On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types

Mercenary · 22nd October 2015, 10:39 PM

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

ariel · 24th October 2015, 02:47 AM

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 · 25th October 2015, 07:21 PM

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 · 27th October 2015, 02:34 PM

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 · 31st October 2015, 01:00 PM

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 · 31st October 2015, 06:29 PM

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 · 28th November 2015, 05:01 PM

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:

Quote:

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:

ariel · 28th April 2016, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Not touching why in India some kind of steel was called phauladi (from "phul-" - flower) I can now confidently conclude that "phul-katara" is definitely simply a bunch of gems that was attached to a string which fastened a dagger on a waist belt

Taking into account that the above assertion comes from Pant who was citing Chardin, and who prefaced this statement with words " obscure" and "perhaps", the confidence of the above author seems a bit excessive:-)))))

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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'.

(( this very topic, post #98))

David · 13th January 2016, 08:23 PM

Quote:

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 · 13th January 2016, 08:59 PM

"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

13th January 2016, 08:59 PM	#10
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	"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 Last edited by ariel; 13th January 2016 at 09:27 PM.

22nd October 2015, 10:39 PM	#1
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 428	Ariel, I see you have some time. Be so kind answere my post #72 .

24th October 2015, 02:47 AM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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.

25th October 2015, 07:21 PM	#3
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 428	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 ))

27th October 2015, 02:34 PM	#4
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	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.

31st October 2015, 01:00 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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:-)

31st October 2015, 06:29 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,453	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.