Indian Parrying Shield
 

Hello,
Another piece from my small Indian collection. Called a Maru, Madu or Singauta this shield I believe was used mainly by the Bhils of central India. The antelope horns on this particular one measure 25 inches overall with an 8 inch steel shield topped with a 2 1/4 inch arrowhead shaped steel spike. This one seems quite plain in comparison to others I have seen with metal spiked horns and brass/bronze bosses. I would be interested if anybody can put an approximate date on this piece.
Regards,
Norman

Thank you very much for posting this unusual item Norman! I've seen these only in Stone and the usual references, but never actual examples.
As you note, the Bhil's of Central India are listed as users of these horned parrying weapons, and this group apparantly extended in Gujerat and Rajasthan as well. They seem to have joined with Rajputs not only as hunting guides, but as warriors, all for thier superior knowledge of surrounding terrain and abilities in guerilla warfare.

One thing I find most interesting about the addition of these sharp horns of the sasin (antilopa cervicapra) or common antelope, is that the same application of these joined horns is used by Hindu mendicants and fakirs. They apparantly use the joined horns in lieu of traditional weapons as they are vowed against carrying actual weapons.

Most of the references I have seen discussing these varying forms of weapons date to about mid 19th century and of course somewhat later, so this example could very well be early to mid 19th century. The arrowhead spike seems to appear somewhat regularly, with one example having this feature suggested to be from Punjab, but regional attribution as always with Indian weapons is speculative at best. One reference even noted the form as a Gurkha weapon from Nepal (British Archaeological Association, 1848) though I was not able to retrieve an illustration.

Thanks again very much for sharing these very nice examples you have collected and giving us a chance to focus on them a bit to add to the references.

All the best,
Jim

The Madu was used...
 

Among other situations, in the middle of a battle to rescue a fellow combatant surrounded by enemies. The form of this weapon is excellent for close-in work in a crowded situation. The Maharattas, fierce warriors, were known for using this. Carried in the left or shield hand as a parrying and three-way attack weapon, the horns of the antelope are very strong, almost unbreakable, yet flexible enough to withstand a strong blow and not break. Often they were tipped with steel points of a triangular shape which could pierce armor. Here's another example, with the steel tips on the horns and no central spike. This picture is thanks to Artzi, whose collection is very much of a resource.

Excellent example you have brought up Montino! and outstanding point on the Mahratta's. I agree that these with the smaller horns would be quite effective in the melee with dual purpose in defense and offense with the buckler. Some of the examples seem to have much longer horns, which would become somewhat awkward in such situations and probably counterproductive.
On this example of Artzi's (as you note, always one of the most outstanding resources!) the horn ends seem capped with lance points. As previously noted, it would difficult to confidently attribute these distinct weapons to a particular group, region or date, but most probably in the 'catch all ' of most weapons from India, the 19th century. To be more precise, usually having the weapon in hand is the best bet.

I am still intrigued by the use of the coupled horns by mendicants and fakirs, who were typically situated in crowded city streets. It would seem that these would have been effective as mentioned in situations that would likely result in melees or multiple person conflicts that might have involved these individuals. The animal horns were of course easily explained as items of nature rather than the traditional weapons forbidden to them, and became suddenly a 'weapon of opportunity' as required.

I'm hoping someone out there might show an example of the horns used without shield as characteristically used by these mendicants.

All very best regards,
Jim

Fakir's horns
 

Here they are; they can be considered 'not a weapon' and thus fit into religious rules against carrying them, yet be very effective when needed, especially in a defensive role.

