The exhibition oriental weapons "The Mortal Beauty" of private collections in Russia,

[mahratt]

Photo

[mahratt]

More photos

[ariel]

Just a couple of comments:



First chapter:



1. The issue of Kshatriyas, lower castes, and service of ancient Rajputs, Mahrattas, Gujaratis etc in the navy and airforce. I enjoyed the joke. A very good one!

However, the author mixes two totally unrelated categories. Kshatriyas are members of a religious stratum whereas Rajputs, Gujaratis, Sindhis etc. have nothing to do with belonging to a particular caste: they are members of ethnic/national/ kingdom entities.
Contrasting Kshatriyas and, say, Rajputs is equivalent to stating that medieval European Princes wore armour, but the French, English and Italians did not. Apples and oranges, kind of....

2. Suggest careful re-reading of Elgood's book.

Chakra belonged to the class of weapons called " mukta": released freely.

Chakra was a weapon and abode of Vishnu and was divine by itself. Thus, released, it had freedom of action and choice. When a man was killed by Chakra, it was not a victory or a lucky shot of his enemy, but a will and action of Vishnu, the karma of the victim. We may ruefully shake our heads at that logic, but the Indian metaphysics differs dramatically from the Western one, and judging one by another's criteria guarantees confusion and misunderstanding.

3.The author should kindly consult " "Kauthiliya Arthasastra", transl. by R.P. Kangles ( Motilal Banasidass, Delhi, 2003. ISBN: 81-208-0040-0) Vol 2, p. 132:
Hataka, a spear-like weapon with 3 blades.

Second chapter:

The author states that E. Karlova willfully ".... distorted the quote, changing its meaning to the opposite. Such little thing ))"
I humbly disagree. Her point was to mention that local Rajas proudly showed their weapon collections to visitors and NOT to present personal opinion of Prince Saltykov on the quality of Lahore collection. Thus, a simple description of the event sufficed beautifully.

Personally, I think that Prince S. was exercising the well-known trick of suppressed envy: sour grapes. He wrote that Royal Lahore collection was ".. pile of weapons ( and).... some theatrical weapons without style and taste." At the same time, he was buying a lot of stuff at local bazaars ( same article , p.50). See also book by R. Hales, p. 374, Prince Saltykov buying weapons from a long line of suspiciously-looking denizens of the night.

Perhaps he was just a cheapie, but certainly an awfully bad sport. One does not badmouth the host who graciously invited one to his home and showed him his treasures.


Third chapter:

I am looking at the drawing and still see a mace. Sorry. Can the author elaborate why it is not?

[AJ1356]

Thanks for sharing, I really enjoyed taking in the beauty of the various pieces.

[estcrh]

Great photos, thanks.

Originally Posted by ariel

I am looking at the drawing and still see a mace. Sorry. Can the author elaborate why it is not?

Looks like a mace to me, depictions of maces in Indian art are hard to find.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Just a couple of comments:

First chapter:

1. The issue of Kshatriyas, lower castes, and service of ancient Rajputs, Mahrattas, Gujaratis etc in the navy and airforce. I enjoyed the joke. A very good one!

However, the author mixes two totally unrelated categories. Kshatriyas are members of a religious stratum whereas Rajputs, Gujaratis, Sindhis etc. have nothing to do with belonging to a particular caste: they are members of ethnic/national/ kingdom entities.
Contrasting Kshatriyas and, say, Rajputs is equivalent to stating that medieval European Princes wore armour, but the French, English and Italians did not. Apples and oranges, kind of....

2. Suggest careful re-reading of Elgood's book.

Chakra belonged to the class of weapons called " mukta": released freely.

Chakra was a weapon and abode of Vishnu and was divine by itself. Thus, released, it had freedom of action and choice. When a man was killed by Chakra, it was not a victory or a lucky shot of his enemy, but a will and action of Vishnu, the karma of the victim. We may ruefully shake our heads at that logic, but the Indian metaphysics differs dramatically from the Western one, and judging one by another's criteria guarantees confusion and misunderstanding.

3.The author should kindly consult " "Kauthiliya Arthasastra", transl. by R.P. Kangles ( Motilal Banasidass, Delhi, 2003. ISBN: 81-208-0040-0) Vol 2, p. 132:
Hataka, a spear-like weapon with 3 blades.

Second chapter:

The author states that E. Karlova willfully ".... distorted the quote, changing its meaning to the opposite. Such little thing ))"
I humbly disagree. Her point was to mention that local Rajas proudly showed their weapon collections to visitors and NOT to present personal opinion of Prince Saltykov on the quality of Lahore collection. Thus, a simple description of the event sufficed beautifully.

