Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

B.I · 27th February 2007, 04:45 AM

Hi Jim,
Yes, I agree. Its good to note down each time we see the term used, and also to keep looking for and more in depth description ttached to the term. There are many places that havent been looked in by any academic, so the search is still on.
Jens,
Yes, Ghar mean fort, but Kishanghar was a town and most towns were fortified. I was refering to the specific collection (whether it was the armoury or not) with these eched inscriptions. This collection was broken up, and brought to England some years back and the examples we are aware of (yours, Ricketts, one that was in a private collection etc) all came from this source. It is speculation to say that the image i have is the same collection that these pieces resided in (even though all was kishanghar) but an interesting point is the guy that bought the entire collection, also owns the photograph that I have. As far as I am aware, there was no armoury there, unless it was dispersed more than 20/25 years ago, which of course is a definate option. All we have is the little information that still exists. We know there was a collection, all of which were so inscribed. Whether they originally were part of an armoury, we can only guess at. As you say, Ghar means fort, and you would assume there was an armoury in a fortified town. But that can only be speculation. Fact, is that a collection, owned by the Maharaja was sold and brought to England, to be dispersed throughout the arms collection world, and all of these were inscribed with etched markings.

27th February 2007, 04:45 AM	#8
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	Hi Jim, Yes, I agree. Its good to note down each time we see the term used, and also to keep looking for and more in depth description ttached to the term. There are many places that havent been looked in by any academic, so the search is still on. Jens, Yes, Ghar mean fort, but Kishanghar was a town and most towns were fortified. I was refering to the specific collection (whether it was the armoury or not) with these eched inscriptions. This collection was broken up, and brought to England some years back and the examples we are aware of (yours, Ricketts, one that was in a private collection etc) all came from this source. It is speculation to say that the image i have is the same collection that these pieces resided in (even though all was kishanghar) but an interesting point is the guy that bought the entire collection, also owns the photograph that I have. As far as I am aware, there was no armoury there, unless it was dispersed more than 20/25 years ago, which of course is a definate option. All we have is the little information that still exists. We know there was a collection, all of which were so inscribed. Whether they originally were part of an armoury, we can only guess at. As you say, Ghar means fort, and you would assume there was an armoury in a fortified town. But that can only be speculation. Fact, is that a collection, owned by the Maharaja was sold and brought to England, to be dispersed throughout the arms collection world, and all of these were inscribed with etched markings.