European bladed takouba

Wodimi · 22nd December 2011, 09:02 PM

Hi Iain,

if the cross mark is no imitation, will say an original mark, than it makes no sense to me, that the blade could be earlier than 1590. Why should a German (Solingen) blacksmith made his sign on the blade, if he don't made the blade. I think the people at that time are very proud for their work and would not made their mark on an older used blade, no no. The other way had happen, in the 15./16 Cent. there are German sword makers who copy for example this ball with a cross, a Swiss mark from the 10.Cent., but very famous for their quality.

It makes more sense, if the blade is not so old, that somebody later made this mark because this quality European blades had for sure a bigger value and the believe of the people maybe also more power with such (magic) signs. This you can read in documents from Henry Lhote and also Jean Gabus told so. That's the reason why I asked for your feeling, original or later attached mark.

The question Hausa or Tuareg......have you copper parts at your new beautiful sword? If not, it would be for me one point for Hausa origin, because Tuareg normal use all three materials, iron, brass and copper.

only some thoughts.

Merry Christmas to all
Wolf

Iain · 22nd December 2011, 09:09 PM

Hi Wolf,

Probably we have a small misunderstanding. I am sure fairly sure it is an original mark and my understanding is this is an old symbol. I don't see why it could only be attributed to 1590? Are there any more details in your book you found the mark in? For example a photo of a blade from around 1590 with the mark? Its something like the running wolf maybe or the cross and orb, you can find many versions in different periods, so just because there is one match from 1590 doesn't mean it can't be the same mark older or newer - like you said copies of marks from the 10 or 11th centuries.

There is also the question of the second mark, I cannot find very much information about it.

I am familiar with the practice of copied marks for talismanic value but I honestly don't think this is one of those cases. I am about 99% sure original.

So I agree it is not a mark that some smith put on an old blade, it is original to the blade.

No copper, but I have to say you don't always find copper. You can look at these two old swords from Louis-Pierre: http://blade.japet.com/takouba.htm these are absolutely Tuareg swords. So I am still not sure. It could also be from Bornu regions...

Tim Simmons · 22nd December 2011, 09:14 PM

We could be getting uncomfortably close to Richard Widmark and "The Long Ships"?

Iain · 22nd December 2011, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

We could be getting uncomfortably close to Richard Widmark and "The Long Ships"?

Must say the reference is going over my head at the moment Tim?

Lee · 22nd December 2011, 10:41 PM

I favor that this takouba has a 14th or 15th century European blade based upon the nature of the marks and the appearance of the background steel.

I have known so many owners certain they had a medieval European blade remounted as a kaskara or takouba. This is the first one, albeit based upon pictures, that I believe in. So my certainty in dismissing these claims on general principal and following the experience of Briggs is now broken.

...Unless it is a brilliant forgery targeted to set me drooling all over myself, but I do not think so.

Iain · 22nd December 2011, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee

I favor that this takouba has a 14th or 15th century European blade based upon the nature of the marks and the appearance of the background steel.

I have known so many owners certain they had a medieval European blade remounted as a kaskara or takouba. This is the first one, albeit based upon pictures, that I believe in. So my certainty in dismissing these claims on general principal and following the experience of Briggs is now broken.

...Unless it is a brilliant forgery targeted to set me drooling all over myself, but I do not think so.

Just to add to this... those that know my history with takouba will know I am usually the first to chuck out any ideas of medieval blades and extremely critical of blade marks and perhaps overly prone to suggesting native copies. To be honest I bought this piece with the vague hopes the blade might be 17th century at best. To that end I am not interested dates just for the sake of dates, if anyone really wants to know I bought this because of the pommel...

However I have to say, even with relatively limited experience this one is different, in look, feel and presence.

I'm still intrigued by the second mark, the little sword like one...

Jim McDougall · 23rd December 2011, 01:45 AM

This is absolutely amazing! and well said by Lee...the Holy Grail of takoubas... I am very much in accord with his observations. Actually, there are few who can match Lee's knowledge and expertise on medieval blades and thier metallurgy. The character of the metal and shape of the well worn blades' fullering suggests a quite early blade, and these lattened markings are most certainly European. Actually these 'cross fourchee' correspond to the type markings that were placed on blades in the times when ordnance and war materials were typically controlled by the Bishop in church establishments.
Often these type crosses were a component of the signature or marks of those individuals, and seem to have become adopted singly as a kind of blessing or talismanic imbuement.

