Very Interesting Indian sword for discussion
 

This is a very interesting Indian sword that I would love to get more feedback. The hilt is unlike any other Indian sword and has some interesting features to it. First is the swell in the grip. This seems very much like a Persian influence. The spatulate endings to the guard are interesting and seem common to Mughal period swords. The most interesting feature is the pommel on this sword. It is rather abstract but it seems to be "Tiger'esque". Also, the terminal ending to the knucklebow is an interesting "duckbill". I note two similar "duckbills" pictured in Elgoods new book on a cloth helmet owned by Tipu. Look at the top of the nasal protector and you have two of the exact same "duckbills" curved back down the slide. I have not seen this particular decor before so I have no pretensions that the "duckbill" is an exclusive decoration to Tipu related items nor do I have any pretenses that my sword has any association with Tipu however there are some interesting features worth discussion. Also, it has a big pattern welded kilij style blade with one of the boldest patterns I have ever seen. So, has anyone ran across similar hilts before? Look forward to the discussion.

Well, after some additional digging I found one similar hilt example but it raises more questions than it answers. In Catalogue De La Collection D'Armes Anciennes de Charles Buttin on Planche XXXIII figure 789 there is pictured a sword with the same hilt but with a very English looking guard. The grip has the same swell and if you look close enough, it has the same type of pommel. I do not read French so I am unsure what the description states exactly but it does say "Epee Anglo-Hindoue". Apparently it has an European straight blade mounted up on this Hindu/English combination hilt. A most peculiar sword but very interesting given its grip similarity to my example. So, any other examples out there? Jens, Jim, Brian, Jeff? Any thoughts?

Hi Rick,

Very nice saber. In the photos it looks as if the quillions and guard are welded on. They also don't seem to follow the flow of the rest of the hilt. perhaps they are a later add on? Could you post a closer picture of the quillion and guard?

Thanks
Jeff

Hi again,

If you have Egerton, in his section of arms of North-Western India Plate XIII item 653 is a similar hilt which is what I suspect your hilt started as. The guard is also similar. it will be nice to hear other opinions.

All tyhe best
Jeff

I've refrained from commenting as it seems inapropriate when all one can do is gush over a piece, but......well, gush!
Beautiful!

Ordinarily, each quillon has a sort of tang, and these are welded or soldered in between the two halves of the hilt.

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the reference to Egerton. Yes, the quillons and guard are welded on but I do not believe they are later additions. The gold koftari on both match the grip quite well both in decoration and patina. It is interesting that the example I found in Buttin and the example you found in Egerton have the same grip but different guards and/or quillon. However, I was doing more digging through my references and ran across another example. This one has the exact same hilt but with shamshir blade. It is from an art musuem display from the 1970's. The only description they give for the sword is Mughal sword, 18th century. Here is the pic of the example

Hi Rick

Well, you certainly do have a mystery. On both pieces shown, the quillions appear welded on. Why? They are both very well made, certainly the smith was capable of making it from a single block, or masking the weld. I will see if I can find any more examples.

Jeff

Here is a man who has never taken apart a tulwar, I think :) They usually make the hilt in two hollow-backed shells, welded together, usually by a copper based solder (brazed), each half/shell is cross-shaped, and the arms, as well as the long leg are hollow (the "head" if you will, is flatter, thinner and forms the lagnets. The "leg" becomes the handle, and is also joined to the disc pommel, which may be made of as many as 4 or 5 pieces itself; the hollow remains hollow, to be filled with the pitch adhesive that holds the tang. Each hollow "arm" on the welded/soldered/brazed-up finished hilt is filled with basically a huge round nail. The nail-head (as it were) becomes the swelled tip of the quillon, while the nail itself (and mind you it isn't really a nail, but a purpose-made piece) fills the hollow quillons for part or all of their length. That is the usual tulwar hilt, and yeah, you're right; this ain't quite it that we're seeing here; it's certainly a variation, I'd say. The Turkish cross-shaped hilt may be structured differently, as well as Persian, kaskara ones, Swahili/Arab ones I've seen were split out of a single block, but with a small opening, requiring a seperate ferule. Oops; my shower's gonna run cold!

