Killing elephants with swords

Jeff D · 7th May 2005, 07:07 AM

Hi All,

Although Wilbur tends to exagerate most details I think he is not far from the truth on how elephants were hunted with kaskaras. Check this site that has come up before, near the end. http://www.worldwideschool.org/libra...nia/chap8.html

"The elephant-hunters, or aggageers, exhibited their swords, which differed in no respect from those usually worn; but they were bound with cord very closely from the guard for about nine inches along the blade, to enable them to be grasped by the right hand, while the hilt was held by the left; the weapon was thus converted into a two-handed sword. The scabbards were strengthened by an extra covering, formed of the skin of the elephant's ear.

In a long conversation with these men, I found a corroboration of all that I had previously heard of their exploits, and they described the various methods of killing the elephant with the sword. Those hunters who could not afford to purchase horses hunted on foot, in parties not exceeding two persons. Their method was to follow the tracks of an elephant, so as to arrive at their game between the hours of 10 A.M. and noon, at which time the animal is either asleep, or extremely listless, and easy to approach. Should they discover the animal asleep, one of the hunters would creep stealthily towards the head, and with one blow sever the trunk while stretched upon the ground; in which case the elephant would start upon his feet, while the hunters escaped in the confusion of the moment. The trunk severed would cause an haemorrhage sufficient to insure the death of the elephant within about an hour. On time other hand, should the animal be awake upon their arrival, it would be impossible to approach the trunk; in such a case, they would creep up from behind, and give a tremendous cut at the back sinew of the hind leg, about a foot above the heel. Such a blow would disable the elephant at once, and would render comparatively easy a second cut to the remaining leg; the arteries being divided, the animal would quickly bleed to death. These were the methods adopted by poor hunters, until, by the sale of ivory, they could purchase horses for the higher branch of the art. Provided with horses, the party of hunters should not exceed four. They start before daybreak, and ride slowly throughout the country in search of elephants, generally keeping along the course of a river until they come upon the tracks where a herd or a single elephant may have drunk during the night. When once upon the tracks, they follow fast towards the retreating game. The elephants may be twenty miles distant; but it matters little to the aggageers. At length they discover them, and the hunt begins. The first step is to single out the bull with the largest tusks; this is the commencement of the fight. After a short hunt, the elephant turns upon his pursuers, who scatter and fly from his headlong charge until he gives up the pursuit; he at length turns to bay when again pressed by the hunters. It is the duty of one man in particular to ride up close to the head of the elephant, and thus to absorb its attention upon himself. This insures a desperate charge. The greatest coolness and dexterity are then required by the hunter, who now, the HUNTED, must so adapt the speed of his horse to the pace of the elephant, that the enraged beast gains in the race until it almost reaches the tail of the horse. In this manner the race continues. In the meantime, two hunters gallop up behind the elephant, unseen by the animal, whose attention is completely directed to the horse almost within his grasp. With extreme agility, when close to the heels of the elephant, one of the hunters, while at full speed, springs to the ground with his drawn sword, as his companion seizes the bridle, and with one dexterous two-handed blow he severs the back sinew. He immediately jumps out of the way and remounts his horse; but if the blow is successful, the elephant becomes disabled by the first pressure of its foot upon the ground; the enormous weight of the animal dislocates the joint, and it is rendered helpless. The hunter who has hitherto led the elephant immediately turns, and riding to within a few feet of the trunk, he induces the animal to attempt another charge. This, clumsily made, affords an easy opportunity for the aggageers behind to slash the sinew of the remaining leg, and the immense brute is reduced to a standstill; it dies of loss of blood in a short time, THUS POSITIVELY KILLED BY ONE MAN WITH TWO STROKES OF THE SWORD!

This extraordinary hunting is attended with superlative danger, and the hunters frequently fall victims to their intrepidity. I felt inclined to take off my cap and make a low bow to the gallant and swarthy fellows who sat before me, when I knew the toughness of their hearts and the activity of their limbs. One of them was disabled for life by a cut from his own sword, that had severed the knee-cap and bitten deep into the joint, leaving a scar that appeared as though the leg had been nearly off; he had missed his blow at the elephant, owing to the high and tough dried grass that had partially stopped the sword, and in springing upon one side, to avoid the animal that had turned upon him, he fell over his own sharp blade, which cut through the bone, and he lay helpless; he was saved by one of his comrades, who immediately rushed in from behind, and with a desperate cut severed the back sinew of the elephant. As I listened to these fine fellows, who in a modest and unassuming manner recounted their adventures as matters of course, I felt exceedingly small. My whole life had been passed in wild sports from early manhood, and I had imagined that I understood as much as most people of this subject; but here were men who, without the aid of the best rifles and deadly projectiles, went straight at their game, and faced the lion in his den with shield and sabre. There is a freemasonry among hunters, and my heart was drawn towards these aggageers. We fraternised upon the spot, and I looked forward with intense pleasure to the day when we might become allies in action."

