hi,
again, purely speculative and only an opinion. i have handled a few of these and they are of a type. most of them had similar basket hilts, so i dont feel its a marriage (unless evidence hints that way). also, if you ignore the blade, and judge the hilt, it seems late 18thC and not any earlier. tirri was not privy to any information past personal opinion, and his opinion is as valid as mine, but i just dont agree with it (the nature of speculation).
if it werent for the hilt i would think it a 19thC ceremonial piece. the hilt form hints at an earlier age. i dont find it plausable that a collection of these all had their hilts changed in a similar way, so i am going with the assumption that if i feel the hilt is 18thC, then the blade is probably of a same age.
even with this age, i still feel it was of a ceremonial origin. duplicating an opinion of what a 'holy' sword looked like hints at this, as i dont feel that battle asthetics would be sacrificed for a holy look.
i cant judge martial aspects, as i have never held an interest or opinion on this, and others are more suited to do so. i dont hold to opinions on the split or hole being created as a sword catcher as this thought process doesnt exist on any other swords of this culture, so why this one?
the hilt is southern but i cant think of which region would produce such a weapon. the presence of the split indicates an islamic nature. it is not deccani at all, so which culture embraced islam in the south. a mystery. maybe it is maharathan and the split being a zulfigar is misleading. or, maybe they are from a part of the south that embraced islam, but were not powerful enough to leave an imprint on history. we too easily assume an origin of known cultures, and ignore the smaller, less distinct ones.
i put this type of weapon in the same catgegory as huge teghas (with a t-section back-edge) ie made for a use other than fighting.
they dont exist in large numbers so it was not a 'fashionable' weapon.
sorry i cant offer more.
|