The marking itself, much as in the case of most others, is recorded in various compilations of markings as shown along with a date, which is more of a presumed date or period than accurately recorded notation. Most of these are taken from collected weapons and the approximate period of use and so on are captioned with them. These were of course transcribed into many subsequent works of later writers, so while of course plausible, they must be regarded as largely speculative unless they can be proven with wider range of provenanced examples carrying similar marks.

It has been me understanding that the origins of the cross and orb remain unclear as well as the period which they came into use. I believe the Swiss attribution derives most likely from the many Landsknecht blades which had these and other cross oriented markings as previously noted. Most of these of course were probably from German workshops.

How this early blade, which can likely predate the 16th century, perhaps even some time earlier, came to be in Saharan regions can only of course be speculated. It is well worn and clearly an esteemed blade which seems to have likely been handed down for many generations. It has been refurbished by a skilled smith, and the care in emplacing the blade into the bolstering block forte with even the detail of the dentated edge shows it was done for an important figure in my perception. The old style of hilt as noted by Iain suggests its last 'incarnation' was some time ago, and the sword has probably been 'static' for a very long time.

This is a breathtaking sword Iain!!! and all the more so because it is quite literally a historic icon and clearly holds so many of the secrets of these Saharan swords. Thank you so much for sharing it here!!!

All the very best,
Jim

Jim McDougall · 26th December 2011, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodimi

Hi Iain,

if the cross mark is no imitation, will say an original mark, than it makes no sense to me, that the blade could be earlier than 1590. Why should a German (Solingen) blacksmith made his sign on the blade, if he don't made the blade. I think the people at that time are very proud for their work and would not made their mark on an older used blade, no no. The other way had happen, in the 15./16 Cent. there are German sword makers who copy for example this ball with a cross, a Swiss mark from the 10.Cent., but very famous for their quality.

It makes more sense, if the blade is not so old, that somebody later made this mark because this quality European blades had for sure a bigger value and the believe of the people maybe also more power with such (magic) signs. This you can read in documents from Henry Lhote and also Jean Gabus told so. That's the reason why I asked for your feeling, original or later attached mark.

The question Hausa or Tuareg......have you copper parts at your new beautiful sword? If not, it would be for me one point for Hausa origin, because Tuareg normal use all three materials, iron, brass and copper.

only some thoughts.

Merry Christmas to all
Wolf

While not relevant to the marking on this sword directly (though the cross enclosed withing a circle may be perceived as a variant I suppose)...I am intrigued by the observation that the cross and orb is a Swiss mark from the 10th century. The marking indeed was used by German makers, but I am wondering what Swiss makers this refers to.

I have been searching through references and finally found a comment in Briggs (1965) citing Henri Lhote, who in 1954 wrote "...the cross and orb originated as a Swiss mark applied to blades made in Vienne in France, which was widely copied by German armourers in 15th and 16th c. In point of fact it seems to have been essentially a German mark".
In another reference to work by Lhote, Briggs is curious as to how he arrived at the conclusion that copper and brass inlaid markings are proof that these had to have been added in Africa, as there was no tradition in Europe for this practice with these metals? There was, the term in Europe was 'latten' and the practice dates into the early centuries of blade production.

I am truly curious on 10th century use of the marks by the Swiss and if for the sake of accuracy we might know what references state this. I have been under the impression, much as Briggs apparantly, that these cross and orb marks were used by Solingen makers primarily.

Iain · 26th December 2011, 08:36 PM

Still doing as much reading as possible, but thanks to a kind chap on a more European oriented forum, I was pointed to this sword that Christies auctioned off. Mid 14th century, same type of cross, same type of incised lines. Similar blade profile.

http://www.armsandarmourforum.com/fo...der-the-hammer

A photo of the mark attached here as well for forum archives. There are other examples as well I am finding, some with the double circles as in this case.

In light of this, I can only say I think Lee (and Jim) have been spot on and I am quite happy about being able to realistically say I think my example should date mid to late 14th century.

