|  | 
|  | 
|  11th December 2004, 07:19 PM | #1 | |
| Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada 
					Posts: 473
				 |   Quote: 
 Can someone refresh my memory? I thought I read that the weapons with plain wood hilts were considered tools and not taxed or taken by the Russians / Ottoman, while the ornate hilts where considered weapons instead of tools and were. I can't for the life of me remember where (or even if i read this). Thanks Jeff | |
|   |   | 
|  11th December 2004, 07:48 PM | #2 | 
| Member Join Date: Dec 2004 
					Posts: 655
				 |   
			
			It's true in some sence, however there is a different reason for the fact that most damascus blades have simple hilts - they were made prior to 1860, prior to the point when Kubachi hilts and scabbards became "must have" in order to sell it.
		 | 
|   |   | 
|  11th December 2004, 08:01 PM | #3 | 
| Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Athens Greece 
					Posts: 479
				 |   
			
			Ariel You have right that late 19th century kindjal became more asthetic than useful objects. But they still could kill someone in close combat or tavern fight. It is the same that happened to yataghans, cretan knifes etc. We know from history books that some greek guerillas till the end of WWII had swords and big knifes and they USED them in battles.   Dr Jones Thank you for the picture. It is amazing. Any other damascus kindjal? | 
|   |   | 
|  11th December 2004, 09:28 PM | #4 | 
| Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe 
					Posts: 2,718
				 |   
			
			Many are in closed private collections. Jens | 
|   |   | 
|  12th December 2004, 03:23 AM | #5 | 
| Member Join Date: Dec 2004 
					Posts: 655
				 |   
			
			I do apologize if my previous posts where poorly mannered - I'm still jelous like hell, this guy is such a beauty !
		 | 
|   |   | 
|  12th December 2004, 05:28 PM | #6 | 
| EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA 
					Posts: 968
				 |  Some follow-up details on my example pictured above 
			
			The blade on the one I posted above is just over 36 cm / 14 inches in length and just under 4.5 cm / 1.75 inches wide at the base. The fullers are so deep in this 4.5 mm thick blade that in just a few foci, light will pass through a few pinprick sized holes in the blade where fuller meets fuller. The smith obviously had to remove a lot of metal and did so with great precision. The hilt, though plain, may well be made of rhino horn and is very well shaped and fitted. The iron rivets are nicely faceted and over a cm high. I have never had a scabbard, so unfortunately, this exceedingly sharp dagger is sheathed in newspaper bound with masking tape.   I found it at an arms fair several decades ago; I was told that it was part of a collection of pattern-welded items that was being dispersed. | 
|   |   | 
|  12th December 2004, 05:54 PM | #7 | 
| Member Join Date: Dec 2004 
					Posts: 655
				 |   
			
			Sorry, it's most likely not a rhino horn - I've never seen those used by caucasians. What really puzzles me is that this piece is unsigned - Dagestanians usually do sign their pieces.
		 | 
|   |   | 
|  6th September 2008, 01:03 AM | #8 | |
| Member Join Date: Jan 2007 
					Posts: 181
				 |   Quote: 
   | |
|   |   | 
|  | 
| 
 | 
 |