In accord with Jens' 'perspective':
From "Islamic Swords and Swordsmiths" ( Unsal Yucel, Istanbul, 2001, pp.10-11);
"...the problem of preservation was further exacerbated by the fact that five hundred years ago most medieval European and Islamic swords were valued primarily for their metal.
Little did they know then that these weapons would be deemed of immense historical importance today. Indeed it is pure chance that some even survived. In those days, good steel for swords was an extremely valuable commodity, obtainable only at great expense and effort. Therefore it is not surprising that it was customary among the Ottoman's to MELT DOWN AND REFORGE swords acquired as booty during war, or that they subjected the swords of their ancestors to the same fate".
It is noted further that during the reign of Sultan Mahmud II (1808-39) as he disbanded Janissaries to develop a new, more Europeanized standing army, the Arsenal (in Istanbul) lost its function and became a storehouse for old weapons. As mail and swords etc. were giving way to firearms and artillery, these materials which had been stored rather than being melted down simply sat rusting and in sorry state. It seems I read that often there were heaps of armor etc used as ballast in ships where on arrival in America the metal was simply scrapped. Many fortunate collectors grabbed this stuff for literally pennies.
While swords and edged weapons of earlier times were as noted, melted down, good numbers of still serviceable weapons were stored away in arsenals for possible ersatz use in future call. Unusual items such as the tusk swords, which would have been more in a novelty category would not have been considered worth keeping, especially as elephants in warfare had waned.
If these existed in any number, as has been suggested, it is most likely they fell into the scrap heap, and any which survived (QED) are few.
Regarding the very munitions grade example of apparent tusk sword shown as from the MET, every indication is that these would indeed be in accord with usable weapons. Whether effective or not, their character suggests they were intended for attachment to a tusk. As has been noted earlier, these are quite different than the other examples which seem more for parade or ceremonial use, particularly the Mughal examples from Mysore, which are so noted in Richardson (1999).
It does seem that, again using the term 'perspective' , as noted in one of my earlier posts an item from Elgood (2004) describing item #830 from the Tanjore armory which was apparantly a 'pata' (puttah) and thought to be wielded in an elephants trunk. Clearly the author of this notation had little understanding of Indian arms, and as discussed previously, the notion of an elephant with a sword in its trunk is fanciful, of not in my opinion, ridiculous.
How many contemporary writers might have seen swords such as pata, and presumed them to be elephant swords, and other writers carrying the notion further, presumed them to be mounted on tusks?
|