Jim McDougall · 26th December 2011, 10:26 PM

Thank you very much Iain!
I think we can well support probable 14th century period conservatively for your blade, and that is powerfully exciting. I really appreciate your keeping additions current for the purpose of enhancing the archival content here.

While I am often addressing the much wider populus of readers who clearly use this material, I know that those of us who participate actively use this material constantly as well. The goal here is not who can provide the best answers, but for us all to contribute as much as possible to better compile accurate ones.

I always hope that eventually those reading will join as share information we have not yet touched on, or as in the case of uncited or unreferenced material presented may offer the source from which these comments were obtained.

All the best,
Jim

TVV · 27th December 2011, 12:44 AM

Iain, while I cannot add much to the discussion, I just want to congratulate you on what is undoubtedly an amazing find. Given all your effort and research into takoubas and weapons from the Western Sahel, this is most deserved. Merry Christmas!
Teodor

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 27th December 2011, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVV

Iain, while I cannot add much to the discussion, I just want to congratulate you on what is undoubtedly an amazing find. Given all your effort and research into takoubas and weapons from the Western Sahel, this is most deserved. Merry Christmas!
Teodor

Salaams All ~!! .... Absolutely !!!!!

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Iain · 27th December 2011, 09:03 AM

Hi Jim,

Yes, I think the 14th century date is fairly supportable now. The twin circles seems to have been popular as well as I've seen a few now (all Alexandria related).

Teodor and Ibrahiim,

Thank you for the kind words.

It was pure luck, but the best Christmas I can remember in quite some time.

I wanted to continue with the discussion a bit now that the blade has been pretty thoroughly commented on.

While the 1365 invasion by Peter of Cyprus is probably the most well known of the late crusades, the Mahdian Crusade should also be mentioned. A 1390 campaign against the pirate stronghold on the Tunisian coast. Besides this various other small campaigns and actions on Malta, Cyprus or the Italian commercial cities like Genoa could account for such a blade arriving in N. Africa and then on, into the Sahel proper.

But I wanted to talk about the hilt on this sword, which, putting aside the blade for the moment, is equally worthy of discussion.

The pommel is of the older oval type and interestingly is curved on the inside to fit the palm of your hand. Made of two halves, the top features a single strap of iron and a cap of brass in a rectangular shape. It is the most comfortable and hand fitting pommel I've seen so far.

The handle is ten sided and very solid. Almost certainly originally covered in leather.

The guard appears to be a single piece of iron forming both sides of the guard and a second piece on the top forming the ends and the top slot for the blade. This differs from the usual method of wrapping two pieces around the blade to form the guard. This in constrast this has clean, square edges and is more solid. I would say this has a chance to be an 18th century hilt and mount judging by the early 19th century mounts we can compare it with.

I still need to do a bit of derusting, there are some pits and built up dark areas on the blade, but knowing the age of it now, I am going slowly and carefully.

Jim McDougall · 28th December 2011, 06:50 PM

Intrigued by this blade, I have been on a fact finding mission to try to learn more on the history surrounding these medieval swords and these markings, and trying to also better understand the presence of this blade in North Africa.
I think that the early hilt style noted by Iain is significantly placed in possibly 18th century, early 19th though I am not nearly as clear on dating these so I would defer to his judgement. What I am trying to determine is when this blade, which seems to be at this point probably a 14th century example, may have entered the North African sphere.

As has been shown, the late crusades swords which survive mostly were presented to the arsenal at Alexandria with most of them apparantly entering those holdings as donations presented by the amirs. It seems understandable that these were afforded this extra attention as they were considered as trophies and proudly emplaced, most seem to have been donated between 1367 and 1467 AD (Kalus, 1982).

The dual concentric rings encircling the cross fourchee seem to be present on a number of these, with several accompanied by the running wolf. Since the terminus ante quem for these marks on the blade of I believe a couple of these is 1408 (the death of one donating amir) with the naskh inscriptions showing that amir as 'in the time of'. ...we can establish the markings used accordingly.

