African (?) knife

[RobT]

ariel,

The examples you list (takouba, gurade, shotel, kaskara, koummya, nimcha [tulwar and firangi can be added to the list]) to support the "export theory" are all representative of the point I am trying to make. In all these cases, we define the items by their hilts and sheaths not the blades. A tulwar blade may be from an English model 1840 cavalry saber but we still call it a tulwar because of the native made hilt. The same can be said of the firangi which may have a Italian rapier blade but will have a Hindu basket hilt. A good number of koummya blades were especially made in Europe for export to Africa but I defy anyone to find any koummya with a European made hilt and sheath. Regardless of who made the blade, if the hilt and sheath are a visible part of the wearer's costume, virtually without exception those elements will be native made (and it's a good thing too, because were that not the case, we would have a heck of a time figuring out where a lot of our stuff comes from). Why then should it be any different for the three knives under discussion? Why would the Spanish go to the effort to supply hilts (and possibly sheaths originally) for export to cultures that didn't want them?

Sincerely,
RobT