Could the eyelash mark originate from Vienna ?

[katana]

Hi
a number of Indian blades have the eyelash mark ...often with 3 dots situated either end. After a post on the European arms forum by Micheal

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...1534#post91534

I noticed this marking.....basically 'cutting' the marking in half ...we end up with the typical marking of the eyelash ??

Coincidence??

Regards David

.

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent David! A very astute observation, and the thread Michael has begun on North Italian weapons, keyed on the magnificent reference "Armi Bianche Italien" by Boccia & Coelho, is one I would encourage ethnographic collectors to view on the 'European Armoury'.

Here can be seen the key ancestry of many ethnographic weapons, not only in the trade blades that became prevalent in many native weapons, but often in the development of hilt forms such as the kastane and nimcha. There are certainly many other associations and influences that become apparant in looking at examples of these North Italian weapons, which, through extensive trade networks were diffused widely throughout many cultures.

As discussed on the other thread, these eyelash (sickle) marks are indeed distinctly of North Italian origin, though as you have noted, the precise origin remains uncertain. Most opinions consider Genoa as the likely origin of this marking, which was probably more of a guild mark, and as Genoa was the point of departure exporting blades, seems to have made that connection most commonly associated.
In the Maghreb many of the daggers are termed 'janwi' which loosely transliterates from Genoa, noting the origins and perhaps style of the blades, but again, illustrating the importance of the Italian connection in the ethnographic medium.

I am hoping we might see some examples of these markings on the blades of various ethnographic weapons, and other observations and thoughts on the origins and development of the mysterious 'eyelash' markings.

Thanks very much for posting this David!!!!

All best regards,
Jim

[Iliad]

Hi Jim, are these the marks of which you would like examples?
Brian

[Jim McDougall]

Outstanding Brian! This is certainly the Indian version of these eyelash markings, and great illustration of how late these continued being used symbolically by native sword makers.
Many tulwars were produced late in the British Raj for use by troopers in the native cavalry regiments, and though often of munitions quality, represent the pageantry of one of the most colorful military periods.
Thank you posting this.

All the best,
Jim

[spiral]

Intresting thread, Heres a few kukri from my collection showing very similar marks.
Interestingly 2 of them are laminated & one etched. When these marks appear on kukri they usualy imply better than average workmanship.{But not always!}

The little one in the middle, etched to the 4th Gurkha rifles has a 12 inch blade.

Spiral

[katana]

Hi Spiral,
excellent examples on the Kuks, also interesting that it is considered a sign of better quality.

Here are a few more that have been previously posted by Lew, Jens, Norman , Stephen and Tatyana.....nearly all Tulwar blades except no 1 Stephen's unusually marked Kaskara ( which started a debate to whether this was a re-worked Indian blade) Number 2 is Tatyana's Nimcha and Number 3 is Lew's Bichwa.


Regards David

[Norman McCormick]

Hi David,
Here's another two, the very indented one is from a Tulwar which shows some similarities with one Jens posted, the other is from an Indian 'cutlass' sized sword, pictured, that has eluded definition.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I find the subject most interesting, but please tell me, how many of you have tried to investigate it, and if, what results have you reached?
A forum like this, is a place where you can ask questions about a weapons, but it is also a place where you can answer question from others, and this question has been up several times - so there must have been enough time for several to make a research - what is the result of the research?
I don't want to sound rude, but I think it is time for some to start answering questions, an not only to ask them - to research.
Jens

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you adding all of these extremely interesting applications of these markings as used my native armourers on the blades of numerous weapon forms! Very much appreciated everybody!!!

These eyelash/sickle markings have indeed been discussed many times through the years here, and of course on the trademarks thread in particular.
I have done personal research on markings for many years, and these have been most perplexing, primarily because they are so widely used and copied, far beyond the European medium in which they originated.

As I have explained in my post on the European Armoury, these dentated half circles appear to have originated in North Italian blade making centers, it would appear sometime in the 15th century. As used, they appear to have been intended as some sort of guild marking, as they often occur along with other markings, presumably assigned to certain makers, as well as sometimes incorporated into more complex groupings.

