Kora

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Panzerraptor

Just to make sure, my weapon is likely a 19th Century Indian kora/tulwar hybrid crafted for royals? Sounds awesome! I figured that this weapon was ceremonial based on the design and flange size, but I wasn't sure where it was from or who could've actually used it. Also, I forgot to mention that this item still has an edge along the inner curve.

Also, I think I've seen that kind of tegha before. A month or so before, a similar specimen had been circulating around some auction sites and eBay. Though when it was listed, I wasn't sure it was the real deal. Maybe I should take it seriously the next time it ever shows up.

Anyway, about cleaning it. Is there a specific way of doing it for this sword other than the usual mineral oil/paper towel method? Also, are the colored portions of this sword brass or gold?

I probably bad writing in English This sword (Kora) - a souvenir of the late 19th - early 20th century for Europeans. And a souvenir of poor quality. yellow metal on the blade - brass.

And the question to all participants. Guys, anyone of you has a picture Durbar Square, where there are people with sword-Kora?

I will be happy to see such a photo.

[sirupate]

The hilt type on the Khunda in your original post Panzerraptor, is not uncommon in Nepal on their swords, but rarer on their Khunda

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Panzerraptor

Just to make sure, my weapon is likely a 19th Century Indian kora/tulwar hybrid crafted for royals? Sounds awesome! I figured that this weapon was ceremonial based on the design and flange size, but I wasn't sure where it was from or who could've actually used it. Also, I forgot to mention that this item still has an edge along the inner curve.

Well, let's not exaggerate:-)
This is a ceremonial weapon 19-20 century, but the purpose of its creation is unknown. More likely it is a purely decorative piece, although the style of decoration is of the pattern that was thought to be used for arming retinues of Rajahs attending Delhi Durbars in an attempt to look colorful and lavish.

That was exactly what I wrote in post #9. Weapons cannot talk and the individual stories of them cannot be known . That's why we cannot be categorical and insist on our version of their origin and purpose. Stating with certainty that it is a cheap souvenir is just as incorrect as claiming that it was produced for a particular celebration and searching for positive or negative evidence. As was said, buy the weapon, not the story:-))
And I agree with Timo: more likely Bengal.

[mahratt]

Unfortunately, no one can prove to you that this is a ceremonial weapon. Because no evidence of this - no. You will not find any one pictures of India, where the ceremony would be with such swords))) Books that are written dealers or to assist in the implementation of the collection - it is not the best source of knowledge .... And if there is no evidence that it is the sword for the ceremony, it turns out that it is a souvenir sword.

Always nice to believe that you have in your collection "ceremonial sword", and not old souvenir. But the truth is that the this sword - this souvenir

Dont be upset. We all (with few exceptions) at the beginning of the formation of its collections made similar mistakes.

[Oliver Pinchot]

I'm with Mahratt, I like to see supporting examples whenever possible.

This photo is from a 1903 edition of National Geographic, commemorating the Delhi Durbar held in that year, which celebrated the accession of Edward VII. In the photo is a no-nonsense character in fanciful armor (some of it repurposed from an elephant armor) holding a massive sword of the sort someone pictured above; although it is sheathed, the type can be determined from its size and shape. I no longer have a hard copy of that NG, but I am sure that someone who has the time to do so can find it online. There was a later reissue of the photo in the 1930s or 40s that was colored. Both refer to "The Executioner" in the title, but it looks to me like a posed photo designed strictly to awe European guests.

Delhi Durbar weapons are usually very well made, but not always. Some were actually carried or worn to the Durbar itself by the nobility. Others were carried by lesser attendees. And still others were offered for sale to guests to commemorate their visit, either in the bazaars or hotels; the range of quality from one to the next is enormous.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Oliver Pinchot

I'm with Mahratt, I like to see supporting examples whenever possible.

This famous photo. Unfortunately, the sword in the scabbard, and we can not say how this sword looks. I think it looks like this:

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Oliver Pinchot

And still others were offered for sale to guests to commemorate their visit, either in the bazaars or hotels; the range of quality from one to the next is enormous.

That is what we now call - souvenirs?

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Oliver Pinchot

Delhi Durbar weapons are usually very well made, but not always. Some were actually carried or worn to the Durbar itself by the nobility. Others were carried by lesser attendees. And still others were offered for sale to guests to commemorate their visit, either in the bazaars or hotels; the range of quality from one to the next is enormous.

Oliver,

No arguments about it.
But calling the "for sale" items "souvenirs" would not be correct, IMHO.
Any item connected with an historical event acquires special aura and meaning.


A lavishly illustrated booklet sold to the visitors to the Statue of Liberty is a souvenir. A genuine official programme of the unveiling ceremony of the same Statue of Liberty is a true antique object worth collecting ( I recently saw it being bought by Rick from the "Pawn Stars" for several hundred bucks:-)))

Thus, if one could provenance the Kora in question to the actual Durbar event, it would be a worthwhile collector's item.
Unfortunately, we cannot. However, we also cannot dismiss such a possibility. And that was the entire gist of my comment to the current owner.