Personally, I think that Prince S. was exercising the well-known trick of suppressed envy: sour grapes. He wrote that Royal Lahore collection was ".. pile of weapons ( and).... some theatrical weapons without style and taste." At the same time, he was buying a lot of stuff at local bazaars ( same article , p.50). See also book by R. Hales, p. 374, Prince Saltykov buying weapons from a long line of suspiciously-looking denizens of the night.

Perhaps he was just a cheapie, but certainly an awfully bad sport. One does not badmouth the host who graciously invited one to his home and showed him his treasures.

Third chapter:

I am looking at the drawing and still see a mace. Sorry. Can the author elaborate why it is not?

1. I am very glad that you agreed with me (it is no sarcasm - I'm getting closer to paranoia :-) ). For an article named "Military Culture" it is the very superficial article.

2.The chakra was the weapon. Trust me, when it was thrown to the enemies no one thought about "metaphysic" and no one knew that such weapon belongs to the "mukta". And when someone threw the chakra he wanted to kill. There are descriptions of the use of chakra.

3. Again, metaphysics. In "Kauthiliya Arthasastra" was mentioned "an axe with a trident at one end or both ends" also. Can you show this weapon and the description of it use?

4. However the Saltikov's items which were collected buying them on bazaars now are in the Hermitage. Where are the theatrical European items of R.Singh now? And whose are the "sour grapes" then? )))

5. About the picture with mace it would be better to ask Mercenary. He was more interested and he studied the subject.

[mahratt]

Photo:

[ariel]

1. For the record: I do NOT agree with the author. I stated from the beginning that the chapter was an introductory review designed for local Russian readers who do not know English and have to rely on Russian second, - and third- hand sources, often poorly translated. For that audience it is good.

I guess my comments about the issue of Kshatriyas vs. the Gujaratis go unchallenged :-) Good. Hopefully, the author will not repeat a similar error in the future.


2. Sorry, I cannot and do not "trust" the allegedly mind-reading author. He operates from the Western point of view that is largely inapplicable to the Hindu one.
Again, he is well advised to carefully read Elgood's book specifically addressing the issue of tight bonds between Hindu arms and ritual, and learn something new. This may change his attitude to Indian metaphysics.

3. The author should read the reference I provided and not a third-hand information from the popular-audience Nosov's book in Russian.
At the same time, he may want to look for " hastivaraka" ( same source)


4. First, the author's main line of attack against Ms. Karlova totally misses the point: he just distorted the purpose of her reference. Second, we do not know what was the objective worth and value of Royal Lahori weapons. Does the author? Perhaps, Hermitage examples paled in comparison.

Be it as it may, Prince Saltykov exhibited a totally ungentlemanly and low-class behavior. Feh.....

5. It is the author who brought the mace as an example, and it is his responsibility to defend his statement. Hiding behind other person's back is not a good policy.


In summary, this is a book for general audience and as such it fulfilled its goals admirably. It ain't no monumental treatise like the Elgood's one, but even the author of the review might have learned a lot from it.

In conclusion: I find the author's review of the articles poorly informed, poorly thought through and , - frankly, - biased. I can only wonder, - why?

I firmly stand behind my recommendation to buy this book. Jens Nordlunde is unlikely to find many revelations there :-), but for the rest of us, not deeply dedicated to the study of Indian culture and weapons, this book might be useful.

The additional bonus is the Chinese part of the book, and AFAIK there is no similar source in English.

[Jim McDougall]

Mahratt and Ariel,
Thank you so much guys for continuing this review of these references as well as the topic in general from objective point of view. With this you both reveal the attention to detail you have observed to these very complex topics on Indian arms.
While I have studied these weapons for very many years, I confess I have never reached the depth you both have clearly reached, so I would count myself among the many who may benefit from these books.

Again, thank you both for this most useful and informative exchange!

[roshan]

Originally Posted by ariel

Just a couple of comments:

First chapter:

1. The issue of Kshatriyas, lower castes, and service of ancient Rajputs, Mahrattas, Gujaratis etc in the navy and airforce. I enjoyed the joke. A very good one!

However, the author mixes two totally unrelated categories. Kshatriyas are members of a religious stratum whereas Rajputs, Gujaratis, Sindhis etc. have nothing to do with belonging to a particular caste: they are members of ethnic/national/ kingdom entities.
Contrasting Kshatriyas and, say, Rajputs is equivalent to stating that medieval European Princes wore armour, but the French, English and Italians did not. Apples and oranges, kind of....

