Cut steel decorations on Indian arms

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Kubur

I agree with Ariel made with two old parts.

Good for me!
As to when: see my earlier post: “When, - is another question :-), but historically they might have been married 300-400 years ago. And still holding strong:-)”
Thanks Kubur!

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by ariel

Good for me!
As to when: see my earlier post: “When, - is another question :-), but historically they might have been married 300-400 years ago. And still holding strong:-)”
Thanks Kubur!

Hi Ariel
If the two pieces are late 18th or early 19th (for the hilt).
It's true that we don't know when they were connected together.
However - and it's just my opinion - (not supported by facts):
the whole piece doesnt look very practical, it's the reason why I think the piece is late 19th or even first part of 20thc.

[ariel]

Kubur,
So many Indian weapons do not look "practical" to us: pata, aradam/arapusta, bank, all those snake-like swords, supermassive teghas, old South Indian swords ( see Rawson), Nayar swords etc, etc.
This one, in comparison to many of them, looks eminently practical: it can stab easily and slash without problems. Moreover, switching fro the original " old Indian" handle to the " basket" one provided good hand protection. The length of the blade is entirely within the range of the " very practical" tulwars/pulwars. So, we just cannot exclude the possibility that it was created with a perfectly fighting purpose in mind. Or, if we are " criticisers", that it is a souvenir one. Go figure...
On top of that, many of the " non-practical" ones had hidden religious meanings that we just do not understand.

I honestly have no idea how old this one is: it can date from early 18th century or from the end of 19th. The unnerving thing is that we just do not have any objective parameters except for the physical conditions of the blade and the handle. Brazing could have been done at any time within this period. Handles were replaced left and right. Gut feelings can, and far too often are, deceptive and prejudiced one way or another.

Whether we like it or not, we have to accept it as it is.

[mahratt]

Dear Ariel, I understand that it is very unpleasant to be disappointed in a item that you considered "rare" and "unique." But obviously, That this is a “unique” souvenir. May be he is combined the early 20th century, maybe even the late 19th century. Nevertheless, this a souvenir.
And do not try to come up for this souvenir "practicality" or "religious meaning". Otherwise, you can run to extremes and start looking for the "sacred" and "combat" meaning of the forks or spoons ... After all, we understand that a plug can be stuck in the eye and kill a person.

[ariel]

Mahratt,
Please relax: I like my sword. You may think it is a newly-made souvenir, but I think otherwise and do not wish to spend my breath arguing with you.

Also, please stop bombarding me with serial requests to answer your queries and do not try to sound sarcastic. It does not work on me: I choose people whose opinions to value and whose to ignore and somehow you do not belong to the former.

Perhaps, you may wish to just ignore my posts; this will improve the atmosphere on this Forum as well as your personal disposition. Follow Pushkin’s advice:” ... when dark thoughts enter your soul, uncork a bottle of champagne or re-read The Marriage of Figaro”.

[mahratt]

Ariel,
I'm glad you like your "sword". And I'm completely relaxed, because this souvenir "sword" is not in my collection

I have long noticed that you are trying to call all the questions uncomfortable for you on the forum "sarcastic." This is a very convenient position. This position attracts moderators who ask to stop the discussion. This allows you not to answer questions that you have no answers

I am surprised that you do not follow your own ideas and do not ignore my messages. More precisely, you ignore my messages, but only when you have nothing to answer. For example, as in the question with "knives allegedly bought by the Tsar in Bakhchisarai in 1837."

You probably have a constant lack of champagne at home .... But I am ready to send you a gift "The Marriage of Figaro" in Russian

[mahratt]

I think now that we have figured out the "unique sword", we can return to the main topic of discussion.
Given that for such swords as Pata, the blade is fixed with rivets, this mount is probably quite strong.

[Jens Nordlunde]

What I had in mind when I started the link was more like this.
There are a lot of peacocks, but to find them, you either need my catalogue, or to look after what peacocks looked like in the late 16th or early 17th century.

[mahratt]

Unfortunately, it turned out that I - bad photographer And I can’t take a good picture of my кatar.
But, I found my кatar on the website of Artzi Yarom (аlthough he did get into my modest collection not from Artzi). So I decided to put a photo and description from the Artzi website:
http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2351
"Kаttar push dagger, North India, probably late 18 C or there about. The heavy blade 10 inches long and 2 inches wide is forged from fine Indian wootz steel ( crystalline) and finely chiseled with hunting scenes on both sides: Tigers, elephants and horse riders. Heavy armor piercing tip. Total length 19 inches".
I think no one will have any doubt that Artzi saw wootz on the blade of this кatar?
The only thing I disagree with is the dating of кatar - the late 18th century. I think that my кatar can be dated to the first half - the middle of the 19th century.