Re-hilted Bayonet?

[Robert]

A few new pictures. I hope these help. I could not get a decent picture of the pommel cap where the tang is riveted over. Will try again later when the sun is less bright. The guard is either steel or iron. Hammer marks as well as file marks can be seen on the guard, unfortunately very little shows in the pictures. The quillons have flat spots on both ends and on both sides. Could this guard have possible been cast? You can also see on the one picture where the person that I got this from hit the guard with the wire wheel when he CLEANED the blade. Again let me thank everyone for their help.


Robert

[Gonzalo G]

I don´t think it was cast. Casting over sand in this primitive way could leave some typical imperfections, as pores. And, casting would not be as economic and easier as forging, since the grooves would need filing anyway. A blacksmith can make very cheaply and easily this type of guard on the anvil, and casting iron or steel requires more equipment availavility and expense just to make some guards. The chiselled ir filed decoration and the rough form also suggest a forge work, IMHO.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Chris Evans]

Hi Gonzalo,

The thin separators on this photos are in weapons who´s age is not established on the book, so we cannot say in which period they began to appear

Now you completely perplex me. In the "Catalogo" section, on pg 376 Domenech clearly attributes Cat 1131 to the 19th century and Cat 1152 on pg 380 to late 19th century.

I don´t think it was cast. Casting over sand in this primitive way could leave some typical imperfections, as pores.

Well, for it to be cast, the metal would have to be something non-ferrous, or else cast iron, which is too brittle for a working knife. And Robert tells that it is ferrous. If made in modern times, perhaps SG iron, but that is unlikely. So, I agree with you on this.

A blacksmith can make very cheaply and easily this type of guard on the anvil,....

Having some expertise, in metal work and knife making, I know that I could make a similar guard from either bar-stock or hammer forging a lump of soft iron and then fishing it by filing. But it is quite a complex shape on account of its tapering and curved quillons and would take me a while - Also probably would ruin one or two before ending up with a good one.

Because I do not consider this to be quite as easy a you suggest, I am not at all surprised that I have not seen a single example of a similar complex shaped hand guard on historical Sth American hilted specimens, their being invariably made from a flat strip of metal, either straight or bent to shape.

If it was made by hand, the cutler would have had a lot of practice in getting his sequence and technique right, meaning that he would have had to make quite a number before becoming proficient.

The other possibility is that its rough shape was forged with dies in a factory and afterwards finished by filing, which to me is more likely, though I am not adamant on this point.

It is because of these considerations that I consider the guard so important in identifying this piece.

Cheers
Chris

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Now you completely perplex me. In the "Catalogo" section, on pg 376 Domenech clearly attributes Cat 1131 to the 19th century and Cat 1152 on pg 380 to late 19th century.

Having some expertise, in metal work and knife making, I know that I could make a similar guard from either bar-stock or hammer forging a lump of soft iron and then fishing it by filing. But it is quite a complex shape on account of its tapering and curved quillons and would take me a while - Also probably would ruin one or two before ending up with a good one.

I perplex myself, Chris. Yes, you are right, I forgot for a moment the catalog descriptions at the end of the book.

I don´t think that the latter guard is more complex to make than the facón´s. In fact, it was made more rough. You have only to forge-weld a ring as an extra, but the flatted and ornated form on the guard where the facón´s tang passes, is also an extra job, more time consuming than a weld (if you know how to make this job). Making tapers on the forge is very easy over the anvil´s horn, and the grooves maybe were made by hot chiselling and latter finishing by file. The point of the quillons could be made by hammering and then finished also by file.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Robert]

Just to make this post more interesting here is a recent addition. This one unlike all the others that I have in my collection and have seen in others has the remnants of steel ferrules on the front and the rear of the grip. The only information that I have at this time is the total length of 26 inches. I will post the rest of the measurements after it arrives. The pictures below are from the auction. All comments are more than welcome.

[Jim McDougall]

This is absolutely fantastic Robert! and this example is what I really like best, early honest working weapons. What you have done here is assembled with these three pieces, a nice chronological selection of what Levine (1985) classifies a Central American dirk of Spanish colonial style (A8, p.461).

This was a great thread from 2008, although it digressed a great deal into terminology and intriguing, but heavy discourse regarding gauchos etc. which I hope will not be the case here. In looking at the form of the hilt, it recalls the Spanish colonial hangers (pre Mexican independence of 1821) which are termed 'round tang espadas' (Adams '85). These have the same kind of wood or horn grips in this shape with often brass spacers between. This is a feature of Spanish colonial hilts that seems to have prevailed throughout the Spanish trade empire clear to the Philippines and into the 20th century.

I would say your first example that began the thread is the most recent, probably turn of the century, and very well could be an Argentinian fabrication, with as noted, a British Martini Henry M1860 yataghan bayonet.
The "Spanish Main" was of course well in place in these times still, and we have discussed often the many forms of edged weapons, often with maritime association that kept South America and all of Latin America well connected.

The second example has the characteristic hilt sectioning, but has the distinct ring on the guard. The example in Levine seems to have a larger ring which is closed, while this is more of a curved quillon.

This apparantly older example seems to exhibit an even rougher and key representation of this appendage, and this example reflects the earlier examples of this form and the familiar quillon terminal styling carried from even earlier Spanish colonial swords. I wanted to add one of the examples of yours which corresponds beautifully to this one.

The Martini Henry bayonet 1860 attached is to correspond to the blade in example one.

Very, very nice!!!

[Robert]

Hello Jim and thank you for your reply to this post. I too really prefer "honest working weapons" over the more elaborate forms that seem to attract more attention from most collectors. Unfortunately when this one came to auction the seller had two examples up at the same time. Because of my low funds I had to decide which one to place the higher bid on and was lucky enough to win the one have posted while at the same time being outbid on the other. Below are a few auction pictures of the one I missed.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Robert,

Originally Posted by Robert Coleman

A few new pictures. I hope these help. I could not get a decent picture of the pommel cap where the tang is riveted over. Will try again later when the sun is less bright. The guard is either steel or iron. Hammer marks as well as file marks can be seen on the guard, unfortunately very little shows in the pictures. The quillons have flat spots on both ends and on both sides. Could this guard have possible been cast? You can also see on the one picture where the person that I got this from hit the guard with the wire wheel when he CLEANED the blade. Again let me thank everyone for their help.

The similarity between the two hilts is too strong to ignore, suggesting a common provenance.

I found the post by Carlos very promising.

As for the hand guard, have a good look at the underside, where it meets the blade and look for some tell tale signs that could give us further clues re its manufacture, such as slight hollow surface imperfections, some with metal oxide hammered into them and perhaps traces of a seam where forging dies may have met. I won't repeat here my other thoughts on the guard, which I posted in reply to Gonzalo.

Cheers
Chris