You dont see these!!!! A flamboyant

Bill M · 15th September 2006, 01:53 AM

Neat! Andy. Congrats on an interesting sword.

ariel · 15th September 2006, 02:00 AM

Andy,
Very, very nice and very, very interesting sword. Terrific addition to any collection.
Congratulations!

Andy Davis · 15th September 2006, 05:34 PM

Do we know if these were actually fighting weapons or ceremonial? Balance is great and weight surprisingly light but very robust, so I would go for the fighting option. I had an idea on the stud on the back of the blade, in that if you were using it for sacrifise, it would be the perfect possition to strike the victim from; judged from a downward swing from above. Is it therefore a form of sight for a sword!!
I'm currently deciding how to totally re-gig the collection to give this pride of place.

Battara · 16th September 2006, 08:35 PM

I would agree that this is a fighting piece. This is supported in Elgood's book.

Andy Davis · 17th September 2006, 02:31 PM

Just had a strike of insight on the stud which nobody wants to pass opinion on (Not even Rawson, who does mention it).
It might be there just to let the sword stand upright on the back of its blade.
The photo seems to give it the right appearance/angle for that use.
Cheers
Andy

Ian · 17th September 2006, 02:37 PM

Andy:

That makes a lot of sense.

BTW, has anyone ever seen a scabbard for one of these swords? I have not. Maybe they usually sat out on a table or altar, and lying on the spine was there natural storage posture.

Ian.

Bill M · 17th September 2006, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

Andy:

That makes a lot of sense.

BTW, has anyone ever seen a scabbard for one of these swords? I have not. Maybe they usually sat out on a table or altar, and lying on the spine was there natural storage posture.

Ian.

Ian and Andy.

This is news, good news, to me also. I don't have the stud

on the back of mine, but they sure look right standing on their spines.

BTW great picture Andy!

Bill

15th September 2006, 05:34 PM	#3
Andy Davis Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: England, Northumberland Posts: 85	Sword sights Do we know if these were actually fighting weapons or ceremonial? Balance is great and weight surprisingly light but very robust, so I would go for the fighting option. I had an idea on the stud on the back of the blade, in that if you were using it for sacrifise, it would be the perfect possition to strike the victim from; judged from a downward swing from above. Is it therefore a form of sight for a sword!! I'm currently deciding how to totally re-gig the collection to give this pride of place.

17th September 2006, 02:31 PM	#5
Andy Davis Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: England, Northumberland Posts: 85	Stud is a stand Just had a strike of insight on the stud which nobody wants to pass opinion on (Not even Rawson, who does mention it). It might be there just to let the sword stand upright on the back of its blade. The photo seems to give it the right appearance/angle for that use. Cheers Andy Attached Images

15th September 2006, 01:53 AM	#1
Bill M Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Georgia Posts: 1,599	Neat! Andy. Congrats on an interesting sword.

15th September 2006, 02:00 AM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Andy, Very, very nice and very, very interesting sword. Terrific addition to any collection. Congratulations!

16th September 2006, 08:35 PM	#4
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,200	I would agree that this is a fighting piece. This is supported in Elgood's book.

17th September 2006, 02:37 PM	#6
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,167	Andy: That makes a lot of sense. BTW, has anyone ever seen a scabbard for one of these swords? I have not. Maybe they usually sat out on a table or altar, and lying on the spine was there natural storage posture. Ian.