For many years collectors have presumed these sickle marks originated in Genoa, however I believe the primary reason for that association is that Genoa was one of the key ports exporting blades to other regions in those times. There were trade stations and colonies operated by Genoan merchants in the Black Sea, where these blades seem to have been received and dispersed. If the sickle markings were on blades per guild accordance they would have occurred on the products of various cities including Vienna, Lucca and so on.
When the blades gained reputation as quality products much sought after, the marks became attractive and used by other makers to add to the appeal of thier work. In times of great superstition and folklore these markings were to become appealing in far greater presumption than simple guild or quality stamps.
As these blades had now become popular in much wider range of centers and copied even in the huge blade making center of Solingen, the diffusion of blades carrying these markings became profuse.As they were received in many cultures in far regions, and the virtues of these blades extolled by merchants noting these distinct markings, the marks were again interpreted and copied by native armourers.

By this time, the application of these markings no longer of course carried the original purpose of guild accordance, nor affiliation with any particular maker, but had come to represent much more ethereally, either quality or power, or both, even to talismanic perspective.

With native applications of these markings, the importance of thier meaning was often perceived within decorative or artistic perspective, and while no longer distinctly observed, the implications remained even remained in the artistic variations used.

Much as it is virtually impossible to attribute blades of native makers to an individual or particular location, except in typically rare cases, it would be even more difficult to assign specific meaning or use with any certainty as they are in this medium more artistically employed.

In the Caucusus, these sickle marks are used mostly by Chechen makers in the blades they term locally the 'gurda', which means broadly 'good or of high quality'. This is probably one of the best illustrations of the interpretation of these markings from a native armourers perspective. This is very much the case I am sure in Afghanistan with the paluoar blades.

Best regards,
Jim

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Jens,
Although I perceive that your statement with regard to research has validity I do not think it is particularly apt in a Forum with a varied membership base. Surely a community like this should engage with everybody regardless of their degree of interest. For some this is just a hobby, maybe one of many, and not an academic pursuit. Some may be constrained by time and financial threshholds. For others it may be that they have more than a passing interest in the subject but not necessarily to the point of "obsession". I am not for one minute suggesting that anyone on this Forum is 'obsessive" about their subject/s just that there are varying degrees to which members take an interest from mild and passing to hobbyist zeal and academic pursuit. I personally have had a long and varied interest in arms and armour kindled in the first instance by childhood brushes with 'knights in armour' and tales of Robin Hood but that is just what it is "a varied interest". Indian arms and their roots do have a special interest for me but with some recent aquisitions my fascination has also been rekindled in 18th/19th Century British military swords. I concede that there always has to be someone who takes on the mantle of teacher, investigator and ground breaker in any sphere of 'knowledge seeking' I just don't think that the ability or the will is necessarily part and parcel of everyone who takes part in and enjoys the comradeship of an open Forum. Notwithstanding the aforementioned it is a joy to me, and I'm sure to many, to get questions answered and information supplied by the more expert and knowledgeable members without resorting to acres of text in search of an answer. Some people enjoy and positively revel in 'acres of text', these are the ones who will ultimately produce the facts to substantiate or disprove the theories unfortunately I, along with others I presume, are not able to give the time and commitment that such an undertaking requires but this does not diminish our interest or enjoyment of the subject. I sincerely hope that I have not caused any offence as none is intended.
My Regards,
Norman.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I find the subject most interesting, but please tell me, how many of you have tried to investigate it, and if, what results have you reached?
A forum like this, is a place where you can ask questions about a weapons, but it is also a place where you can answer question from others, and this question has been up several times - so there must have been enough time for several to make a research - what is the result of the research?
I don't want to sound rude, but I think it is time for some to start answering questions, an not only to ask them - to research.
Jens

Ive found & shared much information on kukri & other subjects over the years on this & other forums Jen that I have researched, but I too would like to know the true origin of crescent & eyelash marks we find.

Personaly I have no idea of the true origin in Europe or wherever of such marks but would would not be shocked to find some ancient celtic,viking or even older swords carried similar marks even if we know of no current examples. But that is just supposition & speculation on my part, of course.