I really do not think that this forum needs sarcastic and supercilious snarks addressed to the novices who are genuinely seeking information.

[mahratt]

I really like the stories that are concoct (because they have no real evidence)

What for is encouraging new participants in the forum, telling them beautiful legends? Does anyone have some real evidence that this bark, as we are discussing here, used to Durbar? Or at least it was prepared to Durbar? I'll be glad to see such evidence.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

More likely it is a purely decorative piece, although the style of decoration is of the pattern that was thought to be used for arming retinues of Rajahs attending Delhi Durbars in an attempt to look colorful and lavish.

May be you are confusing with Indian festivals?

[Jim McDougall]

LOL!!!!
Good one Mercenary!!! 'durbars were not theatrical' !!!????
Great photos which illustrate the monumental degree of 'performance' which were intended fully to impress and influence.

These were oriented toward British officialdom and often nobility and naturally the highest degree of embellishment could be found on all manner of costume, material cultural items, weapons etc.

Indian 'festivals' were far more often and regularly held events with the purpose of traditional and often religious orientation. While the durbars of course brought in colonial populace, officials and occupying military and many associated groups who certainly sought souveniers of these great events.......the festivals would have been far less 'commercial' in my view.

The term 'theatrical' in our discussion as I have understood is a metaphoric term to describe something embellished far beyond similar items in regular situations, made to outwardly attract attention. Often this term refers to stage type props which would not be of the quality and durability of the items they portray.

[mahratt]

Jim, monumentality and theatricality - is not the same))))) The greatness and cheap farce - different.
Excellent swords, that we see among the participants durbar in Delhi (in the photo) do not look like the sword that we are discussing

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, monumentality and theatricality - is not the same)))))

Of course. I think there were not any cheap sham items. The real weapons or ceremonial of high quality.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, let's not exaggerate:-)
This is a ceremonial weapon 19-20 century...

...likely it is a purely decorative piece .... that was thought to be used for arming retinues of Rajahs attending Delhi Durbars in an attempt to look colorful and lavish.

And I agree with Timo: more likely Bengal.

As I remember the rulers of Bengal were muslims. I do not think that on the Durbar of Bengal court such the Hindu weapon could be used. It is just the unjustified fantasies which lead to false conclusions.

[Tim Simmons]

Asian things are not my thing but I have to agree with Mahrrat . In the UK these things are extremely common and the very same decorative techniques can be be found on many blade weapon forms. They are late 19th century early 20th century souverniers. Really not worth argument in my mind. Still look good if you like Asian stuff.

[Jim McDougall]

Guys, maybe I'm not making what I am suggesting clear enough. If we are talking about durbars........the EVENTS are monumental and theatrical in sense.
The weapons and costume etc. USED or PRESENTED in these events are of course often highly embellished and of superb quality.

The items often hawked in bazaars and by sellers AROUND these events during their time and frequented by TOURISTS and SOUVENIER SEEKERS
though NOT actually USED in the durbar itself are of course of lower quality,
often even cheap.

The bizarrely costumed guy with the huge tegha and spikes galore is what I would call THEATRICAL......this is not the common costume worn .....it seems this image is often referred to as an executioner, but that is because of the IMPRESSION being staged.

The durbar events were MONUMENTAL because if their huge scope, celebration and importance.

I hope this might clarify what I was trying to say. Please pardon the capital letters, my goal was to emphasize the terms . I apparently often don't make myself clear so my apologies for the confusion.

I really had no idea that trying to describe an item from a durbar in the 19th century which falls into 'souvenier' scope would be confused with the presentation and lavish items used by important individuals there.

[ariel]

[QUOTE=Mercenary]As I remember the rulers of Bengal were muslims. I do not think that on the Durbar of Bengal court such the Hindu weapon could be used. It is just the unjustified fantasies which lead to false conclusions.[/QUOTE/]

Last Delhi Durbar occurred in 1911. At that time Bengal was a defined historico-geographical unit.

One should not confuse historical Bengal and Bangladesh:-))))

West Bengal was Hindi and stayed in India in 1947. Muslim East Bengal became Bangladesh.

Historical Hindi West Bengal , Assam etc directly border or are in the vicinity of Nepal. Muslim East Bengal is almost Burma.


As a matter of fact, when Nepal became independent after WWI it retained some old Bengal kingdoms.

Plenty of Hindi Koras in historical Bengal:-)))

[Mercenary]

[QUOTE=ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

As I remember the rulers of Bengal were muslims. I do not think that on the Durbar of Bengal court such the Hindu weapon could be used. It is just the unjustified fantasies which lead to false conclusions.[/QUOTE/]

Last Delhi Durbar occurred in 1911. At that time Bengal was a defined historico-geographical unit.

One should not confuse historical Bengal and Bangladesh:-))))

West Bengal was Hindi and stayed in India in 1947. Muslim East Bengal became Bangladesh.

Historical Hindi West Bengal , Assam etc directly border or are in the vicinity of Nepal. Muslim East Bengal is almost Burma.


As a matter of fact, when Nepal became independent after WWI it retained some old Bengal kingdoms.

