Kora

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, that's fine - trust people! I repeat to you the question that asked ariel (ariel not answer). You know Durbar photo, for example, in Delhi, which has a similar sword?

I don't trust everyone........but I will tell you that if Oliver says it, you better believe it! He says more in just a few well chosen words than a lot of arms scholars can put together in many (including me . That is why I always resent this book of a fine collection by him being even remotely classified as 'coffee table' !!!

So that was a serious question (or statement?) on photos being required as proof of the weapons appearing in these Durbars, as well noted by Ariel ?
That particular prerequisite seems rather humorous in this context, as I would imagine many archaeological and anthropological papers and texts must be rendered inconsequential as many assertions concerning artifacts do not have photographic proof. There weren't many cameras around before the 1850s (at least as far as I know).

In any case, Oliver perfectly responded to this (I believe tongue in cheek question?) insistence on photographic proof of weaponry at durbars. This was in my opinion well placed as it illustrated the sort of weaponry, and clearly somewhat theatrical or exaggerated types of costume etc. were extant in these events.

The British Raj and many colonial circumstances in various countries and regions lent well to the cottage industry of supplying souveniers to both occupying forces and whatever tourism might have developed by visitors.

These items were inherently of traditional forms, and meant to be impressive. They were not of the quality of diplomatic gifts or presentation items, but as Ariel has noted, have gained their own historic value as pertains to the events in which they might have been emplaced.

To speak of these kinds of items dismissively seems unwarranted when being shown in good faith for discussion.
I would share this little note here for consideration:

" ...I was once told that it was said of Laking that he
would always find something kind to say about
a fellow collectors object".
re: Sir Guy Francis Laking (1875-1919) arms collector and historian
-"Arms & Armour Study in Edwardian Britain"
Sid Blair and Michael Lacy (1999)

I guess sort of the mark of a gentleman. I know I choose to try to
follow that lead......but not all collectors do.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

So that was a serious question (or statement?) on photos being required as proof of the weapons appearing in these Durbars, as well noted by Ariel ?
That particular prerequisite seems rather humorous in this context, as I would imagine many archaeological and anthropological papers and texts must be rendered inconsequential as many assertions concerning artifacts do not have photographic proof. There weren't many cameras around before the 1850s (at least as far as I know).

My dear friend, Jim, of course, I understand that in 1850 there were some problems with taking pictures But, we're kind of talking about 1903? I do not get them mixed up?

Originally Posted by Oliver Pinchot

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. .

But I do not insist on the pictures. After all, we both know that nobody knows these photos if no one was able to show this photo. For I will have enough historical source of the late 19th - early 20th century, which will be write of such items. Anybody can quote? I am very interested.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In any case, Oliver perfectly responded to this (I believe tongue in cheek?) insistence on photographic proof of weaponry at durbars. This was in my opinion well placed as it illustrated the sort of weaponry, and clearly somewhat theatrical or exaggerated types of costume etc. were extant in these events.

Can you give more examples (besides photos that kindly showed Oliver), where clearly somewhat theatrical or exaggerated types of costume etc.? I can show you a few images of Durbar. But there are all dressed real, without exaggeration.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

To speak of these kinds of items dismissively seems unwarranted when being shown in good faith for discussion.
I would share this little note here for consideration:

" ...I was once told that it was said of Laking that he
would always find something kind to say about
a fellow collectors object".
re: Sir Guy Francis Laking (1875-1919) arms collector and historian
-"Arms & Armour Study in Edwardian Britain"
Sid Blair and Michael Lacy (1999)

I guess sort of the mark of a gentleman. I know I choose to try to
follow that lead......but not all collectors do.

I understand that tolerance is fine I love when forum participants see an modern item (such as a souvenir knife) and a few posts flowery praise this item. And to end the discussion, the words that it "is not quite old an item". But I do not understand why can not just say, "Man, this is not the authentic item is. Great if you like him, but this is not the old thing..."

Is telling the truth - this is not the act of a gentleman?


Dear Oliver, you write about an similar item in his book: "Many were produced for the Dehli Durbars". Tell me, please, in which a book on Delhi Durban you get this information?Or is it your personal opinion?

[Ian]

Hi Mahratt:

Perhaps some of the discussion of durbars reflects the different functions of these events, especially under British rule in India during the second half of the 19th C and into the 20th C.

Durbar is originally a Persian word for the King's Court--a place where the king did his business with nobles and courtiers, and important ceremonies were held. A special durbar could be called for major events, such as the marriage of the next heir to the kingdom, etc. These practices continued in the various Indian princely courts, even during the time of the British Raj. Traditional durbar were held into the first half of the 20th C. in many of the princely states.

The British somewhat corrupted the process by holding large gala pageants when a new Viceroy was installed or a new British monarch was crowned or celebrated a jubilee. This practice started in the late 19th C. In keeping with local custom, the British called these events durbar but there was no traditional business conducted at these spectaculars.

I think it's important to distinguish between the traditional functions of durbar and what foreigners introduced at a fairly late stage. That's not to say that traditional durbar were devoid of spectacle, but the British versions were all spectacle and no real substance other than showing loyalty to the Viceroy and the Crown.

Ian.

[mahratt]

Ian, thank you!

I have no doubt that you are right. But I understand that there is no evidence that at the time of such theatrical durbars for Europeans, the Hindu had swords, like a sword that we are discussing? Or I'm wrong?

[Jim McDougall]

Ian, thank you so much for the great synopsis on durbars! This really gives a great perspective on the significance of these notable events. Clearly these evolved into events of quite different character eventually, and of course the nature of items either presented, displayed or sold would have had various degrees of character.