Now, the Lumad metal hilts are lost-wax-cast one piece brass, thick-walled, with a smaller hollow center, allowing a thin layer of adhesive between tang and hilt. They are said to be made by the women. Piso pedang report, please? African brass hilts; cast-on as usually said?

Thanks Tom for the description, I am lost without pictures. If you ever take one of these apart again please take some pictures. Actually, you are a fairly adept artist perhaps a drawing. I personally am way to chicken to ever attempt this myself.
I have been under the impresssion that the quillion and hilt are a single piece as I have never seen a junction. I will look closer. This still makes it hard to explain the quillion guard junction on Rick's two examples.

All the best
Jeff

Jeff

A mystery is fun and I hope more examples will come to light from our collective resources. It is interesting in that the examples that we have found thusfar really do not have a solid identifier but rather very loose descriptions. I am hoping the koftgari provides some insight as well. It is very nicely executed and the decoration is much smaller than I have found on other gold hilts. Hopefully, our Indian contention will join in with some thoughts. :)

hey rick,
sorry for the late reply but i am struggling to add to what you already know. i think you've done a great job in answering your own questions :) and i'm pouring through resources in the hope to add something and failing miserably. firstly, its a fabulous piece. there is something in indian 'open' watering that seems to have been overlooked by the more commercial persian contingent until relatively recently. personally, i much prefer indian watering and an example like yours is a pattern you can really get lost in.
the bulbous grip is heavily persian influenced, as is the pommel style. both these features were inherant in north indian pieces, and yet the extreme 'fleur de lys' quillions reek of the south, where the persian influence was less strong. an enigma. i dont have a problem with the quiilion inserts but am confused at the clumsiness. if you hadnt offered an exact example in buttin, i would have doubted the originality (especially with the north'south enigma). i have seem clumsy inserts, but the nature of an indian hilt is in its asthetics and 'flowing form' which seems missing or overlooked here.
the koftgari is of a specific style ond of good quality and i'm sure its style will be seen again in another piece. this may offer more information, but wont help with the location of the piece as the applied decoration was rarely done at the same place as the hilt manafucture and 'raw' hilts travelled well.
i think the main clue is the 'duck' finial. its a common form, so common i couldnt find a single example in my resources :) . i know its remeniscent of 17thC deccan, although the 'plainer' form went into the 19thC. i think this form will appear on a ewer handle or something similar.
the pic i've attached is from the khalili collection, and was exhibited in paris '88. the pommel form is along the same lines and the knuckle bow has been removed. the blade is dated 1749 from the provence of Avadh. there are similarities in the form of the hilts and the style of the quillions.
i wish i could add more but i think all i have offered is a padded out 'nice sword' reply.

hi rick,
another thing, i cant see the duck emblem on the tipu helmet in elgoods book, no matter how hard i look. all i can see is a symetrical representation of the bubri stripes, back to back and terminating in a chsselled tiger head. i'm not saying its not there, its just i cant see what you see.

BI, that pic stirs something; I've seen this hilt style made of stone somewhere.....

B.I.
To be more precice, the picture you have attached is from the exhibition Splendeur des Armes Orientales, and can be seen in the catalogue of the same name. The text reads: The hilt Deccani, Mahratta(?), probably late 17th century.

What Tom writes about the hilts is new to me too – interesting, we live to learn.
Tom maybe the stone hilt you are thinking of is #167 in the above-mentioned catalogue.
In the catalogue ‘Persian and Indo-Persian Arms and Armour of 16th – 19th Century from Polish Collections’, is shown a shamshir with a hilt of the same type. The text reads: Indo-Persian sabre 18th – 19th century.

