S.E. Asian katana

[kronckew]

It's also in the realm of consideration to include Korean origins.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by kronckew

It's also in the realm of consideration to include Korean origins.

Possible but I feel the style of the hilt wrap and scabbard doesn't point that way. But I'm not all that familiar with Korean arms.

[ariel]

AFAIK, Koreans firmly riveted their handles to the tangs. Is there a rivet? If you can punch it thru and draw the blade out, it should not be Korean.

Habaki is not necessrily Japanese. Nomads of the 8 century down to The Mongols of 13 century all had habaki ( tunku) on their sabers. KublaiKhan invaded SE Asia, includind Burma, Thailand , Yunnan and Vietnam ( but not Cambodia). Could have planted the idea there. Mongols did it in Afghanistan and N. India.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by ariel

AFAIK, Koreans firmly riveted their handles to the tangs. Is there a rivet? If you can punch it thru and draw the blade out, it should not be Korean.

Habaki is not necessrily Japanese. Nomads of the 8 century down to The Mongols of 13 century all had habaki ( tunku) on their sabers. KublaiKhan invaded SE Asia, includind Burma, Thailand , Yunnan and Vietnam ( but not Cambodia). Could have planted the idea there. Mongols did it in Afghanistan and N. India.

Unfortunately with the lacquer in place its impossible to tell if there's a rivet or a peg. This type of lacquer over cord is very hard.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by kronckew

It's also in the realm of consideration to include Korean origins.

Details of design and workmanship don't give the impression of being Korean. Blades from Korea, made and mounted in the Japanese style (as on sabers such as the beolungeom have blades with decidedly Japanese characteristics such as the angular edge geometry of the kissaki and the shinogi ridges on each face. Stylistically, the guard and ferrule on this sword's hilt don't look Japanese-inspired at all. Southeast Asia is in my eyes the most likely point of origin.

[Philip]

Iain, I think that your sword may likely be 18th cent. or maybe later Indochinese as opposed to Thai. The wedge-shaped blade cross-section, with single narrow fuller adjoining the spine, is commonly seen on Vietnamese sabers (guom) and also their Lao and Cambodian counterparts. The guard with radial openwork elements is quite Vietnamese in style, it echoes that on the hilts of 17th cent. two handed sabers from Vietnam, as exemplified by exceptional examples in the Met and the Hermitage.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Philip

Iain, I think that your sword may likely be 18th cent. or maybe later Indochinese as opposed to Thai. The wedge-shaped blade cross-section, with single narrow fuller adjoining the spine, is commonly seen on Vietnamese sabers (guom) and also their Lao and Cambodian counterparts. The guard with radial openwork elements is quite Vietnamese in style, it echoes that on the hilts of 17th cent. two handed sabers from Vietnam, as exemplified by exceptional examples in the Met and the Hermitage.

Hi Philip, thanks for the comments, of course very much inline with my own thinking, the Hermitage example for the guard was also what came immediately to my mind as well when I decided to buy this one. The only difference between this and most Vietnamese work is that the blade finish is different, many Viet pieces have a rather distinctive almost "scrapped" finish on the blade that this one lacks, but that can be down to region or just age.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Iain

The only difference between this and most Vietnamese work is that the blade finish is different, many Viet pieces have a rather distinctive almost "scrapped" finish on the blade that this one lacks, but that can be down to region or just age.

The rougher finish is typical of lower-class weapons of the 19th and early 20th cent., where standards of finish declined. Most of the weapons displaying this finish are simple knives or falchions of rustic character. The marks are from the hardened steel drawknives used to finish the surfaces.

On higher-grade weapons, and the surviving earlier pieces, the finish is much better, polished on stones.

As with the blades of southern India, it's hard to find older Vietnamese weapons in any sort of "polish", the humid tropical climate takes a toll on iron objects. A glance at your blade shows some irregularity in depth of the fuller which may indicate localized grinding and polish to remove previous corrosion. If the sword dates back to the 18th cent., who knows how many times it may have been cleaned, sharpened, or polished during its working life.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Philip

The rougher finish is typical of lower-class weapons of the 19th and early 20th cent., where standards of finish declined. Most of the weapons displaying this finish are simple knives or falchions of rustic character. The marks are from the hardened steel drawknives used to finish the surfaces.

On higher-grade weapons, and the surviving earlier pieces, the finish is much better, polished on stones.

As with the blades of southern India, it's hard to find older Vietnamese weapons in any sort of "polish", the humid tropical climate takes a toll on iron objects. A glance at your blade shows some irregularity in depth of the fuller which may indicate localized grinding and polish to remove previous corrosion. If the sword dates back to the 18th cent., who knows how many times it may have been cleaned, sharpened, or polished during its working life.

Absolutely agree, my point was more that this is likely older than the typical Vietnamese blades we see that came back in colonial times of 19th century manufacture. The imperfections in the fuller look to me to be due to polishing as you mentioned but also likely something of an original imperfection as well. The piece overall seems to be something of a 'munitions grade' piece, although definitely made for use, rather than any sort of higher end status item, so the attention to finishing detail makes sense in this context.