[kai]

Hello Jim,

Thanks a lot for bearing with us and your additional thoughts!

The presence of the tunkou on this is notable, and would seem indeed to recall Central Asian and perhaps Ottoman influence. We have seen that the tunkou feature is well diffused through Turkic spheres, it is not as commonly seen in this style in Afghanistan and India, though similar koftgari applications are of course known.

BTW, is there any scholarly study linking the koftgari with the real tunkou-like elements?

The tunkou it seems according to scholars such as David Nicolle and Philip Tom, was indeed most likely intended for securing the sword in its scabbard. In the case of numbers of Chinese sword and others with the feature on the edge rather than back near the guard, it is presumed to have acted as an added ricasso for finger protection.

I agree that this may be the reason for the original and later Chinese take on this (with the main element along the cutting edge). The ricasso of Indian blades will pretty much fulfil the same functions though.

I can also see that thickening the blade along the edge may help to make an easier fitting scabbard and, especially, help avoiding wear from heavy use.

However, I don't see any advantage for scabbard construction if pretty much only the back of the sword blade is thickened. For wootz blades as in the other thread this feature certainly is important to securely attach the hilt (short of functional alternatives found in Indian swords).

In most cases, swords without the tunkou seem to rely on the langet for placement and securing the sword in its scabbard.

The langet is certainly another good approach. However, a global comparison shows the majority of swords without any dedicated "locking" mechanism and good workmanship seems to go a long way in crafting scabbards with excellent fit and secure carrying/wear as well as nice draw characteristics.

Regards,
Kai