Rsword, you really have a very nice sword, and I understand if you are proud of it. Just like B.I., I too have a weakness for this kind of Indian watering which shows very well.
I have a chevron blade where the light parts have the same watering – typical Indian. The hilt is, like B.I. writes, influenced from different cultures, and the koftgari very nice and remarkably intact.

almost jens, it is the same sword but i took the image from david alexanders catalogue of the khalili collection (who bought the sword after the parisian exhibition). i mention this because he doesnt mention a possible maharatha connection, which i agree is a little spurious. both this hilt and ricks share the same persian influence, which i dont think effected the maharathan culture. the murals that prevailed throughout their dominance in the region, and the distinctive style of basket hilt have always hinted at a purer hindu heritage in art style, as apposed the the mughal influence and a persian heritage. i think ricketts saw the quillions which hint at a deccani style, but i think the persionised pommel cap hint at heavily influenced style, inherant in more mughal pieces. also, the deccan sultanate took its influences from a persian culture which wasnt maharathan at all. only an opinion and still desperately trying to add to my 'nice sword rick' contribution :)
yes, jens. lets hope the rest of the commercial world doesnt catch up with our passion for this style of watering. i'm quite happy with indian watering being overshadowed by the more sought after persian style. it makes it still affordable...almost.

images of a persian 'duck'. i'm a big fan of comparative iconography as a metalworker didnt necessarily just make arms and cultures were influenced 'across the board'.

Magnificent South Indian piece Rick! Quality from top to bottom, with some interesting "quirks"!

Well, the hilt itself is Indo-Arabic, some might get tempted to associate it with Mysore due to the similarities with the ,,tiger type,, (Sultan Tipu).
The paraj (knuckle-guard) of swan type I`ve seen it on Mughal swords comming out of Gujarat mostly, examples from 17th - 18th century if memory does not play tricks on me, same hilt/pommel same richness in gold decoration.
One thing I cannot find corespondent are the unusual tholia (quillions) but our coleagues have seem to manage finding something similar even though without much data info, we see it is not an isolated case. I am fascinated by their beauty as I`ve not seen them before and I would avoid categorise them as a variation of the down-pointed quillions of the pulwar (puloar) swords.
A good post with lots to learn from, proving that still there is so much to discover still ...

This is outstanding discourse on this beautiful sabre, and excellent work with all the references cited and noted! It's always great to see observations supported with references as the 'mystery' unfolds. While I can't add much to what has been already clearly determined, I agree with the consensus of this being a southern form of weapon, and with Tipu-esque characteristics. The trefoil or fluer-de-lis form quillon terminals are interesting, and I would offer may be associated with Tipu and his father's close associations with the French and their influences militarily. From another perspective, I cannot help but notice the similarity of these fluerets to the upper part of the hilt of the 'anthropomorphic ' form of the chilanum ( Elgood "Hindu Arms & Ritual", p.175, #16.28 ) which is from Deccani sultanate early 17th c. possibly earlier.

Another question concerning the interesting material on the 'duckbill' form on the curled back knuckleguard. In a discussion with a collector some time ago, we were discussing this distinct feature as often occurs on Central Asian edged weapons, such as certain Afghan and other examples. These extremely stylized forms often seemed to resemble either nagan or dragon type figures, at that point not considering the 'duck' possibility, and he suggested these were something he called 'ice bird' but could not distinguish further.
Could anyone elaborate on what type bird this might be and significance on weapons there?

Best regards,
Jim

Radu: just noticed your post citing the swan, could this be what the reference to ice-bird might be?

Gentleman

Thank you for adding your thoughts. I appreciate the additional information and overall "brainstorming". I think it will take additional research and time to find another matching example with better provenance to help tie down where this thing may have originated.

The pommel is still perplexing me. Comparable Persian hilts tend to be lions and realistic. Of course, Tipu and his tiger pommels were also large and realistic. This one, which I think is closer to a tiger than a lion, is quite abstract.

Brian, if you look at the example of Tipu's helmet on p. 60, the nasal protector at the very top which extends above the top of the padding, you see the terminal ending which is a tiger. If you look at the downcurving projections from that tiger, they are elongated "duckbills". If you turn the book sideways when looking at this downcurving projection from the tiger head, I believe you will see what I am talking about.

