On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types

[fernando]

Ah, the Niagara falls, the Royal Ontario Museum, the CN tower ... all fascinating .

[ariel]

Jens, I am located in Ann Arbor, a delightful college town 1 hour drive from Windsor, Ontario.
You are alway welcome.
On top of that, I can give you a long tour of all our local microbreweries:-)

[Mercenary]

Ariel, I see you have some time. Be so kind answere my post #72 .

[ariel]

You may find examples in:

India: Art and Culture, 1300-1900.
by Stuart Cary Welch

It is available on Amazon, I just checked.

It includes the famous one with the head of his son, Shah Jahan.

[Mercenary]

You should to learn other styles of Mughal daggers decoration. There was very beautiful Animal style and others.
After that you will be able to understand that Mughals could not to present each other only "floral style" which you think was phul-katara ))

[Emanuel]

They did have a lot of figural styles
Those with flowers and large plant motifs would be termed "floral", and those with animals would be "zoomorphic" I think. Also a lot defying any such simple classification.

[ariel]

I spoke with native Hindi and Farsi speakers. It seems that Mercenary's theory in defining wootz as something like " floral ( or flowery) steel" is indeed mistaken.

In Hindi flower is Ful, steel is Loha. In Farsi flower is Gol, and steel is Fulad.

Thus, Fulad and Ful define two totally different things, and the only thing that "unites" them is partial homophony.

It is indeed a confusing area, especially when two languages are compared or intermixed. Even in the same language there are confusing pairs: complement and compliment, for example. Or, even worse, horse and whores:-)
People may make such mistakes very easily, especially when the language in question is not their native.

So, Mercenary, no cigar, but nice try:-)

[Jim McDougall]

Just to add some notes amidst the phulishness theme, it seems Pant ("Indian Arms and Armour", 1980), notes (p.188-89) that "...the word phul (flower) is obscure. Perhaps it means the knot or crochet of jewels called by Chardin ' une enseigne ronde de pierceries' and which the Persians called 'rose de Poignard'.

It seems that many of the examples shown and described are heavily jeweled, so that might lend to the idea of that kind of decoration, however with many examples of 'phul katara' it seems they are sans jewels but highly decorated florally in theme.

In a number of references from the Turk I Jahangir an account noted an offering to an ambassador to Bijapur in 1613 as a jeweled dagger, and then a phul katara along with other items. Another instance in the same account notes a 'jeweled phul katara' among items.

These suggest some disparity in the idea of 'jewelled' being the case for the term 'phul' as applied on these daggers, and perhaps stronger for the floral theme.

Interesting though is that the article " The Use of Flora and Fauna Imagery in Mughal Decorative Arts" by Stephen Markel (Marg magazine , Vo.50 #3, pp.25-35) throughout the remarkably thorough descriptions and images concerning material culture and arms does not mention the term 'phul' anywhere. Possibly as it was a broader coverage of the decorative theme than just arms.
Possibly then the phul-katara designator was more arms oriented?

As far as the term phul being rooted (no pun intended) in the concept of pulad (=watered steel) as a flowered pattern seems to me tenuous at best, and particularly in the idea that phul katara must have all had wootz blades.
I think this has been well resolved however already but wanted to add these notes.

It seems clear that the debates and discourse pertaining to these kinds of disparity in terminology and classifications especially with ethnographic arms often becomes heated out of pure frustration . Altogether too many times it is misconstrued that debate or difference in opinion has to be contentious or dynamic. For me I learn more from solidly supported and presented ideas and positions. Aside from the occasional barbs, this has been a pretty good discussion.

[Mercenary]

Many thanks Jim.

But whole quotation is "the katara was a long, narrow dagger. But the word phul (flower) is obscure...". So "phul" is inextricably linked with blade. That is why:

Interesting though is that the article " The Use of Flora and Fauna Imagery in Mughal Decorative Arts" by Stephen Markel (Marg magazine , Vo.50 #3, pp.25-35) throughout the remarkably thorough descriptions and images concerning material culture and arms does not mention the term 'phul' anywhere

What kind of daggers were used by Jahangir's court and what daggers were bestowed? I was able to find only two gifts. And there were nothing such as flower, roses or so. Let's see:

[Mercenary]

...

[Mercenary]

I do not think that it is could be "phul-katara" as "flower+blade". Just "jeweled dagger with some (?) blade". Not "jeweled dagger with jeweled flawored hilt with blade" ))

[Jens Nordlunde]

There are likely many names/things which are known, but which are rather diffuce to collectors.
Take kundan, many know what kundan is, but it seems as if few knows how it was made - as there are several theories.
The same goes for Phul-katara, many seem to have an idea of what it could be, but very few know what it is - when I say very few - I do mean very few - if any at all
Could be that when old Sanskrit manuscripts are translated, it will bring us closer to what it meant at the time.
Few collectors take an interest in the manuscripts translated, but there are 'tons' of them, not translated and there are 'tons' of them translated, but not yet known.
This is a lifetime study - and you will never finish.

