I have looked at the hilt situation on the project sword and feel that the entire hilt question is critical to the overall answer to this phenomena. Thus I turn to Stuart Carey Welsh . INDIA. Arts and Culture. 1300 to 1900. for The Met Museum . page 270. however, I note that the front outside cover has a magnificent piece of artwork which was painted in India in about 1620 and is lavishly adorned in Chinese influence. Part of the story is present in that picture as not only were the Chinese merchants on the Indian coast and active in securing South African gold etc. from Indian traders but the Chinese artisans were active also in influencing Indian ateliers and no doubt in the transfer both ways of fine art techniques and subject matter. This must have included the types and decorations of weapons probably both ways.

Please note the Pistol grip dagger described and pictured at page 270; from Stuart Carey Welsh. INDIA. Arts and Culture. 1300 to 1900. for The Met Museum says;

Quote''That presumably this was carved for Aurangzeb. The origin of the form can be traced to the Deccan where it must have been admired by Aurangzeb and adapted for his use during his years there as Viceroy. In the early stages of their evolution which probably began in the Southern Deccan, pistol grips terminated not in the round abstract shape but in Parrot heads, complete with beaks and eyes. Deccani examples of the 17th C. already incorporate this change. After Aurangzeb created a vogue for them, pistol grips became common at the Mughal Court during the late 17th and 18th C. some of them repeat the original parrot design.''Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

This has been a most provocative thread!! and brought out some very interesting aspects of Indian arms as related to Chinese influence and vive versa. I must say Ibrahiim, you are truly an intrepid and tenacious researcher!!! Great links and resources, thank you!

I have tried to follow in kind, and it does seem that there must have been a degree of arms which entered the Indian sphere, as there was a great deal of trade activity with China via the varied East India companies from late 17th and into the 18th century.

It does seem that the Dutch had a factory in Peking (Beijing) in the late 17th but seem to have closed it early in the 18th. In these times most of the interest and reciprocity seem to have been the export of china and textiles, but around early 18th an interest developed in the decoration of sword hilts (known as Tonquinese, for those regions of N. Vietnam), but apparently thought to have been made in China.

While strong export of mercantile commodities seem well known, it does not seem that any export of arms took place in any sort of capacity as the Chinese had a very restrictive attitude toward foreign presence there and the exports seem to have filtered into the Philippines in various channels.

I have not been able to find more on the noted Beijing export in 1761, and by this period it seems that the Chinese courts while intrigued by outside styles, such as the Indian influence in some Qianlong hilts, had little to do with exporting arms. Though not exporting arms proper, they did however exert considerable influence in the arms of Europe, particularly the decoration forms known as chinoserie, Tonquinese and Japan had its shakudo.

Still it would be hard to imagine that a power such as China would not be involved in certain trade and export outside the direct control of the realm, and as Ibrahiim has noted, the quest for gold in remote ports and centers operated briskly in operations unlikely to be officially recorded.
We know that Chinese river pirates were present in regions of SE asia contiguous to India, and other regions in proximity.
The exchange and diffusion of all manner of materials of course must have been considerable in such circumstances, and while not technically supportable, it does seem to be reasonably plausible.

Returning to the matter of the 'tunkou' feature, I am more inclined to think of it entering these spheres from Ottoman influence rather than Chinese, despite its prevalence on many Qing swords. Many features of Central Asian and Indian weapons carry Ottoman influence from various sources, all of which were prevalent throughout the development of these arms.
As for its purpose, I tend to follow the thoughts of Philip Tom, as described in his "Military Sabres of the Qing Dynasty", that they were to stabilize the guard and secure the blade in the scabbard.

These were clearly not consistent on these Chinese sabres, whether in yuanshi or fangshi mounts regardless, and were not as far as I have seen ever on jian.

Still, the feature clearly became a vestigial notion on a number of weapons in other context ,and as seen on the sword here, and on daggers as discussed, whether physically represented or decoratively applied in koftgari or other means.

Well, the earliest "tunkous" are seen on the nomadic swords dating to at least 8-9 centuries. Subsequent tunkou-like elements are seen on a multitude of blades , all coming from the areas dominated by, or at least in contact with nomadic cultures. Their forms varied : from the " along the edge" in early examples to the "along the spine" in the latter ones, from massive plates to purely symbolic, decorative koftgari or incised outlines, from traditional triangular to "shell-like" in North African yataghans etc. Ottomans were not the originators of tunkou: they got it from their Seljuk and Oghuz ancestors, but due to their exclusive Western location, they were a vehicle of spreading it over the Mediterranean basin. Seljuk Empire had its epicenter in modern Iran, Indian Moghuls came from Central Asia etc.
The earliest European one I know (1321AD)can be seen on the fresco of St. Nikita in the Gracanica church in Serbia, perhaps as a result of Batu Khan invasion half a century earlier. I may go on a limb here, but the so-called Indian ricasso might be a direct descendant of the archaic Nomadic ones.
Both Khudyakov and Phillip Tom commented on their original purpose, and suggested purely utilitarian mechanical reasons: plugging the mouth of the scabbard, isolating the edge, or just secure seating of blades within their scabbards. Phillip Tom thinks that Japanese Habaki is unrelated to tunkou, but looking at the origin of Japanese people and their contacts with Koreans, Chinese and Mongols, this assertion may be modified.

Salaams All , Despite not being able to open Philip Toms brilliant works noted above I eventually got a clean copy at http://hawaiihistoricarms.com/milita...il-tom-part-1/ where notes indicate the Chinese influence and Indian influence the other way. Combined with the notes already here at thread I think we have the subject cornered although idiosyncrasies and variable translations of how it transpired ...and from several directions almost simultaneously makes this a fascinating if not occasionally a (little) baffling subject. :shrug:

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

It seems that this trade network bringing China and India together as far as exchange of blades went even earlier:

"...blades from China and India were highly sought after in the Middle East, which seems to have been the hub of an astonishing international trade in sword blades, amongst many other items".
* during 14th and through 15th centuries and later

"The Medieval Swords of Leeds Castle"
-Clive Thomas
"London Park Lane Arms Fair, 2005" p.26

Salaams Jim, In addition I note from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_swords

Early Three Kingdoms period to late Sui dynasty (220–618)
Introduction of the Sassanian/Persian style suspension mounts on Chinese daos.
Probable introduction of Damascus wootz steel (for use in jians) from India or the Middle East.

In addition the Hudud al alam (10th C Persian) https://books.google.com.om/books?id...istory&f=false it is noted that swords and slaves amongst others were exported from Gujerat.
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

And another example that might possibly be related: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=26861

The knuckle guard seems to be unique with (now missing) scales attached to it originally. Were these possibly crafted from brass?

Regards,
Kai