Another interesting sword for comparison purposes is in Buttin's "Catalogue De La Collection D'Armes Anciennes" in the very back in Planche XXXII. Example 1005 is listed as an Arabic Saif, 16th or 17th century, but if you look closely at the pommel, it seems abstract and although not exactly like my example, there seems to be similarities. Buttins description, which although I do not read French, could make out that he attributes this stylized "monster" pommel to Singalese influences. I do not know that that association is accurate in this paricular case but the abstract look of the pommel was interesting.

Man, I am all over the board with this one. Sweet!

Well, for what is worth my opinion as far as geo-origin my opinion is west-central India: Gujarat, Rajahstan mainly. The sword if not Mughal, is very much inspired by the Mughal armorial products. The one piece metal hilt is much like ones west of Hindoostani borders, an afghano-persian qabzah while the blade remains of Hindu style and facture, a very close relative of the popat hilt (Indian arms and armour vol. II , by Dr. Pant od National Museum in New Delhi, a treasure of a book I received recently from a dear friend ) an Hindu adoption of Persian hilt.
Now the very good news: the swan neck knuckle guards are specific to late 17th, early 18th century west central India from Punjab to Gujarat . Now if thats the case can you imagine what a real treasure this is ?
And Jim, yes, I incline thats the case with ,,ice-bird,, definition (swan-neck is kind of personal definition, not to be confused with any scholar denomination, it just seem to me as the natural name, therefore I used it). Mughal gardens were home to gracefull, exotic large birds with opulent forms and plumage, peacock being absolute king but that was a male symbol, and in order to counterbalance the yin-yang in this sabre the knuckleguard swan (female and smaller in size and importance but nevertheless gracious) vs the pommel tiger/lion ( to put an end to RSWORDS dilema India is home even now but in the past even more to both lions and tigers ) as male symbol, larger in size. What is in red colour is my pure supossition without solid suport.

hi rick,
i'm sorry, i still cant see it. i personally think the top nasal bar is a tiger's head, which extends down to 2 bubri shapes, which extend to an additional 2 bubri shapes. i think the form of a duck (sorry, swan :) ) is coincidental. a minor point, but as this is all heading towards symbolism, the form of a bubri was inherant on all tipuesque pieces, where i have always thought this duck shape to be of persian influence. a trip back to the the army museum is long overdue and i think this a good reason for making the effort. maybe in the flesh it will be apparant.
radu, i must admit jumping up to bite, when reading your post. however, your colour coding makes it all clear, and i wonder if this was done to provoke such a reaction :) . as a factual contribution, i would highly question what you say. as an unfounded opinion, i completely appreciate and accept what you say :) . a few questions though. why gujerat/punjab? also, why do you think the bird head to be inherant in an indian style, and not persian in influence? i've always though this style of birds head to be uncommon on indian pieces and have only seen it on more 'indo-persian' items. if you look at comparative art, this style doesnt seem to exist, whereas a more peacock shape does. i'm not saying the animal wasnt around in india, i'm just not aware of it existing as an indian 'symbol'. yari heads were common through mythology, as were the peacock, tiger heads, stylised dragons etc. and yet, this 'duck' shape keeps cropping up in persian art from the 18th/19thC (and going back to the 16thC in a more stylised form) but rarely in indian art, unless in a piece thats heavily influenced by persian culture.
i believe the swan and peacock could be easily confused as the slender neck shape seem similar. i'm not saying this duck shape didnt exist in india, its just i'm not aware of examples and would like to see where your coming from.
also, pant is a little dangerous to quote from (sorry, i'm assuming the gujerat thing could have come from there as you mentioned both together. apologies if my assumption is unfounded). his rise through the ranks of museum personel was done as a successful businessman, and not necessarily a passionate arms academic. his knowledge was slight and the 'howlers' he wrote in his many books proved just this. also, a good friend knew him well and went to his funeral. he also admitted pants lack of knowledge even on a very basic level. he said it was almost embarrassing to have a conversation with him sometimes, especially in company as you didnt want to disagree. unfortunately, he has been replaced by a man of similar knowledge (kk. sharma) who is a very friendly man, apparantly, but again, with very little knowledge base.
the indian thing is a long, learning curve with no definate hope for results. for this reason, i hold comparative art quite highly as it is the only way to break through to find possible results. all that has been written has to be questioned and taken with a pinch of salt, even going as far back as egerton, hendley, watt, cole etc.
we have more access to information now, in the sculpture, miniatures and decorative arts, even though they spent much of their lives in the actual areas paving the way for us to try and push it all further.