[ariel]

Presented are several pictures of high-class daggers worn by Mughal gentlemen. However, we have no idea which of them, if any, were gifts from the Emperor.


One of the elementary rules of logic is: Absence of the evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence.



Regretfully, I agree with Jens ("This is a lifetime study - and you will never finish."} and with Jim ("phulishness"}

While it could be nice to know the truth, none of us here know Sanskrit or even Hindi and have wherewithals to crack this trivial and unanswerable question.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

It should also be noted that there was a custom to call objects according to the blade material. So, for example, the term "sukhela" is not a distinct weapon type, but refers to the fact that the blade is made of "sukhela" - a combination of soft and hard iron, or, according to some sources, an inexpensive wootz steel type..."

Not everything I wrote was the wild delirium, isn't it?
With "phul katara", too, need to wait a bit...

[Jens Nordlunde]

Please Mercenary and others - when you show a quote - let us know from where it is. The title, The author, the publisher, the date of publishing and the page from where it is taken. Thank you very much.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Please Mercenary and others - when you show a quote - let us know from where it is. The title, The author, the publisher, the date of publishing and the page from where it is taken. Thank you very much.

I am sorry. I thought that all have already read this wonderful article, the link to which estcrh kindly gave in the thread "European blades in India"
https://books.google.com/books?id=i...epage&q&f=false
Robert Elgood
Swords in the Deccan in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: Their Manufacture and the Influence of European Imports
in
Navina Najat Haidar, Marika Sardar
Sultans of the South: Arts of India's Deccan Courts, 1323-1687
pp. 218-233
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2011
p.224

[David]

Originally Posted by ariel

In Hindi flower is Ful, steel is Loha. In Farsi flower is Gol, and steel is Fulad.

This might mean little to this discussion, but i believe that "Loha" is Hindi for iron, not steel. Steel in Hindi seems to be a variation on the English word and seems to be pronounced "Stila".

[ariel]

"Loha" verified with several native speakers, both from the North and the South. "Stila" sounds like "indianized" English.


In any case, it is the homophony of "Ful" in Hindi and Farsi that is the point.


But the relation of Sukhela (var. Sakhela) to the current discussion is puzzling. The kind of steel used for its production is only one possiblilty, but Sukhela or Dhup as a specific name for a straight-bladed sword was recorded by Tarassuk & Blair in their Encyclopedia and by E. Jaiwant Paul in his book on Indian weapons. This "controversy" is nothing new.

That was even discussed here in passing years ago..
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10071

[Jens Nordlunde]

As far as I can see, the discussion is not running as it should.
Whatever blade you show, or whatever steel type you mention will be called something else in other parts of India.
If you really want to discuss this, you should specify which part of India you want to discuss.

Something else. Did you know that there is a place called Qandahar in Deccan? Or did you know that there is a Hyderabad in Sind?

We cant know it all. - can we?

[Mercenary]

"I'll be back" (c)
Soon )

[ariel]

Homophony can play funny games with people who do not know pertinent languages.
The same Ful in Arabic is a Fava bean. Is Ful Katara an Omani knife to be used for eating Ful Medames? Or does the latter mean Full Madams with Arabic accent? :-)))

[ariel]

I have pondered on Jens' last remark. He is correct 100%.


India is a huge country with very long history, essentially multiethnic population, multiple foreign influences and internal conflicts.

Weapons ( or their components) of very well-defined patterns originated in one corner, then traveled to another, acquired something else in the transition, and were modified over decades and centuries. In the process their names were altered and sometmes downright changed.

The complexity of such an evolution may be enormous for some examples.

In many cases we can discern traces of their former identity, but in some those are masked by time, distance and external changes.

It is important to have a basic agreement on what is what, but we must have a lot of humility to accept the imprecision of our knowledge and understanding as well as the necessity to know "when and where?" Vehement arguments on what constitutes a true Khanda and how it is cardinally different from something we just as vehemently call Dhup ( just an example) are missing the point. This is especially true if such pronouncements are made by people who do not know different languages used in India, cannot study primary sources and never spent time working with local historians/ethnographers.

I have witnessed heated arguments about a "true" name: katar or jamadhar?

As Pushkin used to say about Russian revolts: " senseless and merciless".

[Jens Nordlunde]

Glad you agree Ariel :-)

Tod, vol. II page 158. “The Bikaneris work well in iron, and have shops in the capital and in all the larger towns for the manufacture of sword blades, matchlocks, daggers, iron lances, etc. The sword-handles, which are often inlaid with variegated steel, or burnished, are in high request, and exported to various parts of India.”