Hi Ariel - to a large extent, you are also making the same mistake. For example, there are Sindhi Rajputs (Soomros, Sammas, Sodhas and tons of others), Punjabi Rajputs, Gujarati Rajputs (Solangis, etc) and so on.

Rajput is a type of caste, not an ethnicity like Sindhis or Gujaratis. Saying "Rajputs and Sindhis" is exactly akin to the example you gave.

[ariel]

You are correct in your example, but please notice that I was talking about Rajputs and the rest also in terms of their national/ ethnic/ political entities. Just wanted to pass across the idea that Rajputs were not included in the tradition Hindu division of castes.
Perhaps, I needed to phrase it better, no?

[mahratt]

Photos

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

I am looking at the drawing and still see a mace. Sorry. Can the author elaborate why it is not?

I am sorry I was banned that time. It is "chobdhar" - man with "chob". You can find a lot of them on Indian miniatures. Definition of "chob" you can find in the Glossary of the excellent book by Robert Elgood "Arms & Armour at the Jaipur Court":
http://www.amazon.com/Arms-Armour-Ja...e+Jaipur+Court

[benny.lee]

India is an ancient civilization.
Its weapons are so exquisite and incredible.
I am a Chinese
I noticed that the Chinese weapons in this museum are more common.
Some frustration

[Jens Nordlunde]

Benny, have a look at page 139 in the catalogue. I know of only four daggers with a blade like this, and decorated in the same way.
The decotartion on the blades are a bit different, but they must be from the same place - likely even the same work shop.
One is in this catalogue. one is in the MET (go to their homepage and make a search for no 30.120.162), one is in a museum in Bejing (see attached) and one is in my collection.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Benny, have a look at page 139 in the catalogue. I know of only four daggers with a blade like this, and decorated in the same way.
The decotartion on the blades are a bit different, but they must be from the same place - likely even the same work shop.
One is in this catalogue. one is in the MET (go to their homepage and make a search for no 30.120.162), one is in a museum in Bejing (see attached) and one is in my collection.

Dagger and scabbard
Date:late 17th–early 18th century
Geography:India
Culture:Islamic
Medium:Hilt: Jade; carved Blade: steel; damascened
Dimensions:L. 18-1/8 in.
Classification:Arms and Armor
Credit Line:The Sylmaris Collection, Gift of George Coe Graves, 1930
Accession Number:30.120.162

[benny.lee]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Benny, have a look at page 139 in the catalogue. I know of only four daggers with a blade like this, and decorated in the same way.
The decotartion on the blades are a bit different, but they must be from the same place - likely even the same work shop.
One is in this catalogue. one is in the MET (go to their homepage and make a search for no 30.120.162), one is in a museum in Bejing (see attached) and one is in my collection.

Yes, I have seen similar things in the the Imperial Palace Museum.
According to the introduction, he was given in the Qing Dynasty by other countries as a gift to the Emperor

[ariel]

Originally Posted by benny.lee

India is an ancient civilization.
Its weapons are so exquisite and incredible.
I am a Chinese
I noticed that the Chinese weapons in this museum are more common.
Some frustration

I guess the difference between the "known" Indian and Chinese weapons may be explainable by historical circumstances.

In 19-20 centuries China had several civil wars with wholesome destruction of cultural heritage, from Taiping rebellion to Cultural Revolution and everything in between, whereas India was relatively peaceful and maintained Royal dynasties with their properties and armouries. Also, religious and cultural pluralism in India was much more conducive to the flourishing variety of "ethnic" weapons , with Hindu and Muslim major branches and "boutique" subsets, such as Coorg, Nepalese, Mysore, NW Frontier etc .
And, lastly, weapons in India had sacred overtones and were treated as such, with infinite variety in form, religious symbolism in decoration and lavish adornments. In China weapons were viewed as utilitarian instruments and ( with the rare exceptions of Royal examples) were limited to several simple patterns of purely practical features.
This does not make Chinese weapons less historically important or interesting, but simply more austere. Da Dao or the so called River Pirates examples are esthetically plain ugly, but did their military job admirably well.

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by ariel

In China weapons were viewed as utilitarian instruments and ( with the rare exceptions of Royal examples) were limited to several simple patterns of purely practical features.

Hi Ariel,

like all cultures, there are class levels and within China there were certainly, and are, many many fine examples or weapons types that go beyond this classification you make.
Weapons are certainly NOT only viewed as utilitarian instruments, they move well beyond this culturally.

Gavin

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

I guess the difference between the "known" Indian and Chinese weapons may be explainable by historical circumstances.

Indian soldiers were known to have been in China accompanying the British there, I have seen Indian weapons that were found in China, who knows if this may have influenced Chinese weapons at all.