I can tell you my research & questianing has led me to belive that the Eyelash & crescent marks found on kukri are probably just another facet of the fact that that all Hindu weapons have religious symbols or symolism whether obvious or not, to conteract the less healthy spirits that can be attracted to weapons that have been involved in violence,death or bloodshed, Such symbols as Buddhas or Durgas eye on Ram Dao, the Lotus on kora The kaudi on the kukri are other examples of this.

Whatever its original origins I suspect that is what it comes to mean on Hindu weaponary. Perhaps this is because some excelent blades were seen historicaly so the marks were taken as auspicios?

With kukri many of these marks have been called "armoury marks" But I think that although the individual design, the nature & how of the the mark is made can sometimes show, which workshop, armoury or even villige kami made it. But personaly I essentialy belive that to be just coincedence.



Spiral

[Gonzalo G]

Personally, I would begin to question the supposedly and exclusively european origin of this kind of marks. Their presence in antique nepali weapons opens many questions. Maybe this is another of the so many myths created by western specialist in edged weapons. I don't think India needed so much occidental blades, or their 'prestigious' marks, and if those blades are present in indian swords is more due to their openess to experimentate than for true need of them. Openess other peoples didn't had. Unless we have hard evidence based on facts, and not a mere speculation, we cannot assume the origin of this kind of marks as a fact. Better, as Jens said, investigate it and present solid arguments. A good time-line comparison among this marks among oriental and occidental blades would be useful. What if this mark appears first in an older oriental blade?
Regards

Gonzalo

[Jim McDougall]

Very well said comments gentlemen.

Gonzalo, as always good points of contention. So far the evidence I have seen, and discovered in the years I have researched these markings, show them occurring on 15th century European weapons, as seen in the page David has shown from "Armi Bianchi Italiene" . In this book there are numerous other examples with variations of these markings.

India does not reflect European influences until the Portuguese arrivals, and then slowly began to use European blades with Mahratta trade. This is of course the origin of the so called phirangi blade. I'm not sure of you have read any of the trademarks thread discussions or my previous post here, but virtually all references concerning weapons and thier markings hold the European origins of these sickle marks. It would take some time to add the cites and references for all the research that has been done from the 19th century arms writers including Baron DeCosson, Archibald Campbell, and the later Bashford Dean, Sir Guy Laking,Sir James Mann and later Dr. Lloyd Cabot Briggs, to name a few, who have made profound studies of blade markings on European swords. The Wallace Collection, catalogued by Sir James Mann in 1962 has numerous examples of German and Italian blades with variations of these sickle marks from a time span of several centuries.

It is not a question of 'needing' the European blades, as much as a matter of convenience and interest in European trade, primarily brought on by the Mahratta merchants. In Central India, Hyder Ali brought in European weapons and forces so was quite familiar with these blades from Germany in the late 18th century.

I think we have seen a preponderance of evidence for these markings being European, and as I have tried to present on many occasions the details of this proof. I think one of the things that presents difficulty is when the content of what is presented is not read before questions are asked or contentions made, agreed as what has been noted by Jens.

I have yet to see any evidence of these markings appearing in any of the cultural mediums described, India, Afghanistan or the Caucusus, before the 18th century, though the markings are known in European regions as noted from the 15th, appearing in Styria and Solingen by the mid to late 17th.

The appearance of the sickle marks on Nepalese weapons, in this case the kukris shown here by Spiral is actually quite surprising. I honestly have not seen these appearing on kukris before, and would suggest that this is most likely an affectation added well into the British Raj period and long after the famed Gurkha units were formed. While these are 'antique' weapons from these Nepalese regiments, they are certainly 19th century if not later and do not suggest any ancient existence nor particular Nepalese symbolism that would indicate origins of these sickle marks in Nepal nor India.

In short, there is nothing Eurocentric about the fact that these sickle marks have origins on European blades, and as I have previously emphasized, were originally likely guild marks, much as other such 'trade guild' markings used in medieval times in Europe. This is not speculation, but documented fact.
While it is well known that there are numerous myths in earlier writings on weapons, most of this derives from popular collectors lore and typically not from scholars, though there admittedly are exceptions and certain errors inevitable. I firmly believe that documented evidence from well provenanced weapons and supported literature from the scholars, some of whom I have mentioned, stands as evidence rather than myth.