Having read this one start to wonder, if the hilts were made in the fashion of Bikaner hilts (whatever that was), or if they adjusted the hilt form in the fashion to the place where they were supposed to be sold?
From what Tod writes they must have had quite a big production, but we must not forget, that Bikaner was pased by a lot of caravans going in all directions.
From Robert Elgood and others, we know that weapons were made at a lot of places, and likely exported, like the ones from Bikaner, to other parts of India.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

I have pondered on Jens' last remark. He is correct 100%.

India is a huge country with very long history, essentially multiethnic population, multiple foreign influences and internal conflicts.

Weapons ( or their components) of very well-defined patterns originated in one corner, then traveled to another, acquired something else in the transition, and were modified over decades and centuries. In the process their names were altered and sometmes downright changed.

The complexity of such an evolution may be enormous for some examples.

In many cases we can discern traces of their former identity, but in some those are masked by time, distance and external changes.

It is important to have a basic agreement on what is what, but we must have a lot of humility to accept the imprecision of our knowledge and understanding as well as the necessity to know "when and where?" Vehement arguments on what constitutes a true Khanda and how it is cardinally different from something we just as vehemently call Dhup ( just an example) are missing the point. This is especially true if such pronouncements are made by people who do not know different languages used in India, cannot study primary sources and never spent time working with local historians/ethnographers.

Hi, Ariel!

I bow to your vast knowledge. But I have two questions after your busy and interesting monologue. When the last time you were in India? And how many primary sources you studied?

Best Regards

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Glad you agree Ariel :-)

Tod, vol. II page 158. “The Bikaneris work well in iron, and have shops in the capital and in all the larger towns for the manufacture of sword blades, matchlocks, daggers, iron lances, etc. The sword-handles, which are often inlaid with variegated steel, or burnished, are in high request, and exported to various parts of India.”

Having read this one start to wonder, if the hilts were made in the fashion of Bikaner hilts (whatever that was), or if they adjusted the hilt form in the fashion to the place where they were supposed to be sold?
From what Tod writes they must have had quite a big production, but we must not forget, that Bikaner was pased by a lot of caravans going in all directions.
From Robert Elgood and others, we know that weapons were made at a lot of places, and likely exported, like the ones from Bikaner, to other parts of India.

Tod got his materials on Bikaner at the end of 18 - beginning of 19 century. However, ~150 years earlier the entire armoury of Adoni was transferred to Bikaner.
God only knows how the Adoni examples influenced the Rajastani ones. But likely the Bikaner hilts ( whether reflecting pure Rajastani tradition, evolving from the southern one, or any other combination of ethnic inventiveness) that were "... exported to various parts of India" pollinated so many other places, that it might be impossible at the end to separate flies from hamburgers ( a delightful Russian saying). I bet that some of those patterns eventually got new and specific names based on distant localities. Everybody likes to be a source of something unique and patriotic. Perhaps that is why we have so many different hilt patterns:-)
I remember Jonathan Barrett's talk in Timonium in which he ruefully admitted that , perhaps, only Udaipuri hilts have a chance to be firmly attributed.

[Helleri]

I think something important to keep in mind along these lines is that derivation is not necessarily tied to definition. As definitions are descriptive and not prescriptive; Whatever the common lexical understanding of a word is at any given time and place, is essentially that words definition for a given time and place.

So even though Gladius is just what a roman may have said to refer to a sword generically. Today the words association with a distinctly roman sword in common lexical understanding sort of overrides the need to delineate with words like mainz or pompie. At least in casual conversation wherein 'I know, that you know, what I mean'. And these modernized gross-generalizations and misnomers are actually helpful for expedient communication.

Even so delving a little deeper is always good to do for those interested in order to better inform deeper discussion. Just saying...'Even if it was so doesn't mean it is so' as definitions can and do change over time (given that they are just descriptions of the common and current usage of a word).

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

I bet that some of those patterns eventually got new and specific names based on distant localities. Everybody likes to be a source of something unique and patriotic. Perhaps that is why we have so many different hilt patterns:-)

It is very nice that my many year's efforts on the Russian forum were not in vain.

[Mercenary]

One more "style". Bundi shahi )))

[Jens Nordlunde]

Mercenary,
How do you know that this is a Bundi hilt, and how old would you say it is?
From which museum is the picture?
Jens

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Mercenary,
How do you know that this is a Bundi hilt, and how old would you say it is?
From which museum is the picture?
Jens

It was joke. I many times wrote on another forum that to define of the hilt style as the place of production is mostly mind game. But I was alone. Likewise I many years have been talking that in the case of Indian weapons of the 19th century we are dealing mainly with Indian souvenirs of the 19th century. I am glad that such things are now beginning to understand.