[Peter Bosman]

Buenas KS

Remember your collected thread on the Halstatt C sword types?
Several came with ´moustache´ type end chapes. Personally I think áll of this chape was méant as a chape; functionally. The obvious question than becomes: ´why such a wide scabbard´?´
Have a look at the golden quiver ´chape´.....

The line along which I am thinking simply does not see the sword as a cavalry weapon, not even when is gets long enough to be of any use. I think is was a very important status symbol fírst.
After all, not even the feudal knights used the sword as much as we have generally come to believe.
The sword for some reason gives ´street cred´, is considered ´noble´, has always been a valuable gift among kings but as a weapon for the moúnted man??
I find it highly illusttrative that p.e. the mamluk furusiya manuls praise the sword as the unparalleled noble arm yet it´s tactical role is minimal and in text a mere few percent
Please note I am referring ónly to it´s worth while mounted.

Anyway: I will try to make a double edged blade with B-lobed hilt and antennae pommel. I am not sure yet wether to use bronze or iron. The grip will be wood simply because I like wood
I have three rasps so I will make all three different like the scythian blades appearantly were.

peter

[Jean Henri Chandler]

I don't think these people carried any weapons which didn't have a very practical use, as a rule. Just because you may not often cut while riding (not so easy to fight from horseback with no saddle) doesn't mean you would carry a weapon to use dismounted. But we really don't know how they fought or how they used these weapons.

You often see those kinds of 'it's just for show' arguments brought up about various weapons or other kit in various times, and it usually turns out to be some very pragmatic reason. Steppe nomads in particular didn't carry around a lot of uneccessary junk with them, IMO.


J

[Peter Bosman]

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

[Peter Bosman]

As stated quite clearly Jeroen my remarks are about mounted use. On foot an axe would be just a effective ;-)
A crucial point from the riders viewpoint is that a long scabbard is awkward: very awkward, impossibly awkward.
I experience that the single quiver is logical and two quivers only possible with a proper saddle and even then only if you need a quiver for arrows only because you want to carry many.

The publication of Teuwen suggests that swords were perhaps status symbols only too.
Also think about torques which were universal for over a millennium from the british isles all the way to the borders of china: status only.
I think it is not incorrect to look at the US marine of today who's officers carry a mamluk sabre as a parallel.
Your remark about the use of charriots is to the point. It may very well be that the status guys rode in the charriots and wore swords.

At least untill proper saddles were develloped I cannot see the mounted warrior carry a longish blade, only a relatively short ' dagger' strapper to the (right) leg.
Even with a proper saddle a long blade remains VERY awkward an seriously hinders both rider and horse in their agility. This is however only relevant if rider and horse are asked to employ their maximum agility. Maybe, but that is a different line of thought, the use of the iron bit was a factor. There is little doubt this metal bit was taken over from chariots and may have been an important indirect and indeliberate influance because it affects the way the horse responds to signals.

If you look at the mauretani, the numidian cavalry you can see the archetypical light cavalry like it was for millennia untill the late iron age/ roman period. The carried spears and sometimes a dagger like short sword. ONLY their king(s) wore a long(ish) blade.
They are quite interesting as the charriot was know to them as were bow and arrows. Both were used (depicted in Tassili n' ajer) but they appearantly found it more efficient n'ot to use them and they were very effectively employed untill the collaps of the western roman empire.

Although the horse bow has a lot of fame not al light mounted warriors used them even when they had access to them. Not even when they had a proper saddle. I find this highly illustrative of why a long sword scabbard would not be carried.

My point is that I think we have an incorrect viewpoint about the sword in cavalry.

Right, about the 'moustache' scabbard. I suspect that only the guys in charriots ' wore' swords and I think this chape had a function in relation with this and/or a quiver.
I have a terrain worthy two wheeled light buggy and wether standing or sitting cannot imagine the chieftain(s) would carry a word strapped to their waist only.

So, my thought are that:
1. mounted warriors in general did not carry long sword blades untill well into the roman age and then only as a compromise.
2. the ' moustache' scabbard was a charriot adaptation
3. long(er) bladed swords were VERY important as a status expression

peter

[Peter Bosman]

Maybe this thread gets too far off topic so I have split this line and it the moderators feel it appropriate can move it. The thread I take up now certainly goes beyond ' mere' arms. Arms are a product of society; a representation.

About ' function'.

There is a very interesting discussion going on about pre-clovis versus clovis first.
One thing that is clear is that some (fruted) designs were not funtional yet an investment in time and skill. Also quite a few points, blades and BLADES have been found (all over the world) that were not funcional as weapons or tools yet represented a huge investment in material, time and skill.

There is an equivalent is stone and bronze axe heads. Several will not have been usefull as such.

Undoubted examples of non-functional weapons abound. Non functional as a weapon that is. The investment in materials, time and skill proves an extremely important role.
Why would swords have been otherwise? Especially since we know that swords represented more than their functionality. Why would (some or more) swords not have primairily represented a non functional role?