The idea that these markings might have originated in India or Nepal as shown by thier presence on weapons that are typically not known prior to at least the 17th century such as the tulwar, whose earlier origins remain unclear, or the kukri, which was virtually unknown until the conflicts of the late 18th century however, does seem speculative. The only examples of these sickle marks on these weapons of the Subcontinent, Central Asia, the Caucusus, Nepal or any other native weapons I am aware of are primarily of the 19th century, with perhaps a few occasions in the 18th.


Best regards,
Jim

[Jens Nordlunde]

Sometimes when you write, the wrong people feel hurt. I am sorry for this as it was not my intention. My intention was to get collectors out of the easy chair, and go to the book shelf or the library - and start reading about the things they are collecting.
It is easy to ask a question and read the answer on the forum, but you will only get a pin pointed answer, and not a broader knowledge about the item in question - and that I find is a pity.
Jens

[spiral]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Sometimes when you write, the wrong people feel hurt. I am sorry for this as it was not my intention. My intention was to get collectors out of the easy chair, and go to the book shelf or the library - and start reading about the things they are collecting.
It is easy to ask a question and read the answer on the forum, but you will only get a pin pointed answer, and not a broader knowledge about the item in question - and that I find is a pity.
Jens

Thankyou Jens , I didnt feel hurt but wasnt sure who your comment was aimed at as it was unspecfic so I answeared from where I stood.

i do understand wat you mean Jens, for many years I anseared 2 or 3 emails a week fotr requests for information about kukri, most I answeared out of shared intrest untill I finaly realised how rude & ignorant many of those emails actualy were, they were essentialy demands for information without a please, could you, or even a thankyou involved.

Today I still repley to polite or what appear to be genuinly interested people but the rude & ignorant who presume my duty in life is to answear there kukri questians can "whistle in the wind."

best regards to you Jens,

Jonathan AKA Spiral

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you Spiral for your answer, you nailed one of the things - another is that members of the forum must seek informations elsewhere other than on the forum, or the forum will die out when chaps like you, Jim and a few others stops writing - it may take some time, as some of us are rather tough, but we may stop writing on the forum.
There are informations out there, but you will have to compare them, and decide in which ones you believe, as they can differ a lot.
Jens

[Jim McDougall]

I really dont mind spending hours researching, compiling and writing, but it would be nice to know the material was read. It is intended for those who are serious about learning on weapons, and in hopes for discussion whether in rebuttal, support or agreement.

David is someone whom I consider a serious student on arms and armour, who actually collects, examines, observes and ponders weaponry, and always enters into discussions with astute observations or constructive comments.

This thread posting these markings was a soundly placed and honest effort to initiate discussion and learn more on these markings. I added material I have compiled for many years in support and to comprehensively present what is known on these blade markings.

I appreciate the photos of markings on ethnographic weapons that were placed as I had asked, and thank Brian and Spriral for adding them.

I very well understand the statements made by Jens, also a serious collector, scholar and researcher on weapons, which were intended to encourage the discussion that David had sought for this topic. Those of us who know Jens well understood his words, which expressed his disappointment in active participation in various instances overall, not specifically on this thread.

I also understand the comments added by others, although well written, but drifting far from the purpose and topic on this thread, which was intended to discuss blade markings.

In my earlier posts, I encouraged participants here to view the material and discussion on European Armoury in an effort to align the importance of these and other European blade markings which are found on ethnographic weapons.

I regret that my posts clearly fell short of thier intention as they appear to not have been read, much as the entire purpose of this thread has been lost at this point. In my opinion, this sort of fouled interaction is altogether a reflection of one of the great shortcomings in the serious study of arms.
I would hope, that out of respect for David, and in solidarity that those out there who do care about studies in weapons might continue here on the original course.

Regardless, David I thank you for posting this and for your always helpful efforts and keen insight. You are an inspiration that I hope will be followed by others.

All very best regards,
Jim

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Jim,

You are very polite when writing your post, but no one, especially those who know the tone you usually write in, can doubt that you are deeply disappointed.

I agree with you, just as I agree with Spiral, the forum members takes it more and more for granted that they can ask questions, and expect an answer – preferably right away. Few knows how long time it has taken to find the information’s, or don’t care – as many just don’t answer back, not even with a ‘thank you’.