Impressive - never seen one with a spike before, many thanks! :)

Hello,
With reference to the paired horns used by fakirs and medicants, if the horns were mounted with spikes would this not negate the ' forbidden weapon' categorization. I can see the thinking if it were just the horns, although by mounting them as a pair it would indicate premeditation, but as soon as you embellish them with spikes it can have no other use other than the obvious. Actually having an example to handle I can attest to the usefulness of such an item even without a weapon in the other hand. I presume as with most things where there are no hard and fast rules, or is there, everything is open to interpretation ie. metal spikes or not. Without stepping on toes I would like to hear from anyone who has knowledge of the scriptural history which might through some light on the above. Holy men throughout the world have by necessity had to have the ability to defend themselves, defence rather than offence may be the way to get around some of the weapon carrying rules, wooden staffs seem the obvious way round as a walking aid but also really useful in a fight eg., English quarterstaff, Japanese Bo etc. Am interested in any thoughts on the above.
Regards,
Norman.

Thank you so much for posting the example of horns paired together as used by the fakirs and mendicants Montino, indeed very much appreciated.

I realize that these horns mounted with buckler and spike are obviously construed as a weapon, and fabricated in this manner would not have been used by these Holy individuals. The reason I wanted an illustration of the horns mounted this way was to illustrate the wider range of this weapon application.
In looking further, I found a reference ( the title of which I would rather not relay with certain hypersensitivities evidenced by some individuals here of late) written by John George Wood in 1883. The author relates a description of the horns we are discussing as "...a dagger made from the two horns of an Indian antelope. In the simplest form of this curious weapon, the horns are arranged with thier bases crossing each other for about six inches".
Further, "...the curvature of the bases thus furnishes a sort of a handle, which can be grasped in such a way that the holder of the weapon can strike right and left with it, and among a number of people, could do a vast amount of damage in a very short time. A dagger such as has been described could be made in a half an hour and, indeed a temporary weapon might be made in a few minutes by lashing the horns together".

Clearly, such a weapon would serve its purpose well in the crowded streets of cities where the volatility and mayhem potential was constantly heightened by such crowding, and religious mendicants might suddenly be targeted by conflicts against them.
These ascetics and mendicants seem to have been prevalent not only in the major religions, but in varying factions and even associated cults, so it would be difficult to find specific references to doctrine or dogma concerning use of weapons, but it does seem generally well understood in the prohibition.

All very best regards,
Jim

A lead-weighed mace...
 

Was the instrument ("Honest, it ain't a weapon...") of choice for certain European clerics, because it could not shed blood, having no cutting edge.

MY GUESS WOULD BE THAT MANY GROUPS IN MANY PLACES AND TIMES DID NOT WANT TO APPEAR TO BE WARRIORS SO DID NOT WANT TO CARRY THE WEAPONS OF WARRIORS. THERE ARE MANY REASONS FOR THIS BUT THE GENERAL IDEA WAS TO SHOW THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO FIGHT.
BUT JUST BECAUSE A PERSON OR GROUP DOES NOT WANT TO FIGHT DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN REMAIN NEUTRAL AND NEVER NEED TO FIGHT. SO WAYS WERE FOUND TO DEFEND THEMSELVES THAT DID NOT COMPROMISE THEIR BELIEFS OR LAWS. WHILE THERE ARE MANY LAWS THAT FORBID THE SPILLING OF BLOOD DURING CERTIAN CELIBRATIONS OR IN CERTIAN PLACES. IN ALL CASES I KNOW OF THE SPILLING OF BLOOD WAS NOT A PROBLEM IN AN OPEN FIGHT ESPECIALLY IN SELF DEFENSE. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HEAR OF ANY OTHER GROUPS WHO HAD WEAPONS OR FIGHTING STYLES DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE SPILLING OF BLOOD EVEN IN SELF DEFENSE.

THE TUGS AS MENTIONED IN OTHER POSTS DID HAVE A PROHIBITION AGAINST SPILLING BLOOD WHEN THEY WERE KILLING OTHER TRAVELERS. THE REASON FOR THIS WAS THEIR BELIEF THAT KALI WAS DELIVERING THESE PEOPLE TO THEM AND SHE WOULD HIDE THE KILLINGS IF NO BLOOD WAS SPILLED OR WOMEN KILLED. SO IT WAS LIKE A KIND OF SACRIFICE AND RITUAL KILLING NOT A FIGHT.