I would like to point out a tricky point. The representations in art may not be taken of their face value: it was not 'independant'. They were produced on order and payed for. The customer did not repesent the average society and will have had an agenda.
We are all very aware that a painting of say Napoleon was meant to be displayed in a reception hall or something like that to impress. It represented what the customer wanted to transmit: NOT necessarily reality.
Now obviously the earliest cave art was different in it's agenda but even so most likely did not represent only reality.
Art gives us information but not represensative fotographic.

Early man was not primitive. I have a musuem reproduction of the Venus of Willendorf in front of me as a continuous reminder.
Early man was less develloped in technical aspects ONLY and it remains unanswered wether that is primitive
What seems enigmatic is that every technical advance resulted in less leisure time.
It may therefor very well be that during the last say 1500 years things like swords became more functional then they had ever been before.

History, evolution is not sequential nor continuous nor world wide the same. Just think of the implication of the fact that the beaker people has sort composite (horse) bows: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/exca...e_01.shtml
This implies an increadible level of technical understanding and also raises several questions as 5000 years before present it seems to have been a european development....
Like the immigration to the brittish isles the beaker people migrated east too and this is just one example. The increadible spread of ' venusses' is another.
No, homo sapiens was never ' primitive' and I have no doubt always produced/used artefacts that represented far more funcion than their basic usefullness. The fact that we nowadays with our biassed technical thinking cannot grasp it is simply another product of human society.

peter

[Peter Bosman]

Maybe this thread gets too far off topic so I have split this line and it the moderators feel it appropriate can move it. The thread I take up now certainly goes beyond ' mere' arms. Arms are a product of society; a representation.

About ' function'.

There is a very interesting discussion going on about pre-clovis versus clovis first.
One thing that is clear is that some (fruted) designs were not funtional yet an investment in time and skill. Also quite a few points, blades and BLADES have been found (all over the world) that were not funcional as weapons or tools yet represented a huge investment in material, time and skill.

There is an equivalent is stone and bronze axe heads. Several will not have been usefull as such.

Undoubted examples of non-functional weapons abound. Non functional as a weapon that is. The investment in materials, time and skill proves an extremely important role.
Why would swords have been otherwise? Especially since we know that swords represented more than their functionality. Why would (some or more) swords not have primairily represented a non functional role?

I would like to point out a tricky point. The representations in art may not be taken of their face value: it was not 'independant'. They were produced on order and payed for. The customer did not repesent the average society and will have had an agenda.
We are all very aware that a painting of say Napoleon was meant to be displayed in a reception hall or something like that to impress. It represented what the customer wanted to transmit: NOT necessarily reality.
Now obviously the earliest cave art was different in it's agenda but even so most likely did not represent only reality.
Art gives us information but not represensative fotographic.

Early man was not primitive. I have a musuem reproduction of the Venus of Willendorf in front of me as a continuous reminder: http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/willendorfdiscovery.html
Early man was less develloped in technical aspects ONLY and it remains unanswered wether that is primitive
What seems enigmatic is that every technical advance resulted in less leisure time.
It may therefor very well be that during the last say 1500 years things like swords became more functional then they had ever been before.

History, evolution is not sequential nor continuous nor world wide the same. Just think of the implication of the fact that the beaker people has sort composite (horse) bows: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/exca...e_01.shtml
This implies an increadible level of technical understanding and also raises several questions as 5000 years before present it seems to have been a european development....
Like the immigration to the brittish isles the beaker people migrated east too and this is just one example. The increadible spread of ' venusses' is another.
No, homo sapiens was never ' primitive' and I have no doubt always produced/used artefacts that represented far more funcion than their basic usefullness. The fact that we nowadays with our biassed technical thinking cannot grasp it is simply another product of human society.

peter

[Peter Bosman]

I needed to dig a bit but have found it.

The beautifull Halstatt C type sword found in a grave called ' The Chieftain of Oss' is a good example of sword and status.
This ' chieftain' was a small man in his 50ties (40 - 60), had a chronic back problem related to overweight and diabetes. He was long past his ' sell by date', went slightly stooped and was overweight.
I have not been able to find an illustration but a life-like model of him was made and exhibited.
Most definitely not a warrior type, very likely not a rider for at least a long time, yet he was buried with a very beautifull sword and a set of horse bits.
He was obviously important and may have been a great warrior in his younger years, we do not know. What we do know is that when he died he looked like the chief of Asterix & Obelix donned with a stunning and relatively large sword . This exquisite imported sword had not been functional for him for at least a good few years and because it must have been EXTREMELY costly costly it seems unlikely that he would have owned it when he may have been a young warrior...

peter

edit: http://www.dekelten.nl/webcam/fotos/20061119/...142518.JPG

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

[Peter Bosman]

[quote="Lafayette C Curtis"]