Sword for ID on SFI

Tim Simmons · 10th June 2005, 05:29 PM

This is a very intereting knife.I wonder what sort of, and whether it ever had a scabbard.I feel more and more ,it is from Nepal or NW India and village made.It probably had a turquouise or coral eye in the handle.It may well have been a fighting weapon but I bet it sent more goats on thier way.Tim

Rick · 10th June 2005, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

This is a very intereting knife.I wonder what sort of, and whether it ever had a scabbard.I feel more and more ,it is from Nepal or NW India and village made.It probably had a turquouise or coral eye in the handle.It may well have been a fighting weapon but I bet it sent more goats on thier way.Tim

I would tend to agree with you Tim . Despite Mike's cries of shame !

If this was not a sacrificial piece then it was most likely carried by a person of note in the community .
Either one of these scenarios fits my loose interpretation of ceremomial .

tom hyle · 11th June 2005, 01:16 AM

Ceremonial-practical, though; remember that sacrifices are usually eaten (and in this region there are known customs of beheading animal sacrifices), and at one time the job of a leader could consist principally of leading the militia in combat, when to plant or when to move being often highly traditional, for instance. This particular piece strikes me as very practical, but let us consider kora. The fighting ones have a "rondel" type handle, with disk guard and pommel, and I think a seperate piece for the grip? But the temple/sacrificial ones have a hollow metal, rather Persian looking handle with quillons and lagnets. If anything though, I almost think there's too much decor on the hilt compared to not enough on the blade for a N Indian/Himalayan sacrificial sword? On another hand the giant kukuris are AFAIK used for slaughtering and perhaps for butchering (the ordinary ones are said to be used for butchering, as well). I personally suspect that one day we'll see more of these and it will become a known style.

Andy Davis · 13th June 2005, 07:24 AM

Had a friend have a good look at the hilt, who has a lot of metal working experience. He cant find any indication of cast marks removed or any indication of parts joinded together. The hilt is one single piece!
Cheers all
Andy

Jens Nordlunde · 13th June 2005, 02:29 PM

Andy, what you do is this, you take the sword under your arm and go to the nerest hospital, ask them to X-ray the upper part of the blade and the hilt, then maybe we will know if Fearn is correct in what he writes in mail #15 - it sounds possible.

fearn · 13th June 2005, 03:00 PM

Hi Andy,

Wow, I am impressed. That was a tricky bit of casting work for whoever did it.

Hey Jens,

That's an excellent idea. You can also add the X-ray to the sword's file, to increase it's value (provenance, don't you know...

)

Fearn

Jens Nordlunde · 13th June 2005, 04:03 PM

The decoration looks like the decoration on a pichangatti blade I have from Coorg, but this kind of decoration was used over a rather big area.

tom hyle · 13th June 2005, 04:10 PM

Yeah, increase its value by about $800; put the bill in there, too.....

No casting or soldering marks means that it was cast. Often craftsmen remove all sprues and completely resurface castings. Several small casting flaws are visible in the surface of the hilt, such as are typical of preindustrial brass castings; not knowing whether there were solder lines that didn't tell us much though, as to was it cast in one piece or several (which could've been made in reuseable molds). Now we know. Pretty cool. Thoughts on is the transverse internal tube that goes thru the pommel part of the casting, or just the copper inner sleeve we see? Just the copper is my vote, though I doubt you can see well enough into that hole in the butt?
How 'bout an endoscopy, too?
Actually I know the xray would show this; just cracking wise

13th June 2005, 07:24 AM	#4
Andy Davis Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: England, Northumberland Posts: 85	Third party observation Had a friend have a good look at the hilt, who has a lot of metal working experience. He cant find any indication of cast marks removed or any indication of parts joinded together. The hilt is one single piece! Cheers all Andy

13th June 2005, 02:29 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Andy, what you do is this, you take the sword under your arm and go to the nerest hospital, ask them to X-ray the upper part of the blade and the hilt, then maybe we will know if Fearn is correct in what he writes in mail #15 - it sounds possible. Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 13th June 2005 at 02:47 PM.

13th June 2005, 04:03 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	The decoration looks like the decoration on a pichangatti blade I have from Coorg, but this kind of decoration was used over a rather big area. Attached Images

10th June 2005, 05:29 PM	#1
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,843	This is a very intereting knife.I wonder what sort of, and whether it ever had a scabbard.I feel more and more ,it is from Nepal or NW India and village made.It probably had a turquouise or coral eye in the handle.It may well have been a fighting weapon but I bet it sent more goats on thier way.Tim

11th June 2005, 01:16 AM	#3
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Ceremonial-practical, though; remember that sacrifices are usually eaten (and in this region there are known customs of beheading animal sacrifices), and at one time the job of a leader could consist principally of leading the militia in combat, when to plant or when to move being often highly traditional, for instance. This particular piece strikes me as very practical, but let us consider kora. The fighting ones have a "rondel" type handle, with disk guard and pommel, and I think a seperate piece for the grip? But the temple/sacrificial ones have a hollow metal, rather Persian looking handle with quillons and lagnets. If anything though, I almost think there's too much decor on the hilt compared to not enough on the blade for a N Indian/Himalayan sacrificial sword? On another hand the giant kukuris are AFAIK used for slaughtering and perhaps for butchering (the ordinary ones are said to be used for butchering, as well). I personally suspect that one day we'll see more of these and it will become a known style.

13th June 2005, 03:00 PM	#6
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Andy, Wow, I am impressed. That was a tricky bit of casting work for whoever did it. Hey Jens, That's an excellent idea. You can also add the X-ray to the sword's file, to increase it's value (provenance, don't you know... ) Fearn

13th June 2005, 04:10 PM	#8
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Yeah, increase its value by about $800; put the bill in there, too..... No casting or soldering marks means that it was cast. Often craftsmen remove all sprues and completely resurface castings. Several small casting flaws are visible in the surface of the hilt, such as are typical of preindustrial brass castings; not knowing whether there were solder lines that didn't tell us much though, as to was it cast in one piece or several (which could've been made in reuseable molds). Now we know. Pretty cool. Thoughts on is the transverse internal tube that goes thru the pommel part of the casting, or just the copper inner sleeve we see? Just the copper is my vote, though I doubt you can see well enough into that hole in the butt? How 'bout an endoscopy, too? Actually I know the xray would show this; just cracking wise