Mahratt, you do know of course that the analogy on cameras was to illustrate a point. We do not always have the benefit of photographic evidence to support every aspect of our observations or suggestions.
Naturally much of what is presented here in discussion will be a matter of opinion, but in most cases 'informed' opinion. I am more inclined to accept an opinion offered by a person who has handled enormous numbers of weapons, studied academically and produced considerable published material on topics than someone who simply makes an off the cuff comment.

While you clearly do not approve of Oliver's book on the Wagner Collection, referring to it as 'coffee table' level, he entered a post supportive of your other comments and tried to accommodate your 'requests' for images of durbars. He was being in my view quite gentlemanly if you noticed.

His comments on the durbars and nature of the weaponry found in them is based on profound experience, and many years of handling and researching arms. Just how much proof is needed to convince you of the integrity of his comments ? It is often difficult for someone to produce exact references for every observation over many years of studies. I know that I cannot always do so regarding my mere five decades of study, and citing examples from many years back....but I know the veracity of what I say . Would then a comment by me be considered useless if I could not produce exact reference?

Here we have friendly (?) usually, discussions where stringent academic protocol is not required to make observations or comments. If another does not agree, then that is their own choice.

As for making comments on a weapon here for discussion. There is nothing wrong with being truthful, however it seems that it should not be too hard to say an item is probably modern and commercial.......but to withhold calling it junk or low quality etc. It is not necessary to deride others who politely comment on an item regardless of its quality, and these things are just common courtesy.

Regarding the question you just asked Ian........yes, there is evidence that there were weapons like this in use. I have one, a kora with a tulwar hilt. These I have found are Bengali, just as noted in earlier discussions.These I have been told were used in sacrificial rituals of doves , but I have no proof or pictures, and I have not had access to the sword for years, and mine was not embellished.
Im just sayin'

[mahratt]

Dear Jim, I did not want to offend anyone. But I prefer the concrete facts of the private view.

Do I understand correctly that if someone will handle a lot of weapons, even if this man will not have any historical evidence of his words, you will consider these words right? (Sorry for my english, but I hope you understand my question?)

I thank Oliver for the fact that it supports my words. And I really liked his article on the Shamshir and collaboration with K.RIvkin "Arms and military history of the Caucasus".
Dear Oliver, accept my compliments.

But let's talk referring to the facts. Here are the photos with the Delhi Durbar in 1903 and 1911's. I'll be glad if You show on these photos of people who would be overly theatrical or exaggerated types. Maybe someone will see too theatrical weapon in these photos?

[ariel]

Jim,
You have opened an interesting angle on the theory of evidence.

There is a well-known rule in science: absense of evidence is not the same as evidence of absense.

Ignoring it is a routine mark of an inexperienced or , even worse, overzealous researcher trying to prove his (or her) pet theory :-))

[mahratt]

Well, facts probably will not ...

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Dear Jim, I did not want to offend anyone. But I prefer the concrete facts of the private view.

Do I understand correctly that if someone will handle a lot of weapons, even if this man will not have any historical evidence of his words, you will consider these words right? (Sorry for my english, but I hope you understand my question?)

I thank Oliver for the fact that it supports my words. And I really liked his article on the Shamshir and collaboration with K.RIvkin "Arms and military history of the Caucasus".
Dear Oliver, accept my compliments.

But let's talk referring to the facts. Here are the photos with the Delhi Durbar in 1903 and 1911's. I'll be glad if You show on these photos of people who would be overly theatrical or exaggerated types. Maybe someone will see too theatrical weapon in these photos?

Actually Mahratt, your English is remarkably clear, and clearly in our discussion there are some different points of view. I agree with you and of course Oliver, that it is preferred that substantial evidence should be provided in support of assertions. In the case of photographic evidence, even this cannot always be trusted for irrefutable truth.

For example, it is well known, particularly in earlier stages of the 'photographic era', that photos were typically staged, and in many cases (often possibly most) used props and various embellished posturing etc. .
This is often seen in the military photos of the times, where actual combat scenes were staged, and there are many other examples.

With reference to these durbars, most of these photos I would suspect fall into these categories. It is, in my mind, inconceivable that the entire scope of these events would be captured photographically. I perceive these durbars as much like 'fairs', where these scenes involving significant people and groups are shown do not include the lesser scenes at accompanying bazaars with vendors hawking their wares and materials,

In many cases facts may be found in related mediums, such as narratives, personal notes or recollections, and particularly provenanced items.
Sometimes it may be that a reasonable assumption might be made which is compelling by other factors, but these cases are so many that including them here would be almost impossible. Most of these kinds of situations are well explained in books like "After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection",
( J.W. Davidson, M.H. Lytle, N.Y. Knopf, 1982).
Those interesting in carrying investigations in these degrees would be most enlightened by this and other writings on this topic. Here, we maintain a more fluid and not quite as collegiate discussion format, which enables us to cover a broader scope pertaining to items at hand. Naturally many elements of these discussions serve as benchmarks for those choosing to pursue detailed factors to more comprehensive study .

While your personal levels of study and research are clearly of very high standards and academically exemplary, they are not necessarily demanded nor even expected in our formats. While recommendations for more thorough supportive findings are welcomed, it is purely elective as far as the other participants in discussion are concerned. With that in mind, those recommendations should be entered as just that, and in a cordial manner, without negative feature.

I think in that light, your knowledge will be better employed to the advantage of us all, rather than in conflicting interaction.

Best regards
Jim

[Mercenary]

The Durbars were not theatrical performances.

[David]

BTW, i did find a few other similar koras when searching the net. Their engravings are of somewhat varying qualities as i believe Oliver stated was common for these blades found in the market places. None of these made any claims to be connected to any Durbars, some where labelled as Nepali, some Indian.