Plenty of Hindi Koras in historical Bengal:-)))

What was it? Read this for a start:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Ali_Mirza
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasif_Ali_Mirza
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waris_Ali_Mirza
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...lers_of_Bengal

[ariel]

[QUOTE=Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

What was it? Read this for a start:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Ali_Mirza
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasif_Ali_Mirza
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waris_Ali_Mirza
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...lers_of_Bengal

These references do not talk about weapons.
And a gentle reminder: 1. Religion of a ruler at a certain period of history does not always reflect religion of a large number of his subjects; 2. Religion of a ruler does not alway reflect the type of weaponry his military uses.

To wit:

I thought we were talking about Kora as a Bengali weapon, weren't we?

Suggest to read Elgood's glossary in his book on Indian arms, re. Bughalee ( p. 238) and Kora ( p.252)
Even Mughals might used it. Sharp steel is sharp steel :-;

[ariel]

David,
Nobody ever claimed here that this particular Kora was actual armament of a royal retinue. Nor was a claim introduced that this particular Kora was even a commemorative piece sold at the Durbar pageant.

The only thing that was said, that according to Oliver, weapons of similar decorative motives were manufactured en masse for Delhi Durbars.

For some reasons, some people misinterpreted ( misread? misunderstood?) the meaning of this statement, took it as an categorical claim about the posted Kora and started a pseudo-academic Jihad , demanding documented and photographic proof affirming the idea nobody here ever advanced.

Please re-read my posts ## 9 and 24 and try to find a single statement that was misleading Panzerraptor or anybody else about historical, artistic or commercial value of the Kora.

Once again, I think that a question asked by a novice deserves truthful, informative and respectful answer. No sarcasm. No snarks. And that was exactly I and Jim tried to convey.

[Jim McDougall]

Panzerraptor,
In hopes you are still here!!!
I would like to point out the kind of excitement, drama, controversy, discussion, debate and all manner of dynamics which are brought out by even the most simple of weapons being collected.

You can see the diversity of perspectives, interests, and views being expressed here with the focus being on just what this particular weapon was, and what sort of history might have surrounded it.

Here we have individuals with expertise in a number of fields of arms, some who have studied academically and authored books, some who have written and are amidst finishing other articles on many topics. Even as the subject of photographic evidence is brought into the discussion, we have the benefit of professional photography experience to add to the dimension of our adding that into the equation.
We have English critique to examine the proper words or terms to use in describing some of the circumstances involved in our investigative discussion.

But above all, we have history, so you see how important weapons can be as virtual icons of the times, events and people in which they came from!

While you began a thread with wonderfully posed questions about the collecting of arms, what you have here is a fully dynamic exercise in exactly what collecting weapons is all about!
It is an adventure which becomes lifelong, and 'monumentally' (if the right word exciting!!!!!
WELCOME TO OUR WORLD!!! Glad to have you here.

All best regards
Jim

[David]

Originally Posted by ariel

Please re-read my posts ## 9 and 24 and try to find a single statement that was misleading Panzerraptor or anybody else about historical, artistic or commercial value of the Kora.

I can assure you Ariel that it is not necessary for me to re-read any of your posts since i have already read yours and everyone else's on this thread 5 or 6 times. But please feel free to re-read my posts as i don't believe any of them have accused you of misleading anybody.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Nobody ever claimed here that this particular Kora was actual armament of a royal retinue. Nor was a claim introduced that this particular Kora was even a commemorative piece sold at the Durbar pageant.

The only thing that was said, that according to Oliver, weapons of similar decorative motives were manufactured en masse for Delhi Durbars.

For some reasons, some people misinterpreted ( misread? misunderstood?) the meaning of this statement, took it as an categorical claim about the posted Kora and started a pseudo-academic Jihad , demanding documented and photographic proof affirming the idea nobody here ever advanced.

Please re-read my posts ## 9 and 24 and try to find a single statement that was misleading Panzerraptor or anybody else about historical, artistic or commercial value of the Kora.

Once again, I think that a question asked by a novice deserves truthful, informative and respectful answer. No sarcasm. No snarks. And that was exactly I and Jim tried to convey.

I do not understand why play with facts? You wrote:

Originally Posted by ariel

These items date from the end of 19 to the beginning of 20 century. They are ceremonial. They might have been produced as tourist items, but Oliver Pinchot in his book of the late R. Wagner collection had shown a khanda with very similar decorations. In his comment, items of such decorative abundance were produced for the Dehli durbars ( 1877,1903,1911), all-India assemblies at the coronations of British Kings, them being also The Emperors of India. Every Rajah brought a retinue armed to the teeth with very "show-y" weapons. Theatrical? Historical? Depends on the point of view of a collector.

Unless you are specifically interested in the battle-proven weapons, these shields and kora reflect prevailing trends in Indian arms culture of that time.

It now appears that there is no documentary evidence that such swords (as we discuss) worn on the Durbar. Moreover such swords - it is not "part of Indian culture." It - kitsch.

But in the absence of evidence to support "the version that these swords were made for Durbar", conversations were reduced to thinking "posed" thousands of people in the photo or not

Some forgotten that those who "posed" no such swords (which we are discussing).