It is suggested that most of these blades were probably made in Milan (Boeheim, 1890, suggests the marking with single circle is probably Italian and in use as late as 14th-15th c.). The examples with the crudely chiseled 'quadraped' or running wolf (pre 1408) are quite probably Italian interpretations of the Passau mark....Italy and Germany were competitors in the arms market and as Sir James Mann (1962) points out, often spuriously used each others markings.
These Italian blades certainly had potential to later enter trade networks to North Africa as it is noted that Venice maintained trade with Mamluk Egypt. It seems clear that this trade continued post crusades of course, so the entry of these medieval blades into Mamluk possession need not have been through combat, but would certainly have been attractive reflecting the trophy type presence of those earlier examples which were. Many of these quite possibly entered the general population in Egypt for some time afterwards and even blades which had reached 'surplus' or obsolete status probably entered the North African littoral sometime indeterminately after thier manufacture. It was not at all uncommon for somewhat antiquated materials to end up entering colonial use in thier more remote circumstances or trade stock of merchants supplying these regions.

The Mamluks in Egypt were feudally in control until thier clandestine massacre by Muhammed Ali Pasha in Cairo in 1811, though many of them escaped to Sennar in Sudan to the south. As I understand, there had already been numbers of the Mamluks emplaced in these regions and engaged in the slave trade.
I am wondering if perhaps this medieval blade had entered the Mamluk reign and moved southward into Sudan either before or as result of the events of 1811. If it had entered the slave trade areas in Sudan, it seems not only likely but probable, that it may have been among trade materials, especially if it had been compromised by age or damage already.

In this scenario, the blade was appointed with the interesting collar to bolster the blade, and has clearly been ground to Tuareg or Hausa preferred profiles. With tradition of these being handed over and refurbished through generations, it seems possible it may have become static in early times and revered as a heirloom no longer for use, perhaps around end of the 18th to early 19th c.

Just my thoughts for possible scenario.

22nd December 2011, 10:41 PM	#5
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 949	Holy Grail of Takouba I favor that this takouba has a 14th or 15th century European blade based upon the nature of the marks and the appearance of the background steel. I have known so many owners certain they had a medieval European blade remounted as a kaskara or takouba. This is the first one, albeit based upon pictures, that I believe in. So my certainty in dismissing these claims on general principal and following the experience of Briggs is now broken. ...Unless it is a brilliant forgery targeted to set me drooling all over myself, but I do not think so.

26th December 2011, 08:36 PM	#9
Iain Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Olomouc Posts: 1,719	Still doing as much reading as possible, but thanks to a kind chap on a more European oriented forum, I was pointed to this sword that Christies auctioned off. Mid 14th century, same type of cross, same type of incised lines. Similar blade profile. http://www.armsandarmourforum.com/fo...der-the-hammer A photo of the mark attached here as well for forum archives. There are other examples as well I am finding, some with the double circles as in this case. In light of this, I can only say I think Lee (and Jim) have been spot on and I am quite happy about being able to realistically say I think my example should date mid to late 14th century. Attached Images Last edited by Iain; 26th December 2011 at 08:46 PM. Reason: adding photo

22nd December 2011, 09:02 PM	#1
Wodimi Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 75	Hi Iain, if the cross mark is no imitation, will say an original mark, than it makes no sense to me, that the blade could be earlier than 1590. Why should a German (Solingen) blacksmith made his sign on the blade, if he don't made the blade. I think the people at that time are very proud for their work and would not made their mark on an older used blade, no no. The other way had happen, in the 15./16 Cent. there are German sword makers who copy for example this ball with a cross, a Swiss mark from the 10.Cent., but very famous for their quality. It makes more sense, if the blade is not so old, that somebody later made this mark because this quality European blades had for sure a bigger value and the believe of the people maybe also more power with such (magic) signs. This you can read in documents from Henry Lhote and also Jean Gabus told so. That's the reason why I asked for your feeling, original or later attached mark. The question Hausa or Tuareg......have you copper parts at your new beautiful sword? If not, it would be for me one point for Hausa origin, because Tuareg normal use all three materials, iron, brass and copper. only some thoughts. Merry Christmas to all Wolf