Brian you wrote ‘I believe the swan and peacock could be easily confused as the slender neck shape seem similar.’
I am with you when you write about the slender neck, but that is not what makes the difference when it comes to these two big birds. The difference is the beak, when a peacock is shown the beak is pointed, and when it is a swan the beak is broad and round – not pointed at all.

Radu, if you find a reference inadequate, I would suggest that you ask about it. If the information is a hand, I am sure you will get an answer, if it is possible.

hey jens,
i hear what your saying. i suppose i have always assumed the form to be a peacock, without giving it a thought to being something else. in a sculpted form, your beak will make it clear. as an engraving, however, this would be less obvious. also, remember not all decorative art is up to the standard of your own collection. i have seen artists of such poor stature that i'm sure they were aiming for a peacock but produced a very ugly duck-like creature that could only be loved by its mother :)

Brian, I always thought it was Walt Disney/Carl Barks who invented Donald Duck, but I must be wrong :D .

not sure what you are implying, jens, but carl barks was a comic genius and if he intended donald to be anything other than a duck, it would have been obvious and history would be slightly different :)

I seem to remember that I have seen heads like the one on the pommel before, described as lion heads, but I have no reference – I am sorry.
As to the head on the hand guard. I have a feeling that it could well be a swans head, as I some time back read about swans – only I did not take much notice, and now I can’t remember where I read it, but it could have been in François Bernier’s ‘Travels in the Mogul Empire AD 1656-1668’.
The decoration on the hilt could be a geometrical pattern, or it could be stylized flowers. Flowers, like Lilies, Lotuses, Roses, Chrysanthemum Indicum and many others, were used a lot for decoration on hilts and in other places. When ordering a hilt, you went to a gold smith, where you from drawings on palm leaves, could chose the decoration you liked best.
What do you think the decoration on this hilt is, geometrical or stylized flowers?

MEA CULPA
 

I leave Dr. Pant in the eye of the beholder, cert fact is that he is much deeper than Eggerton, which was quoted and used without problem and we all know what his background was.
B.i. I stick with Rajasthan and Gujarat (CW India) as I believe this to have much Mughal in it. As far as ,,ice-bird,, (swan,duck,peacock...) I reffered to it as actually Persian symbol (pardon me if I got you confused) not Indian but as a inheritance via Mughals, the Islamic half not the Hindoo half, the Hindoo half was rather reserved for the other beast head.
I left unmentioned yesterday but very pertinent i see Jens bringing the floral motif executed in ,,Islamic,, fashion, symililarities with Mughal tiles are more than striking...
Unless Pant was wrong mentioning relatively similar swords in his museum as being Gujarati, Rajahstani I sustain as being from that area, his involvement resumes to this.
Before we light anymore fuses and blow a spark :D just like in case of the yathagans its next to impossible to claim 100% apartenence to one small region, specially when artifacts come from a subcontinent so interactive like Hindustan and they look cloned regardless they were made one hundred or one thousand years ago...
P.S. nothing could be more hilarious than us pointing each other as working on ,,suppositions,, , B.I. do you not work based on that like I do ? ;) Perhaps at times mines are more bold and some get touchy ... :eek:

