listed above, gleamed from this forum and from dealer databases range from 1827 on the Kabyle flyssa, 1841 on the Anatolian yataghans, 1876 on the Bulgarian karakulak, and 1888 on the Laz biçag.

All other Ottoman yataghan have a decorative bolster or ferule that is not an integral part of the blade. The oldest yataghan, produced in 1526 for Suleiman the Magnificent does not have an integral bolster. It has a bolster similar to those of Central Asian swords like the khukri and the saylaawa (khyber sword).

So where does the integral bolster come from? What other blade types have it? Is it purely a 19th-century Anatolian development? What is the timeline of its adoption?

Cheers!
Emanuel

[Timo Nieminen]

I've seen Medieval European knives with integral (as in forged-in-one-piece) bolsters. With some, I might be wrong, as they might have been welded or brazed on, but some little bolsters are clearly forged as part of the blade. Welded/brazed (or no bolster) appears to be more common.

Do early Central Asian sabres have integral tunkou (to use the Chinese name; the collar at the base of the blade, like the Japanese habaki)? I know later ones are usually separate, and not attached (just tightly fitted), but some of the early ones look like they might be integral (or welded on).

(IIRC, I've seen west Asian bronze swords with integral bolsters. Can't think of European examples. Easy to do with bronze, since you're casting instead of forging.)

[KuKulzA28]

Another example comes to mind:

Knives from Kerala have integral bolsters.

[Emanuel]

Thanks guys!

Yes on the Kerala knives, but a fair distance from Anatolia.

Timo the tukou and habaki are not integral. In the case of nihonto the habaki isn't even structural, it serves as an interface with the scabbard to protect the surface of the blade, not to reinforce the blade. And again, how and when did the integral bolster enter Anatolian bladesmithing when it is absent from neighbouring cultures?

Any reference I could check for the medieval knives? I haven't seen anything with an integral bolster.

And, to clarify, I am looking for one-piece bolster construction in ferrous bladesmithing, not bronze casting.

Cheers!
Emanuel

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Timo the tukou and habaki are not integral. In the case of nihonto the habaki isn't even structural, it serves as an interface with the scabbard to protect the surface of the blade, not to reinforce the blade.

See Iaroslav Lebedynsky, De l'épée Scythe au sabre Mongol, Errance, Paris, 2008, pg 168 C(e), for a knife or sword with a possible integral collar, and pg 175 v, for a sword. I wouldn't call these bolsters, since they have a guard butted up against them, and are part of the blade, rather than the hilt. I can't tell from the drawings whether these are integral or not.

(There is at least one rivetted-on tunkou in that book; there is some diversity in how these are done.)

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Any reference I could check for the medieval knives? I haven't seen anything with an integral bolster.

Will look.

[Emanuel]

Thanks Timo!

[Emanuel]

Originally Posted by KuKulzA28

Another example comes to mind:

Knives from Kerala have integral bolsters.

Turns out the Kerala knives do not have integral bolsters. They are made from multiple parts.

[Emanuel]

Thank you Timo!


I had a quick chat with Paul Binns. It seems that in the Late-Medieval and Tudor periods knives were often made by welding a shear steel blade to a wrought iron handle. The bolster was the junction of the weld.

I got the Iaroslav Lebedynsky book, a very good source to have. There's mention of the bolster feature appearing on tatar sabres. These are generally the tounkou feature seen on Mongolian and Chinese sabres, and they area separate. The text suggests that these "manchons au talon" were sometimes forged integrally to the blade but it glosses over this without examples. Frustrating.

Unfortunately the pictures of the JUM knives aren't good enough to tell for sure. I see a collar at the base of the blade but is it integral?

Along with the examples I've listed in my original post I'll add the Bou-Saada knives and the Genoese knives they resemble.

On all of these 19th century weapons we see a thick integral bolster on thick blades, when earlier blades were thinner and did not need an integral bolster.

Emanuel

[ariel]

I have a Wedung with a - kind of- integral bolster.