22nd December 2011, 09:09 PM	#2
Iain Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Olomouc Posts: 1,719	Hi Wolf, Probably we have a small misunderstanding. I am sure fairly sure it is an original mark and my understanding is this is an old symbol. I don't see why it could only be attributed to 1590? Are there any more details in your book you found the mark in? For example a photo of a blade from around 1590 with the mark? Its something like the running wolf maybe or the cross and orb, you can find many versions in different periods, so just because there is one match from 1590 doesn't mean it can't be the same mark older or newer - like you said copies of marks from the 10 or 11th centuries. There is also the question of the second mark, I cannot find very much information about it. I am familiar with the practice of copied marks for talismanic value but I honestly don't think this is one of those cases. I am about 99% sure original. So I agree it is not a mark that some smith put on an old blade, it is original to the blade. No copper, but I have to say you don't always find copper. You can look at these two old swords from Louis-Pierre: http://blade.japet.com/takouba.htm these are absolutely Tuareg swords. So I am still not sure. It could also be from Bornu regions...

22nd December 2011, 09:14 PM	#3
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,891	We could be getting uncomfortably close to Richard Widmark and "The Long Ships"?

23rd December 2011, 01:45 AM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,592	This is absolutely amazing! and well said by Lee...the Holy Grail of takoubas... I am very much in accord with his observations. Actually, there are few who can match Lee's knowledge and expertise on medieval blades and thier metallurgy. The character of the metal and shape of the well worn blades' fullering suggests a quite early blade, and these lattened markings are most certainly European. Actually these 'cross fourchee' correspond to the type markings that were placed on blades in the times when ordnance and war materials were typically controlled by the Bishop in church establishments. Often these type crosses were a component of the signature or marks of those individuals, and seem to have become adopted singly as a kind of blessing or talismanic imbuement. The marking itself, much as in the case of most others, is recorded in various compilations of markings as shown along with a date, which is more of a presumed date or period than accurately recorded notation. Most of these are taken from collected weapons and the approximate period of use and so on are captioned with them. These were of course transcribed into many subsequent works of later writers, so while of course plausible, they must be regarded as largely speculative unless they can be proven with wider range of provenanced examples carrying similar marks. It has been me understanding that the origins of the cross and orb remain unclear as well as the period which they came into use. I believe the Swiss attribution derives most likely from the many Landsknecht blades which had these and other cross oriented markings as previously noted. Most of these of course were probably from German workshops. How this early blade, which can likely predate the 16th century, perhaps even some time earlier, came to be in Saharan regions can only of course be speculated. It is well worn and clearly an esteemed blade which seems to have likely been handed down for many generations. It has been refurbished by a skilled smith, and the care in emplacing the blade into the bolstering block forte with even the detail of the dentated edge shows it was done for an important figure in my perception. The old style of hilt as noted by Iain suggests its last 'incarnation' was some time ago, and the sword has probably been 'static' for a very long time. This is a breathtaking sword Iain!!! and all the more so because it is quite literally a historic icon and clearly holds so many of the secrets of these Saharan swords. Thank you so much for sharing it here!!! All the very best, Jim

26th December 2011, 10:26 PM	#10
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,592	Thank you very much Iain! I think we can well support probable 14th century period conservatively for your blade, and that is powerfully exciting. I really appreciate your keeping additions current for the purpose of enhancing the archival content here. While I am often addressing the much wider populus of readers who clearly use this material, I know that those of us who participate actively use this material constantly as well. The goal here is not who can provide the best answers, but for us all to contribute as much as possible to better compile accurate ones. I always hope that eventually those reading will join as share information we have not yet touched on, or as in the case of uncited or unreferenced material presented may offer the source from which these comments were obtained. All the best, Jim

27th December 2011, 12:44 AM	#11
TVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 1,717	Iain, while I cannot add much to the discussion, I just want to congratulate you on what is undoubtedly an amazing find. Given all your effort and research into takoubas and weapons from the Western Sahel, this is most deserved. Merry Christmas! Teodor