Jens,

I believe the decoration is that of stylized flowers. If you look at the decoration around the border of the handle, it resembles very much that of the chrysanthemum. It is 8-sided. If you look at the inner decoration of the handle, it is smaller, also 8-sided and looks more like a snow flake to me and seems more geometric unless it is related to the larger, 8-sided chrysanthemum. In other words, perhaps the smaller decoration is the larger one not in bloom or something like that. There does appear to be small lines going through those smaller 8-sided snow flakes suggestive of a vine. There are also very tiny decoration all about that have no real shape and seem to be most closely related to "foilage". What is impressive is the quality and the condition given the age. Later, I will take a pic of the underside of the knucklebow. It has a "X" decoration that one finds in decoration from many cultures.

radu, yes i took what you said to hint at a more pure indian association rather than a persian one, which i kept coming across. virtually all my resources are indian, with some persian which is hard to avoid. it this search for this particular 'symbol', i struggled to find it at all in india, and yet it kept cropping up all over in the few persian books i have.
i think that we will continue to clash, whereas in reality, we probably agree. you do boldly state information, whereas i am a annoyingly cautious. sometimes it is better to throw yourself in the deep end as people may disagree, but you are at least provoking a response, which is never a bad thing. the whole indian thing is open, as it has always been. i tend to question everything, especially the known resources like egerton. if you look at his history, you'll find that he was in india for many years, but maybe being in one part of india during one period cornered his knowledge and left him dependant on the known information of that particular area, which no doubt differed to other areas. this is why there are contadictions in many of the 'known experts'. dont get me wrong, he still wrote the most important book on indian arms, even over a hundred years later.
the obvious answer is to try and back track information. this can be done with authours like rawson, as his references still exist and are accessable to those that have the time and inclination to spend researching. earlier authours are harder to track down as a lot of the information may have been widely circulated at the time, but were never written down. hendley spent more time in india and had a stronger passion for indian decorative arts, but still used egerton as a base, although there are still differences in opinion due to being in a different part of india and tapping into different resources.
i suppose there are no real answers. there are studies done in the last few years that have almost started again and tried to avoid the influence of earlier writers. elgood is a good example, although he has also fell victim to assumption of known information. i hold zebrowski quite highly, in that he pushed barriers and changed the way people think about indian art. not easy to do in a world full of experts! there are also many unpublished 'experts' whose knowledge may not be academic, but is just as important. there are some that have heavily participated in the collective world and in doing so, left a distinct mark without most people even realising it. for their own reasons (mostly personal or finantial) they spent many years in india studying the arms to a level that their academic peers reached many years before. this knowledge is as important, if not more so in this day and age, as they were present in the 'emptying of some major armouries.
i have discussed the floral thing with jens in the past and it is a hard subject to approach. the naming of flowers is almost impossible as it is down to artistic interpretation. robert skelton wrote a great article on the floral aspect of mughal art and yet there was no real conclusion. written history tells us shah jahans passion for the lotus symbol, but who is to say what the lotus symbol really looks like. i haave seen some very un-lotus looking lotuses :)
there are answers of sorts which can be tracked down through 19thC accounts. i strongly believe in symbolism being retained in a particular area. koftagari, as an applied art tended to be regional. this can be seen in hendleys great works, and also in watts exhibition catalogue. i approached this in parts years ago and although mostly shooting in the dark, i managed to produced slight results. i tracked down a style of flower inherant in lahore work, by finding pieces i know definately came from that area (bought brand new in the 1851 exhibition and the parisian exhibition a decade or so later. the same style of flower exhisted a century earlier in some pieces that reportedly came from the same area which bolstered this theory. also, the dalhousie connection with the courts and his 1991 sale couldnt stand on its own, but as additional ammunition confirmed many doubts i had.
also, another style of flower (un-named) which i found in the wallace reserves. this had a very distinctive cross within the central bud. the catalogue (written by opinion only) claims a kashmir and a rajesthan origin (two examples, virtually identical from different regions??) again, i found this flower in pieces with definate accession to the great exhibitions and a confirmed (from 2 different sources) origin of sailkot. i suppose this can be taken further, as with the lahore chrysantheum (??) if earlier pieces can be found. unfortunately, there are very few definate resources. the exhitions were great, in that they took time to display their wares by region and they were not selling antiques, but 'modern' examples of current decorative arts. hendly also is a great resource for this as his passion was the decorative arts of the time and he took the trouble to note the origins and names of the craftsmen. a lifetimes work with spurious results. but, as i said before, its all shooting in the dark.
i hope that ricks flower will be found on other pieces, as the quality lends you to believe that the craftsmen were talented, and so maybe produced other work of similar ilk.
the V&A is a fabulous source of information, as it was the original south ken museum, and before this, the east india company museum. the original pieces still hold relatively accurate accession notes and the pieces aquired before egertons catalogue can be quite accurately traced. many pieces were bought as 'brand new' and these can form some sort of stability in a shaky minefield of dis-information.
ok, back to the sword in question. look at the tigers head on this persian axe. it is more defined with a more distinct profile, but the similarities are there. it has the same open mouth, filled in with continuous decoration. if anything, it opens the mind to other sources for a 'tiger' motif away from mysore, which most people tend to assume too quickly.

