Decoration on Indian blades

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.

Jens Nordlunde · 1st February 2005, 02:23 PM

Hi Battara,

Like I write in the text to the picture, the ‘stones’ are not gems, they are glass/crystal. That is the reason why I show this picture. Had the ‘stones’ been put in recently after the old method described, and had the lead been covered with gold foil – I think it would fool a lot of people.
The hilt shown is not a fake, it is genuine, but sometimes people want more glamour than they can afford, and then methods like the one described is taken in use, or maybe the owner had some misfortune and had the real gems replaced with glass – we will never know.
To swap the gems for glass and metal foil, and to swap gold for lead with gold foil, would have saved the poor buyer a lot of money, but the show effect would have been almost as high as if it had been real gems and real gold.
The kundan technique is supposed to be almost two thousand years old, and was refine during the Mogul reign. When using the Kundan method to set gems, gold are beaten to a very thin foil, when the foil is thin enough it can form a molecular bond when pressure is applied with a tool. The foil is worked around the stone and the stone adhered in its mount.
It is true like you say, that the kundan technique usually applies to gold setting, and maybe it is called something else when lead is used, I don’t know, but I rather think that the name is used when it comes to the way the gem/glass I fastened, than to which metal is used.
I knew what I was buying, but had the hilt been ‘shined up’ a bit, it might have fooled some of you.

Jens Nordlunde · 27th November 2015, 04:19 PM

Battara,
I do answer late on this one - sorry, but here I am :-).

The dagger with 'kundan' shown, is an example of how they sometimes tried to fool buyers. The original gold/gems have been stripped off, and likely sold for scrap value.
What you then do is, to take some coloured metal foil and glue it where the gems have been. then you take some glass/crystal pieces of the right size, place them on the foil, take some soft metal, in this case lead and hammer it around the 'gem', and at last you take a very thing gold foil and cover the lead. In the end you have an 'almost kundan' decorated dagger hilt.

31st January 2005, 10:22 AM	#3
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, 10:06 PM	#1
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	#2
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	#4
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	#5
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	#6
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,308	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.

1st February 2005, 02:23 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Battara, Like I write in the text to the picture, the ‘stones’ are not gems, they are glass/crystal. That is the reason why I show this picture. Had the ‘stones’ been put in recently after the old method described, and had the lead been covered with gold foil – I think it would fool a lot of people. The hilt shown is not a fake, it is genuine, but sometimes people want more glamour than they can afford, and then methods like the one described is taken in use, or maybe the owner had some misfortune and had the real gems replaced with glass – we will never know. To swap the gems for glass and metal foil, and to swap gold for lead with gold foil, would have saved the poor buyer a lot of money, but the show effect would have been almost as high as if it had been real gems and real gold. The kundan technique is supposed to be almost two thousand years old, and was refine during the Mogul reign. When using the Kundan method to set gems, gold are beaten to a very thin foil, when the foil is thin enough it can form a molecular bond when pressure is applied with a tool. The foil is worked around the stone and the stone adhered in its mount. It is true like you say, that the kundan technique usually applies to gold setting, and maybe it is called something else when lead is used, I don’t know, but I rather think that the name is used when it comes to the way the gem/glass I fastened, than to which metal is used. I knew what I was buying, but had the hilt been ‘shined up’ a bit, it might have fooled some of you.

27th November 2015, 04:19 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Battara, I do answer late on this one - sorry, but here I am :-). The dagger with 'kundan' shown, is an example of how they sometimes tried to fool buyers. The original gold/gems have been stripped off, and likely sold for scrap value. What you then do is, to take some coloured metal foil and glue it where the gems have been. then you take some glass/crystal pieces of the right size, place them on the foil, take some soft metal, in this case lead and hammer it around the 'gem', and at last you take a very thing gold foil and cover the lead. In the end you have an 'almost kundan' decorated dagger hilt.