AS TO A WEAPON MADE OF HORNS WITH SHARP POINTS , ITS NOT A VERY GOOD DESIGN FOR NOT SPILLING BLOOD, JUST ASK A MATADOR :D

The non-shedding of blood was indeed a tenet of much religious dogma in many religions, however an 'instrument' such as a mace would not be very effective in such use as bloodshed would be inevitable. In the case of the use of the horns, the effect would be clear as well.

In the case of the cult known as 'thuggee' which we have discussed on a concurrent thread, the 'weapon' used was the noose, strategically used to avoid the spilling of blood as dictated in thier religious dogma.

Hi Vandoo,
We must have posted at the same time. Very well said, and I especially like your matador analogy!! :)

All the best,
Jim

I would suspect any sharp and pointy object wielded by man to be capable of spilling copious amounts of blood, just ask any bull.
Regards,
Norman.

My apologies Vandoo I didn't read the second "not' plus my wife was speaking to me at the same time and for some reason she seemed to think what she was saying was more important than what I was reading.
Regards,
Norman.

NO PROBLEM :) SOMETIMES MY THOUGHT'S DON'T COME THRU VERY CLEAR AND I WAS NOT AN }A} STUDENT IN ENGLISH SO MY USE OF IT IS A BIT UNORTHADOX ,WE WON'T EVEN GET INTO MY SPELLING :D

WE ALL DO THE BEST WE CAN HERE ON THE FORUM, IT IS ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT FOR THOSE WHO'S NATIVE LANGUAGE IS NOT ENGLISH. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE EXTRA WORK THEY DO JUST TO POST ON THIS FORUM. I WOULD NOT KNOW WHERE TO START TO POST ON A FORUM IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE.

TO GET BACK ON TOPIC OR NEAR IT AT LEAST :rolleyes:
MAN HAS BORROWED WEAPONS AND THE IDEAS FOR THEM FROM THE ANIMAL KINGDOM SINCE ANCIENT TIMES. WE WERE NOT BLESSED WITH BIG FANGS, CLAWS, HORNS, SPINES OR SHARP HOOFS WE ARE SLOW ,WEAK AND FRAGILE COMPARED TO MOST OF THE CRITTERS WE ARE AROUND. WE ARE JUST LUCKY INSECTS ARE SMALL OR WE PROBABLY WOULD BE EXTINCT.
WE HAVE USED SHARK TEETH,STINGRAY AND OTHER FISH SPINES AS WELL AS SHARP SHELLS FROM THE SEA. HORNS, CLAWS AND FANGS FROM ANIMALS AS WELL AS WEAPONS FASHONED FROM WOOD,STONE, BONE AND METALS THAT COPY THEIR FORMS. THE DESIRE OF MAN TO PROVE THEY ARE A GREAT HUNTER OR WARRIOR HAS ALWAYS CAUSED SOME TO PIT THEMSELVES AGAINST THE MOST DANGEROUS CRITTERS. THAT ALSO LED TO THE KEEPING OF TROPHYS AS A BADGE OF YOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO IMPRESS THE GIRLS AND OTHER GUYS.
I GUESS WE HAVE ALWAYS ENVIED THE OTHER ANIMALS THEIR SPEED, POWER AND NATURAL ARMANENT. OUR COMPENSATION HAS BEEN OUR MINDS, ITS TOO BAD AS A RACE WE HAVE NOT MADE AS GOOD USE OF IT AS THE OTHER CRITTERS HAVE OF THEIR ABILITYS.

Thanks. I reckon you've hit the nail on the head, if man had spent more time helping each other rather than trying to impose their values on each other, well, who knows where we might have been. Having said that the history of mans ingenious use of artifacts in his pursuit of dominance and protection of personal or community property is what we all enjoy on this forum so I suppose we can't have it all.
Regards,
Norman.