Deccani handles?

[Jim McDougall]

Ariel, this is an intriguing ponderance! and I visualize you in a winged tufted leather easy chair, wearing a smoking jacket with your snifter of cognac in one hand and trusty 'Elgood in the other.

Actually I think you are pretty much on target, and its always fascinating when we get these 'in between' transitional cases. The Deccani classification as you know is an extremely broad conundrum in analysis of hilt forms, and Elgood notes it is particularly difficult to attribute them with certainty to specific states.
However it would seem most likely that these 'middle' swords with the Mughal type hilts retaining the 'winged' feature of the Hindu khanda would have been from Deccani regions.
The Hindu's were of course reluctant to relinquish certain features of their traditional swords' hilts as these often were key to apotropaic imbuement as well as religious symbolism.
As the Mughal Sultanates took over, many of the Vijayanagara types of hilts were likely amalgamated with the Mughal forms as these weapons filtered through the Bijapur regions.
I think the 'tegha' you mention from the Elgood article was listed as 17th c. so it would seem this time frame may well suit these unusual hybrids.

Well that's my take, think I'll grab a long neck!!!

[ariel]

Jim,

Smoking jackets, winged chairs and cognac are for sissies: tee shirt, plastic stool on the deck and 120 proof Hungarian Slivovitz my son brought me from Budapest is more like it:-)

But on a more serious note: I am glad you agree: perhaps we can add Deccani handles to the Udaipuri ones ( as per Jonathan Barrett) to the frustratingly short list of Indian handles with definitive provenance.

Perhaps I should write a paper :-))))

To celebrate this momentous insight your next longneck shouds be India Pale Ale. Bottoms up, man:-)

[Ian]

Ariel:

When looking at hybrid examples, I am always of two minds. Does this represent temporal hybridism or geographical hybridism? In other words, are we looking at a transition between two forms that occurred over time (i.e., temporal evolution within a specific region), or, as you suggest, the mixing of two different styles in an intervening region?

Without provenance of specific pieces, I don't think one can distinguish between these two possibilities.

Ian.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Ian

Ariel:

When looking at hybrid examples, I am always of two minds. Does this represent temporal hybridism or geographical hybridism? In other words, are we looking at a transition between two forms that occurred over time (i.e., temporal evolution within a specific region), or, as you suggest, the mixing of two different styles in an intervening region?

Without provenance of specific pieces, I don't think one can distinguish between these two possibilities.

Ian.

Very true.
The "geographical" hybrid would be consistent with pure Deccani origin.
The "temporal" one might me Mughal with Southern influence or Southern with the Mughal one.

But the epicenter ( or initial point) of such a transition would still be likely to occur at the point of maximal clash between the two, wouldn't it?

[ariel]

I remembered seeing a similar one, and it came back to me: in the Elgood's paper on Deccani swords

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...808#post197808

there is a sword with very similar handle, that is attributed to Deccan

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel,
The sword you show, is the one I had in my hands 12 years ago or so, and I am convinced it is from Deccan.
These mixed hilts seem to be from Deccan, but they should be researched, to find out from where in Deccan, as I have a funny feeling that they came from the same area.
Jens

[Ian]

Originally Posted by ariel

...
But the epicenter (or initial point) of such a transition would still be likely to occur at the point of maximal clash between the two, wouldn't it?

Or the point(s) at which one was (eventually) supplanted by another. Without more information, I don't know how to distinguish geographical from temporal transition.

Ian.

[ariel]

Jens,
Yes, the one from the Jaipur book you refer to: it has a very similar " khanda/tulwar" construction of the handle, but the artistic features are South Rajasthan, especially the beaded edges. Elgood specifically mentions khanjars from Deccan with similarly engineered handles and, as you notice, stresses the Deccani attribution of this configuration.

I know full well that I am skating on a dangerously thin ice, but if only we could finf several similar ones firmly attributable to Deccan, we might feel a bit more secure.
BTW, mine #3 from the left, is indian wootz, and has a very short Arabic ( Persian?) inscription, looking like a name, no more.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel, there are a few things, which should be taken into consideration when comparing these hilts. The different parts is India were influenced from different parts of the outside World - but from where?

