Decoration on Indian blades

Jeff D · 30th January 2005, 09:33 PM

Thanks B.I. for the reply. I think Dr. Zygulski may have been thrown off by the Assadulla cartouche and the shamshir style blade. My sword is more obviously a Indian tulwar with a riccasso even though mine has the Assadulla cartouche as well.
BTW what do you think the eyes were made of?

Jeff

Jens Nordlunde · 30th January 2005, 10:06 PM

B.I. very well described – thank you. Are you looking into the ‘eyes’, or should I do it?
I think you did a very fine, and interesting research, which all of us can learn from.
On this forum, it should not be so much guessing, as research and knowning.

Jens

B.I · 30th January 2005, 10:22 PM

hi jens/jeff,
i'm afraid the eyes are up to you guys

i've never had much interest in stones, prescious or otherwise. as my collective taste go early, rather than decorative, i rarely need to unearth any real information on this. i did have a deccani dagger with a stone hilt which was a nightmare to research. it seems that everyone is an expert and everyone disagrees. i think the closest i got was jasper, but i still wasnt convinced. i know the stone predated the 17thC (or sat comfortably within it)but the islamic 'experts' all had opinions that i could tear apart which but a few simple questions. its funny how people tend to fall apart when you hit them with a totally unreasonable and completely unexpected 'why?'
so i bow out gracefully. give me a piece of indian metal and i'll ramble on way past desertion (i am by own best audience) but jewellery is out of my sphere.

Jens Nordlunde · 31st January 2005, 10:22 AM

Well Jeff, I think B.I. has taken a step back, and left the scene to the experts – the two of us (lol).
I have mailed to a friend in Poland, to ask what kind of stones the eyes, on the sword shown in Persian Arms and Armour are made of. When I have an answer I will let you know.
Should I start guessing I would say, that you most probable can use any colour of stone, as stones on a hilt are likely to fall out, and would be replaced with what ever stone was at hand – I think.
Before I forget it, remember that the colours have a symbolic value and meaning - so maybe 'any colour' is not correct.

If you have a look at the picture, you will notice something strange about the ‘stones’. Some of them are ‘dead’ and some have a nice colour. These are not stones; these are glass/crystal, with coloured metal foil behind, which gives the colour. The fittings are lead with rests of gold foil. When the dagger was new, it must have looked very nice. Even when they used gemstones, they often used metal foil behind the stones to make the light reflect better if the hilt was Jade. Was the hilt gold or silver they made sure that the surface behind the stone was scratched, to get the same effect.

Jens Nordlunde · 31st January 2005, 01:11 PM

Come to think of it, I remember to have seen red (ruby), green (emerald), white (diamond) and black (onyx?) eyes, but I don’t remember to have seen yellow, or pink eyes for that matter.
The symbolic meaning is important, just like with any form of decoration used on the Indian weapons.

Jens

Jeff D · 31st January 2005, 04:09 PM

Thank you Jens, for all your effort. I really do appreciate it!

Jeff

Battara · 31st January 2005, 11:36 PM

Jens, I thought that kundun technique was the only one used on such high end pieces. This uses 24K gold, not lead. The stones look second rate at best (if not glass) and so I wonder if the lead, foil, and poorer stones was a later attempt at repairing what was lost on this khanjar.

31st January 2005, 10:22 AM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Well Jeff, I think B.I. has taken a step back, and left the scene to the experts – the two of us (lol). I have mailed to a friend in Poland, to ask what kind of stones the eyes, on the sword shown in Persian Arms and Armour are made of. When I have an answer I will let you know. Should I start guessing I would say, that you most probable can use any colour of stone, as stones on a hilt are likely to fall out, and would be replaced with what ever stone was at hand – I think. Before I forget it, remember that the colours have a symbolic value and meaning - so maybe 'any colour' is not correct. If you have a look at the picture, you will notice something strange about the ‘stones’. Some of them are ‘dead’ and some have a nice colour. These are not stones; these are glass/crystal, with coloured metal foil behind, which gives the colour. The fittings are lead with rests of gold foil. When the dagger was new, it must have looked very nice. Even when they used gemstones, they often used metal foil behind the stones to make the light reflect better if the hilt was Jade. Was the hilt gold or silver they made sure that the surface behind the stone was scratched, to get the same effect. Attached Images Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 31st January 2005 at 10:52 AM.

30th January 2005, 09:33 PM	#1
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Thanks B.I. for the reply. I think Dr. Zygulski may have been thrown off by the Assadulla cartouche and the shamshir style blade. My sword is more obviously a Indian tulwar with a riccasso even though mine has the Assadulla cartouche as well. BTW what do you think the eyes were made of? Jeff

30th January 2005, 10:06 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	B.I. very well described – thank you. Are you looking into the ‘eyes’, or should I do it? I think you did a very fine, and interesting research, which all of us can learn from. On this forum, it should not be so much guessing, as research and knowning. Jens

30th January 2005, 10:22 PM	#3
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi jens/jeff, i'm afraid the eyes are up to you guys i've never had much interest in stones, prescious or otherwise. as my collective taste go early, rather than decorative, i rarely need to unearth any real information on this. i did have a deccani dagger with a stone hilt which was a nightmare to research. it seems that everyone is an expert and everyone disagrees. i think the closest i got was jasper, but i still wasnt convinced. i know the stone predated the 17thC (or sat comfortably within it)but the islamic 'experts' all had opinions that i could tear apart which but a few simple questions. its funny how people tend to fall apart when you hit them with a totally unreasonable and completely unexpected 'why?' so i bow out gracefully. give me a piece of indian metal and i'll ramble on way past desertion (i am by own best audience) but jewellery is out of my sphere.

31st January 2005, 01:11 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Come to think of it, I remember to have seen red (ruby), green (emerald), white (diamond) and black (onyx?) eyes, but I don’t remember to have seen yellow, or pink eyes for that matter. The symbolic meaning is important, just like with any form of decoration used on the Indian weapons. Jens

31st January 2005, 04:09 PM	#6
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Thank you Jens, for all your effort. I really do appreciate it! Jeff

31st January 2005, 11:36 PM	#7
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,310	Jens, I thought that kundun technique was the only one used on such high end pieces. This uses 24K gold, not lead. The stones look second rate at best (if not glass) and so I wonder if the lead, foil, and poorer stones was a later attempt at repairing what was lost on this khanjar.