Indian Katar

Jens Nordlunde · 8th November 2006, 05:04 PM

Hi Jeff,

There are three editions of Rawson’s book. The English and the American are most likely alike, but the Danish one have pictures from Danish collections, so referring to a page does not give much point, unless you also say which edition you have. I doubt that you have the Danish edition, so I will have to go looking on which page it is in my edition – as I have the Danish one.

I will not say that I think Rawson’s theory is wrong, only that I doubt it, as there are quite a number of tulwars without ricasso, and these poor chaps without ricasso – what would they do? Had it been like Rawson suggests, I am sure a ricasso would have been made on the blades without.

Jens

Jeff D · 8th November 2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hi Jeff,

There are three editions of Rawson’s book. The English and the American are most likely alike, but the Danish one have pictures from Danish collections, so referring to a page does not give much point, unless you also say which edition you have. I doubt that you have the Danish edition, so I will have to go looking on which page it is in my edition – as I have the Danish one.

I will not say that I think Rawson’s theory is wrong, only that I doubt it, as there are quite a number of tulwars without ricasso, and these poor chaps without ricasso – what would they do? Had it been like Rawson suggests, I am sure a ricasso would have been made on the blades without.

Jens

Hi Jens,

I have the British 1968 copy (A Danish copy?

).It is in the mid section of his Northern half of India chapter under the Islamic period. My personal opinion is that some were fingered and some were not, probably related to where the individual learned his technique.

All the Best
Jeff

Jens Nordlunde · 8th November 2006, 05:18 PM

Hi Jeff

,

You may be right, only you would have to remember which tulwar you were using, not to finger one without ricasso

.
The Danish edition was published by The Danish Arms and Armour Society, 1967. The number of copies was small, as it was only for the mebmers of the Society.

Jens

Jeff D · 8th November 2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hi Jeff

,

You may be right, only you would have to remember which tulwar you were using, not to finger one without ricasso

.

Jens

I wonder if there were a number of Indian Alzheimer's patients nick named "stumpy"

.

Jeff

B.I · 8th November 2006, 11:59 PM

hi jeff,
i may have shot myself in the foot by mentioning the ricasso thing, as its a subject i was hoping to avoid (for the rest of my life, and i intend on hanging around for quite a while yet!)
just for the record, i have never agreed with rawson on this point. i have studied miniatures for many years, in regard to the forms of arms and i have never seen what rawson claimed...not once.
i love rawsons book, as i enjoy his style of writing. i have read it many times as it is enjoyable and well put together. however, he has glossed over many points, ignored important references and seems to have assumed may things which stem from no real grounding. his terminology is one that he created for his own use, which is quite frustrating as you want him to be right, and be able to use the same for your own studies but none of it has any substance.
but, saying all of that, its still one of my favourite books!
when (or if) i finally stumble across a fingered ricasso, i may cede the point with its potential. until then, i think it a european trying to use an indian sword without understanding it. of course it feels right, as there is no other way you could hold it...unless your hands were smaller of course :-)

but... there are many miniatures i havent as yet seen so the search continues!

Jeff D · 9th November 2006, 07:22 AM

Hi Brian,

Since i would like you around for a while yet, I will end this side topic for now. But who knows what will come up when another misfire occurs.

.

All the Best
Jeff

B.I · 9th November 2006, 09:04 PM

thanks jeff

but dont worry, i am a huge fan of proving myself wrong (i normally try to get in there before someone else does!) and love to be caught out by my own arrogance. humility and humble pie should be force fed in abundance!!
i will always keep an eye out for this as the first thing i look for in a miniature is the hilt form.
if i see a pinky sticking out, i'll let you know!

8th November 2006, 05:18 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jeff, You may be right, only you would have to remember which tulwar you were using, not to finger one without ricasso. The Danish edition was published by The Danish Arms and Armour Society, 1967. The number of copies was small, as it was only for the mebmers of the Society. Jens

8th November 2006, 05:04 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jeff, There are three editions of Rawson’s book. The English and the American are most likely alike, but the Danish one have pictures from Danish collections, so referring to a page does not give much point, unless you also say which edition you have. I doubt that you have the Danish edition, so I will have to go looking on which page it is in my edition – as I have the Danish one. I will not say that I think Rawson’s theory is wrong, only that I doubt it, as there are quite a number of tulwars without ricasso, and these poor chaps without ricasso – what would they do? Had it been like Rawson suggests, I am sure a ricasso would have been made on the blades without. Jens

8th November 2006, 11:59 PM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi jeff, i may have shot myself in the foot by mentioning the ricasso thing, as its a subject i was hoping to avoid (for the rest of my life, and i intend on hanging around for quite a while yet!) just for the record, i have never agreed with rawson on this point. i have studied miniatures for many years, in regard to the forms of arms and i have never seen what rawson claimed...not once. i love rawsons book, as i enjoy his style of writing. i have read it many times as it is enjoyable and well put together. however, he has glossed over many points, ignored important references and seems to have assumed may things which stem from no real grounding. his terminology is one that he created for his own use, which is quite frustrating as you want him to be right, and be able to use the same for your own studies but none of it has any substance. but, saying all of that, its still one of my favourite books! when (or if) i finally stumble across a fingered ricasso, i may cede the point with its potential. until then, i think it a european trying to use an indian sword without understanding it. of course it feels right, as there is no other way you could hold it...unless your hands were smaller of course :-) but... there are many miniatures i havent as yet seen so the search continues!

9th November 2006, 07:22 AM	#6
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi Brian, Since i would like you around for a while yet, I will end this side topic for now. But who knows what will come up when another misfire occurs. . All the Best Jeff

9th November 2006, 09:04 PM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	thanks jeff but dont worry, i am a huge fan of proving myself wrong (i normally try to get in there before someone else does!) and love to be caught out by my own arrogance. humility and humble pie should be force fed in abundance!! i will always keep an eye out for this as the first thing i look for in a miniature is the hilt form. if i see a pinky sticking out, i'll let you know!