This leads me to another question. Why has so many members left the forum within the last few years? I know some of the members, who has left, and that is becourse of the above reasons – and they will not return – which is a pity for the forum, as many of them were very knowledgeable.

So should this attitude go on, the forum will have fewer and fewer writing members in the future – especially those with some knowledge.

Jens

[Gonzalo G]

Jim, tank you for your response(s) and sorry for my delayed answer, but as you know, it takes me some time to recollect web pages to read in home, and latter post my answers. I apologize for bothering with my pointing-attitude toward the need of re-examining all what I see as assumptions, though I can see how interesting, creative and imaginative some points of view are. In particular, I find very useful this exercise of comparisons among a specific feature from the edged weapons from all over the world. Trade routes and cultural influences among Europe and Asia are very wide since ancient times.

I am also very sorry for that unnecessary show of arguments and references about the markings. You know, I never said those markings were not European. I also never said that India was the origin of those markings, and latter were adopted by Europeans. And I have read all the alluded threads. All what I said was is that it was needed to question an European exclusive origin for that marks, since India could had been developed similar markings with other meaning and purpose. And questioning, implies only the need of verification, not that a mistake has been committed. An alternative hypothesis of this sort would perfectly explain the too late use of this marks on Indian swords and the Nepalese connection, since it does not seem too plausible that those marks were copied by the nepalese just for ‘affectation’, as late as the second half of the 19th Century, when even the koftgari, one of the most used decorative techniques in India for centuries, seems to be mostly discarded in Nepal.

Also, I see the necessity of revising assumptions as: ‘if similar marks appear in Indian blades, then this is explained by European influence’, and ‘here can be seen the key ancestry of many ethnographic weapons’, or ’when the blades gained reputation as quality products much sought after’ and ‘and ‘would suggest that this is most likely an affectation added well into the British Raj period’. Because this are not ‘facts’, but hypothesis in the best of the circumstances, and they must be confirmed by actual evidence. And you are perfectly entitled to make hypothesis, as I am entitled to disagree, since it is expressed in a respectful manner. As I have disagreed before with what I believe are good arguments based on facts discovered through my own research. Since as I do love spending hours researching, compiling and writing. But in this time, when the actual historians, archaeologists and ethnographers are questioning, with good evidences and reasons, even the old ideas about the ethnic homogeneity of the peoples and nations (including the Europeans), the reach of the the German migrations from Scandinavia and adjacent areas and the direction and nature of the cultural influences even in the interior of Europe (please see an example in Michael Kulikowski, Rome’s Gothic War, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007), I think it is a healthy measure to question the old linear explanations about the origins of certain utensils, or their specific characteristics.

It should be obvious that there are almost no examples available to us from Indian and Nepalese swords before the 18th Century, and the lack of material evidence does not imply that something was not done, or was done. India has a culture much older than any of Europe, and swords should be made from thousands years ago, but there are no antique examples. Then, it is not strange that we cannot find their markings, as this is impossible in the actual circumstances.

I agree in the fact that the work from the scholars is very valuable. But scholars from all times had created the most perdurable myths, even many ethnocentric myths, no matter their continental, national or cultural origin (including those scholars from my own country). I could enumerate many of them, if this was not off-topic. With all due consideration for the work done by the persons who made in the past studies about everything, I think the knowledge about all subjects is dynamic and always improving, and there is no untouchable dogma, but scientific truth based on material evidence. A little far ahead than the Aristotelian taxonomic interests that traditionally had characterized the study of the edged weapons, very valuable (though biased toward the genealogy of the foreign weapons, based on the ideology, pre-conceptions and speculations of the romantic school of European historiography from the 19th Century, now obsolete) but not complete, as there is the need from archeological and historical evidence to support the facts and establish their correlations and sequence. And the discoveries about those civilizations are just beginning.

There is also the problem of establishing the provenance of weapons and what you describe as ‘well documented evidence’, even with modern European weapons, that you consider a fact. It is a pity that the work made by Spanish scholars is unknown for many collectors, as it can be found, for example, a documented refutation from German Dueñas Beraiz to the provenances of rapiers established by Norman.

