Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 21st May 2006, 10:13 PM   #9
ariel
Member
 
ariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde
Ariel, that you have an old tulwar with faint spurs of reinforcement does not proof anything, when it comes to this sword – tulwars did not, normally as far as I know have reinforcements.

Tim, the scabbards is so far of ‘no’ interest, and your postulation 'that there is no reason why this is not a weapon put together in the late 19th century for display purposes, as the use of such weapons became more anachronistic', is only a postulate.
Jens,
I know tulwars do not have reinforcements. But a tulwar's blade with a hole and an imprint must have been a part of a sword with reinforcements at some time in its career. That's all.
Proves only one thing: not every remount is a proof of recent "forgery". But we have known it before....
ariel is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.