27th December 2011, 09:03 AM	#13
Iain Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Olomouc Posts: 1,719	Hi Jim, Yes, I think the 14th century date is fairly supportable now. The twin circles seems to have been popular as well as I've seen a few now (all Alexandria related). Teodor and Ibrahiim, Thank you for the kind words. It was pure luck, but the best Christmas I can remember in quite some time. I wanted to continue with the discussion a bit now that the blade has been pretty thoroughly commented on. While the 1365 invasion by Peter of Cyprus is probably the most well known of the late crusades, the Mahdian Crusade should also be mentioned. A 1390 campaign against the pirate stronghold on the Tunisian coast. Besides this various other small campaigns and actions on Malta, Cyprus or the Italian commercial cities like Genoa could account for such a blade arriving in N. Africa and then on, into the Sahel proper. But I wanted to talk about the hilt on this sword, which, putting aside the blade for the moment, is equally worthy of discussion. The pommel is of the older oval type and interestingly is curved on the inside to fit the palm of your hand. Made of two halves, the top features a single strap of iron and a cap of brass in a rectangular shape. It is the most comfortable and hand fitting pommel I've seen so far. The handle is ten sided and very solid. Almost certainly originally covered in leather. The guard appears to be a single piece of iron forming both sides of the guard and a second piece on the top forming the ends and the top slot for the blade. This differs from the usual method of wrapping two pieces around the blade to form the guard. This in constrast this has clean, square edges and is more solid. I would say this has a chance to be an 18th century hilt and mount judging by the early 19th century mounts we can compare it with. I still need to do a bit of derusting, there are some pits and built up dark areas on the blade, but knowing the age of it now, I am going slowly and carefully.

28th December 2011, 06:50 PM	#14
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,592	Intrigued by this blade, I have been on a fact finding mission to try to learn more on the history surrounding these medieval swords and these markings, and trying to also better understand the presence of this blade in North Africa. I think that the early hilt style noted by Iain is significantly placed in possibly 18th century, early 19th though I am not nearly as clear on dating these so I would defer to his judgement. What I am trying to determine is when this blade, which seems to be at this point probably a 14th century example, may have entered the North African sphere. As has been shown, the late crusades swords which survive mostly were presented to the arsenal at Alexandria with most of them apparantly entering those holdings as donations presented by the amirs. It seems understandable that these were afforded this extra attention as they were considered as trophies and proudly emplaced, most seem to have been donated between 1367 and 1467 AD (Kalus, 1982). The dual concentric rings encircling the cross fourchee seem to be present on a number of these, with several accompanied by the running wolf. Since the terminus ante quem for these marks on the blade of I believe a couple of these is 1408 (the death of one donating amir) with the naskh inscriptions showing that amir as 'in the time of'. ...we can establish the markings used accordingly. It is suggested that most of these blades were probably made in Milan (Boeheim, 1890, suggests the marking with single circle is probably Italian and in use as late as 14th-15th c.). The examples with the crudely chiseled 'quadraped' or running wolf (pre 1408) are quite probably Italian interpretations of the Passau mark....Italy and Germany were competitors in the arms market and as Sir James Mann (1962) points out, often spuriously used each others markings. These Italian blades certainly had potential to later enter trade networks to North Africa as it is noted that Venice maintained trade with Mamluk Egypt. It seems clear that this trade continued post crusades of course, so the entry of these medieval blades into Mamluk possession need not have been through combat, but would certainly have been attractive reflecting the trophy type presence of those earlier examples which were. Many of these quite possibly entered the general population in Egypt for some time afterwards and even blades which had reached 'surplus' or obsolete status probably entered the North African littoral sometime indeterminately after thier manufacture. It was not at all uncommon for somewhat antiquated materials to end up entering colonial use in thier more remote circumstances or trade stock of merchants supplying these regions. The Mamluks in Egypt were feudally in control until thier clandestine massacre by Muhammed Ali Pasha in Cairo in 1811, though many of them escaped to Sennar in Sudan to the south. As I understand, there had already been numbers of the Mamluks emplaced in these regions and engaged in the slave trade. I am wondering if perhaps this medieval blade had entered the Mamluk reign and moved southward into Sudan either before or as result of the events of 1811. If it had entered the slave trade areas in Sudan, it seems not only likely but probable, that it may have been among trade materials, especially if it had been compromised by age or damage already. In this scenario, the blade was appointed with the interesting collar to bolster the blade, and has clearly been ground to Tuareg or Hausa preferred profiles. With tradition of these being handed over and refurbished through generations, it seems possible it may have become static in early times and revered as a heirloom no longer for use, perhaps around end of the 18th to early 19th c. Just my thoughts for possible scenario.