I expect that being polemic about the need of a more scientific and actual approach to the study of the edged weapons, would not be interpreted as something personal or disrespectful, as we are discussing points of view, and I believe nobody here has been personally disrespectful. There is nothing ‘contentious’ in having a different approach to the matter, and I expect having an intercourse of ideas and points of view, since the purpose of this forum seems to be the examination of our conceptual tools and the classifications previously established, especially before the fact that too many specimens found by its members are exceptions, and not confirmations, of previous ideas. I can add that your posts have been very useful to my learning, and that I consider very positive your contribution to the forum, even when, sometimes, I disagree with your approaches, since I believe disagreement.is part of the normal process of finding knowledge and a stimulus to make further reasearches. At last, for us, the limited and perfectible human beings. And, after all, different approaches and new data is what it makes contributions, and not the consensus.

Unfortunately, I don’t have materials to make a research over the subject of the eyelash markings, since it looks very interesting….I think I am going to get a job as floor cleanser in the Cambridge’s Central Library to solve permanently this problem.

Regards

Gonzalo

[Amuk Murugul]

Hullo everybody,

Originally Posted by spiral

.......
i do understand wat you mean Jens, for many years I anseared 2 or 3 emails a week fotr requests for information about kukri, most I answeared out of shared intrest untill I finaly realised how rude & ignorant many of those emails actualy were, they were essentialy demands for information without a please, could you, or even a thankyou involved.

Today I still repley to polite or what appear to be genuinly interested people but the rude & ignorant who presume my duty in life is to answear there kukri questians can "whistle in the wind." ....

Jonathan AKA Spiral

Spiral, rest assured that you are not alone in this. There are also many who for one reason or another, have tired of being engaged in discussion/debate (not just in this forum) about certain topics. It gives them a feeling of DEJA VU ...DEJA vu ... deja vu... . (Especially those people whose beliefs may run contrary to the mainstream). ...But rather than adopting 'the philosophy of the Oak', they've opted for 'the philosophy of the Bamboo'...

Best,

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Gonzalo,
Thank you very much for your very clearly well thought out and eloquently worded comments in response to my posts and comments. There is absolutely no need to apoligize for any delays in response as I am well aware of your circumstances in computer access and admire your tenacity in your efforts.
Actually I dont believe there is, as you note, anything disrespectful about polemic approaches to any presented opinions or discussion reviewing stated material on any topic. I completely agree that the venerable scholars that have provided the benchmarks for our pursuits in the serious study of historic weapons and thier development should be admired and respected. Further, it is clear that, as you well put, new research often reveals that previously held views are sometimes proven incorrect.

Simply put, I agree that it is good to question theories, hypothesis or observations in discussion in order to reaffirm thier validity and the elements of evidence in support of them. Conversely, if questions are presented, they too should be supported by evidence that constructively offers some proof that these are somehow of questionable validity.

Certainly you have noted some comments I have made that perhaps may have been better worded, such as my note regarding the work of highly respected scholars as 'well documented evidence'. I agree that academically I should not hold these works as 'evidence', however, at a personal level, and having known a number of these men at that level, you can understand how respect might dictate such thoughts. I am sure that the late Mr. Norman, who was indeed one of them, would welcome such documented information to correct any errors in his work.

I believe that we here are all interested in advancing our knowledge on the history and development of arms and armour, and I am ever amazed at the wonderful weapons, material and observations presented here. I honestly welcome all entries in discussion, but prefer to remain on topic in constructively developing information that better helps us in evaluating evidence and observations.

I return your kind comments regarding my posts and will say that your input here is equally helpful to myself and others, and as always, the object is to learn together, as you know. It is perfectly acceptable, and indeed expected, for there to be some degree of dispute in discussions or debates. What is important is that here we are gentlemen, as you clearly represent, and proceed accordingly to continue advancing our ever growing base of knowledge.

All very best regards,
Jim

P.S. LOL!! Save me a spot there in the Cambridge Library!!! I think I need to be there too!!