During the Deccan Sultanates there was a heavy influence from Turkey, while the Mughals were influenced from Persia, and I dont think these two areas changed their fashion, in this case the looks of the hilts, with the same speed.
It is likely that Deccan was more conservative when it came to changes. But diring wars and trade different hilt types did 'travel' over very big distances, and this could also have been part of the change of fashion.

The hilt (no 4 from left) you show in the first picture is interesting.
Have a look at the way the hand guard ends, no animal head and no flower bud - it just ends, which is quite unusual, although it has been seen before. This could be a Deccani hilt, but the strange thing is, that I have a hilt where the hand guard ends in the same way, and I am convinced that my hilt is Mughal, wwith a very fine gold inlay of the decoration.
One could ask if this way of ending the hand guard is Deccani or is it Mughal. I dont know, and I have not yet researched these hilts, but as they are not so common I find it, untill I have learned some more about them, likely that they come from the area.

[ariel]

Jens,
I see now what you meant in your PM.

But I do not see a particular problem here as related to the "mix".
The winglike guard and the wide D-guard are unquestionably inspired by Vijayanagara; the general configuration of the hilt and the quillons are unquestionably are just Mughal. The ending of the D-guard might have been a newly-formed Deccani or a purely Mughal feature.

No matter how many additional "Southern" or "Northern" features we find, the very idea of the "mix" remains intact.


Ian,
I also do not see much difference between the temporal and geographical transitions: of course they occured together. Any external influence penetrates a particular geographical region gradually. From there the hybrid product may even spread elsewhere (and be further modified there) , but it will also take time. Thus, both transitions occur in unison and often in waves.

In a way, it may be similar to the relative syncretism of Islam/Hinduism in Deccan.


Overall, my point is that this particular hilt pattern combines both Vijayanagara and Mughal elements, i.e. the postulated mixed form that would be expected in Deccan, at a point of clash between the two traditions.

Of course, actual, attributable examples of Deccani weapons with such hilt are needed to substantiate the hypothesis. In this regard Elgood's Tegha may serve as one example. Are there others?

[Jens Nordlunde]

Yes there was a 'mix', especially after the Mughals had taken DEccan and posted soldiers and rulers to represent them, but I think the 'development' went slower in Deccan than in other parts of India - although I can prove this yet.

[ariel]

I seem to see your point: military victors imposing their weapons on the vanquished. Fully agree: that would be the expected chain of events everywhere.

But it is rather difficult to obliterate the local traditions and fully replace them with distinctly foreign elements ( see Jim's post above). The Hindu elements would still stubbornly survive the attempt.. So, the two were subsumed.

[Jens Nordlunde]

To my opinion the two cultures were 'fighting' each other. Dont forget that the Hindus had their deities, theit gods and their superstition, and the Muslims, although Musilms, were fighting each other.

[Likhari]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Ariel, there are a few things, which should be taken into consideration when comparing these hilts. The different parts is India were influenced from different parts of the outside World - but from where?

During the Deccan Sultanates there was a heavy influence from Turkey, while the Mughals were influenced from Persia, and I dont think these two areas changed their fashion, in this case the looks of the hilts, with the same speed.
It is likely that Deccan was more conservative when it came to changes. But diring wars and trade different hilt types did 'travel' over very big distances, and this could also have been part of the change of fashion.

The hilt (no 4 from left) you show in the first picture is interesting.
Have a look at the way the hand guard ends, no animal head and no flower bud - it just ends, which is quite unusual, although it has been seen before. This could be a Deccani hilt, but the strange thing is, that I have a hilt where the hand guard ends in the same way, and I am convinced that my hilt is Mughal, wwith a very fine gold inlay of the decoration.
One could ask if this way of ending the hand guard is Deccani or is it Mughal. I dont know, and I have not yet researched these hilts, but as they are not so common I find it, untill I have learned some more about them, likely that they come from the area.

A hilt with a guard similar to your from the Prince of Wales Museum in Bombay.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Kikhari,

Yes you are right. Do you know wat the text says to the hilt you shows?
Mine is Mughal 17th century.

[Likhari]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hi Kikhari,

Yes you are right. Do you know wat the text says to the hilt you shows?
Mine is Mughal 17th century.

It is a Quranic text starting with the word Bismillah.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Likhari,
Thank you, and I am sorry I spelled your name wrongly.