While I am the first to defend the authors of books published on arms and armour, especially the venerable references that have served us for so many years, I am keen to defend only the material that maintains merit. That which has been either superceded or refuted serves only as dated material which reflects a benchmark in the progression of research, and is typically regarded as such by advanced students of arms & armour who recognize it as such.
I suppose this would be much like watching one of the classic old movies, the material is clearly dated, but the story remains well told and in perspective despite being viewed in a time with obviously much more advanced technology and environment. I still maintain that these authors deserve respect for having had the courage and tenacity to publish despite whatever flaws are inherent in thier work.

With Pant, Brian has astutely presented a caveat to this book as a reference and very gently noted the primarily business oriented ajenda which was one of the key forces in compiling this book. While Dr.Pant clearly brings in much of the data from earlier writers, he does make an effort to qualify and place in perspective much of the material he uses. One of the key problems with this work is that Pant attempts to abitrarily place indiginous provenance and typology on weapon forms and types without clearly supported evidence.
This problem as well as the dating of the various examples illustrated in the plates results from the museum cataloguing which relies on the period or region where the weapon was collected, often unaccurately and using presumed period attribution. Still these examples serve as outstanding references for experienced students of these weapons, who are well aware of the periods and characteristics which they actually represent.Those who are seriously pursuing the study of Indian arms at more of an entry level, would do well to use this book as a guide to further research, as a benchmark to build upon.

Radu, in the yataghan thread he has referenced, made the observation that these weapons were not just confined to limited regions, which was well placed. The same principle applies here, and it would be just as futile to assign a provenance to this sabre so finite as 'Gujerat/Rajasthan'. While seemingly a pretty safe statement, as well as the notation of Mughal attribution that corresponds supposedly to these regions, it is important to note the much wider scope of the Mughal Empire, which extended well into southern India. It would be quite easy to suggest Gujerat as a provenence for a weapon, since this was a key trade region, so many weapons would be presumed or noted as from there. It is the same with Rajasthan, which was a primary industrial region and in fact still produces swords there today.

I think Brian has well noted that these recoiled knuckleguards are not a particularly Indian characteristic, in fact the guard itself I would consider an indicator of European influence.The stylized motif on many of these does seem Persian, which of course did heavily influence Mughal India quite predominantly, as well as Central Asia, where this recoiled style guard also appears in degree and variation.