[Gonzalo G]

Jim, thank you very much for your kind words and your understanding. And though I am not good in making some stetements, as I am too direct, I will try to be of some use with my modest participations.
My best regards

Gonzalo

[fernando]

Hi David,
I was having a look to threads in line with the 'eyelash' mark, and i noticed that, in your first post, the mark shown is called in italian 'seghetti', which means 'hacksaw'.
Could this be the consensual name of the 'eyelash' mark in Italy?
Interesting.
Fernando

[katana]

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi David,
I was having a look to threads in line with the 'eyelash' mark, and i noticed that, in your first post, the mark shown is called in italian 'seghetti', which means 'hacksaw'.
Could this be the consensual name of the 'eyelash' mark in Italy?
Interesting.
Fernando

Hi Fernando ,
interesting indeed.......when searching 'seghetti' on google images you get different 'saws' not just the hacksaw. In fact, some of the saws are 'seghetto' (the plural term ?).
I personally feel that the 'eyelash' mark is a 'picturial symbol' (teeth of a saw) for the blades cutting abillity / quality. It seems that the eyelash mark occurs/originates on early, quality Italian blades.Perhaps 'seghetti' is the 'correct' and original name for the 'eyelash' mark and the 'root' / origin of this Italian word will help to explain the mark.
Hopefully one of our Italian formites may have more information.

All the best Fernando

David

[Marcus]

On this Moroccan s'boula, the “eyelashes” (or are they crescent moons?) do not appear in pairs or with other elaborations. Do they have talismanic significance or were they intended to imply European provenance?

[corrado26]

An interesting description of this "eyelash"-mark is to be found in the catalogue of the Wallace Collection - European Arms and Armour. Here this mark is called "sickle-mark". I saw this mark very often of blades signed with "FRINGIA".
corrado26

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I am hoping we might see some examples of these markings on the blades of various ethnographic weapons, and other observations and thoughts on the origins and development of the mysterious 'eyelash' markings.

I have this Indian Talwar-Kilij with twelve eyelash markings or at least they are pretty similar.
It's a high quality laminated blade with an old arsenal number (274).

Roland

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I am sure that this subject is one of the keys to understanding Ethnographic weapons down the ages and holds within it answers to the transmission of these extraordinary devices marking the blades. To my eye the curves and dots represent numerous possibilities including blade quality or talisman marks and are sometimes accompanied by the Indian word for foreigner...or Foreign manufacture.. FARANGI. Are these curved strikes moon shapes? Do the three dots mean anything and are they related to the tradition of placing dots on a blade filled with golden coloured metal such as brass. Are they representative of the Fleur de Lys? Given that a lot of Indian blades were made in Europe where were these marks placed...and what were the technicalities of striking the marks?

Below are examples of all the above including dots on the blade and hilt and gold coloured dots on the tip ...The chart shows dot and hogsback stamps and accompaying names including Ferrera, Genoa and hogsback (sickle /eyelash) accompanied by dots only. One blade shows a moon flanked by three crosses on each side...Do the two things mean the same thing; dots for crosses and vice versa?

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=16083 gives a reasonable set of clues ... and compliments this thread.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Further examples; Showing dots on blades, hilts and scabbards along with and without eyelash marks with and without famous name strikes. Since astrology was fairly strong it follows that the dots could be stars, planets, suns and thus interchangeable (as seen above ) with crosses. Below are a number of swords including Khanda, Tulvar, Shiavona, Takouba, Turkish Kilij, Flysa and even Kukhri...

The Chechens regarded the sickle mark blades as superior and https://books.google.com.om/books?id...blades&f=false describes that they nicknamed them as bitemarks... The Armenians largely cornered the Indian market for imported European blades so it can be seen that they were the main transmission of this type of decorated blade originating in Genoa to India.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Here is the blade of an Algerian Nimcha...with the bite marks (hogs back eyelash marks) from what is generally agreed as Genoan origin. (Penciled in the margin; "It may be said that the Algerian and Moroccan Nimcha were very similar and though I have seen elaborate hilts on Algerian including clossonne/enamel and in this case tortoise shell the two forms are virtually identical.)

Please see Swords in the Deccan in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: Their Manufacture and the Influence of European Imports
Robert Elgood; for an excellent view of how Genoan weapons found their way via Germany to India with "Armenian market savvy dealers" and thus the famous blademark entered India.