West African sword for I.D. & comment

Timo Nieminen · 5th March 2016, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colin henshaw

Do any forumites have further comments on the intriguing metal "sandwich" at the forte area ? Just to strengthen the assemblage ? outside influences etc ?

In my experience, things like this have one (or maybe 2) of these functions:

(1) It can stiffen the base of the blade. If the base of the blade is very thin, this should be suspected. This might be the case here.

(2) It can be to attach the blade to the hilt. In an extreme case, the blade might have no tang, and be held on by this kind of sandwich. Or, the tang might be glued into or peened or pinned onto the grip, and the sandwich used to secure a guard. Not the case here. More generally, this kind of structural use usually involves rivets through the sandwich, and I don't see any here. So not this.

(3) It can give a secure fit in the scabbard. Since it suddenly increases the thickness at the base of the blade, the scabbard can be made so that the blade has clearance to move freely, except for a tight fit between the sandwich and the scabbard mouth. This tight fit will stop the sword from falling out, and as soon as you get the sandwich out, the rest of the sword comes out easily. The fit at the mouth might not be tight any more, if the scabbard mouth has worn, but if it's a reasonably close fit at the mouth, and the blade moves easily in and out when the sandwich has left the scabbard, this is one function of the sandwich.

Iain · 5th March 2016, 10:08 PM

The use of the sandwich mount in Takouba seems to take place most often with a blade that does not have a sufficient length or tang to achieve the desired length and mount desired.

I'd say this is clear in 80% or so of the swords with this type of mount I've handled. A few, it's not entirely clear if the plates are simply there to re-enforce the base of the blade like the attached (ex my collection).

This particular one has a tang, but this could well be a local addition the blade in order to secure the hilt and not the original.

Iain · 5th March 2016, 10:11 PM

Others, like this mid 14th century blade are a clear case of remounting because of a shortened blade and no tang. In this case a single piece of steel is split to make a new forte and a new tang was part of or attached to that forte.

So, short answer, I think its mainly out of necessity to mount the blade in the absence of a tang.

The closest thing in terms of outside influence I can think of are how some Indian blades are mounted like firangi, with langets extending over the blade. However those, from what I recall are more like extensions from the hilt and quite integral, versus what we see in Colin's piece and my own examples where the new forte or plates do not seem to be directly integral to the hilt.

Iain · 5th March 2016, 10:21 PM

Finally to return to the main topic, I think in Colin's images its quite clear his blade was remounted because of a tang issue or break. The blade clearly terminates before entering the hilt which means the plates were necessary to facilitate a forte and form a tang.

I've attached an image with a little tweaking to hopefully make clear what I mean/see.

5th March 2016, 10:08 PM	#2
Iain Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Olomouc Posts: 1,719	The use of the sandwich mount in Takouba seems to take place most often with a blade that does not have a sufficient length or tang to achieve the desired length and mount desired. I'd say this is clear in 80% or so of the swords with this type of mount I've handled. A few, it's not entirely clear if the plates are simply there to re-enforce the base of the blade like the attached (ex my collection). This particular one has a tang, but this could well be a local addition the blade in order to secure the hilt and not the original. Attached Images

5th March 2016, 10:11 PM	#3
Iain Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Olomouc Posts: 1,719	Others, like this mid 14th century blade are a clear case of remounting because of a shortened blade and no tang. In this case a single piece of steel is split to make a new forte and a new tang was part of or attached to that forte. So, short answer, I think its mainly out of necessity to mount the blade in the absence of a tang. The closest thing in terms of outside influence I can think of are how some Indian blades are mounted like firangi, with langets extending over the blade. However those, from what I recall are more like extensions from the hilt and quite integral, versus what we see in Colin's piece and my own examples where the new forte or plates do not seem to be directly integral to the hilt. Attached Images

5th March 2016, 10:21 PM	#4
Iain Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Olomouc Posts: 1,719	Finally to return to the main topic, I think in Colin's images its quite clear his blade was remounted because of a tang issue or break. The blade clearly terminates before entering the hilt which means the plates were necessary to facilitate a forte and form a tang. I've attached an image with a little tweaking to hopefully make clear what I mean/see. Attached Images