In our discussions, I think that presenting speculation and suppositions what this is all about, and using whatever resources or observations these are based on is essential. The idea is that any opposing or different ideas should be presented in kind. It's never about who is right or wrong, it's about learning together!!:) No finger pointing allowed!!! :)

All the best,
Jim

jim,
i know you are aware of the importance i put on my library, and the respect i have for the authors that occupy it. i feel all my books have a good reason for being there, whether as an academic minefield of information or just a great picture book.
my 'criticism' of references stemmed from trying to steer away from information that has been widely circulated but may have no real founding. i stick to my opinion of pant, feeling that he wrote some very helpful books on indian arms but he got enough wrong to classify them as good picture books and not academic resources.
i dont have a problem with radu's gujerat theory, as he clearly states it is supposition. if he takes this from pant, as well as his own experience then you can agree or disagree, but as this is no real information, it must be taken at face value.
with all the information i've tried to provide in influences, there were none to determine direct origins. yes, the north were heavily influenced by persia in the mughal courts, but so were the sultanates of the south.
as a feeling, with no firm support, i would think this sword hails from south india as, besides the persian influence, it has that feel. this opinion has no more, nor less grounding than radus gujerat and not something we can ever argue against. ths post has been very informative all round, in both the information provided and the opinions offered. as long as we clearly define the two, there can be no confusion.

Hi Rick,
Maybe it is stylized flowers shown on your hilt, but I am not sure.
I would like to show you some examples, but I think I better do this in another thread, otherwise your thread will end up in a mess, and that would be a pity.
Jens

Maratha. 18th to 19th Century.
From Holstein: Contribution a L’etude des Armes Orientales. Vol. II, Pl. VII, No 244.

Hi Brian,
Extremely well said, and we are in complete agreement on these points. I always find it difficult when a published work does reveal flaws or errors as I have spoken out often on the importance of respecting an author's work.
As I had earlier noted, I agree that it is equally important for those who pursue research on the same subject matter to define key errors and offer revised data. This must be done with caution, so as not to demean the author himself.
I think that you always employ such respectful candor in regard to such work , and your observations are most important, considering the wealth of knowledge you have garnered in the research you have done on Indian weapons.

I also agree with you on the 'feel' of this weapon, which as you note seems to suggest southern India, and agree that it is at this point mostly the gestalt of the weapon rather than any particular evidence which brings this perception. After the inclination toward that attribution, I think the weapon Jens illustrated offers some support toward our theory, with a Maratha weapon with similar fleuret form quillon terminals. I had been considering the collateral Tipu-esque characteristics and the fact that Hyder and Tipu were both highly influenced by the French militarily as well. Again, all of this is ,as you say, speculation with a degree of plausibility, and not necessarily evidence.

I think Radu is extremely observant in his suggestion on possible Gujerat provenance, and think it is important to bring all theories and possibilities to the table for discussion, as we have here. Now to bring in any supporting evidence that may provide support for that suggestion, as well as to add to any for the southern India provenance. Actually all of this may be a formidable task, as trade and Mughal suzerainty consistantly connected regions from the northwest, to Hyderabad and Mysore in central southern India. Persian influence prevailed throughout the Mughal empire, therefore the observation concerning such influence in this sword is also well placed.

All the best,
Jim

hi jim,
i agree, that its difficult to criticise authors that you may not completely agree with, but still hold in great esteem for the efforts and work they provided. i suppose if you take any book and just pull out the raw facts, without the opinions and lifted data, then you wouldnt be left with much (a lot of pictures). i respect all authours for having the guts, and the time and inclination to publish. i respect tirris efforts as, whether you agree or disagree with him, its still a useful book.
all we can do is note references and influences, as all else is speculation. whether we agree on other opinions or not, i suppose we have to respect them as they have founding as much as your own (as long as it clearly stated to be speculation :) ).
my feeling has always been south and the floral quillions in jens' image shows this influence. the mysore pieces from tipu/hyder ali also show this, and the pieces in the clive collection back this up. however, the floral quillion was also prevelant on mughal miniatures from the north and so this feeling lends towards assumption. when hard data lacks, all you have to go by is your own feeling and experiences, but this doesnt lend to a forum discussion. if some forum members start to discuss their true inner feelings, i feel psychiatrists and agony aunts would need to moderate instead and poor andrew would need a comfortable sofa and some ink blot images to run this forum :)

So do you want to tell me about your parents now or later, Brian? :D

I've defended works like Stone's in the past, and will continue to do so. Every published work contributes to our collective knowlege in some way, even with mistakes.