Although I am not a hunter, and in fact both my parents were veterinarians, I do find it interesting, the shock of most of the replies. There is a dead human on another thread and most of the comments are what the "gore" on his blade is, no shock. This isn't a chastisement but an interesting observation. I thought all aspects of these weapons should be freely discussed?

All the best.
Jeff

George Armstrong Custer · 7th May 2005, 12:43 PM

Like Jeff I find some of the responses to the usage of these kaskaras interesting. I'd point out firstly, though, that my intention when posting the extracts was certainly not to offend anyone's sensibilities.

It seems to me that an important part of the collecting and ownership of historic weapons ought to be an absolute awareness of the purpose for which they were first produced. It is, perhaps, easy to become so engrossed in the artistic, decorative and manufacturing processes surrounding these weapons, as well as their ethnic and cultural attributes, that one overlooks - or perhaps chooses not to dwell upon - the fact that they were made to be used. And in the vast majority of cases, that use was the killing of other human beings. In my humble opinion it is only by fully appreciating what these weapons were intended to be used for that one can fully understand the nuances of their technical design - that is, they each incorporate specific design features which were intended to enhance their ability to kill by various means. I would go further, and say that it is only by appreciating that these were state-of-the-art killing tools that one can begin to accord them the respect that is perhaps their due - anything else is to trivialise them as mere ornamental objects. By this process also, collectors can begin to understand the reverence with which so many societies imbued these weapons - the creators of these weapons, of course, understood better than anyone their deadly function as an arbiter between life and death, and as a consequence often saw in them an almost mystical quality. The detail of how the weapons in our collections inflicted death does not, of course, make pleasant reading. But I do believe that we lose some of our integrity as collectors and interpreters of the past if we 'conveniently' overlook these unpalatable details - the end purpose of a weapon should be aired and discussed as openly as the decoration applied to it.

As to the methodology of killing elephants with the kaskara, when I first read Smith's account I was myself taken aback at the shocking and mortal blow which was inflicted upon the most iconic part of an elephant's anatomy. As I said in my introduction to the piece, the modus operandi of these hunders was truly astonishing. But as I've tried to explain above, I do not believe that we, as collectors, should shrink from such graphic knowledge as to how the weapons in our collections were deployed by their original owners.

Bluerf condemns the slaughter of the elephants by these nomadic tribesmen as being merely for the 'vanity of man'. With the greatest of respect, I would beg to differ, and point out that the trade of ivory underpinned the fragile trading economies of these peoples. And there is also the fact that the hunders took on their prey on a one to one basis; they could - and many did - perish in the encounter rather than the elephant. In my personal view it is absolutely pointless to try to impose our 21st-century mores and ethics when trying to understand the way of life of past societies. To try to do so will inevitably distort and obscure a true understanding of their concept of honor and their understanding of the cycle of life and death.

Jeff's obsevation on the fact that human gore on a blade can be discussed with apparent equanimity, whilst the bloody slaughter of an elephant can raise declarations of abhorrence is indeed an interesting one, and no doubt a psychologist could give a better explanation of this than I. But it is a curious apparent paradox which I've noticed before. The most extreme example of this phenomenon was probably Hitler, who directed the extermination of millions of human beings without a qualm, and yet was a vegetarian who vocally condemned any cruelty to animals........

Finally, I'd be interested to hear comment on Smith's reiteration of the idea that the kaskara were decended from the swords of European knights in the Crusades. I know that the feature on the kaskara on this site supports the 'revisionist' view that there is little or no connection. But I always feel that so many hundreds of thousands of European warriors went to the Holy Land on Crusade, and so many of these Crusades ended in disaster for them, that there must have been a vast body of European weaponry left in the region. The arid atmosphere was, of course, conducive to their long term survival thereafter. I therefore tend to the idea that it is more likely than not that the form of the kaskaras owed something to the swords of the Crusaders - and also that it is likely to be more than a hoary Victorian myth that a few original European Crusading blades were being carried as cherished heirlooms into the colonial wars of the 19th-century, and used against the decendants of their original owners. Any thoughts on this?

Ciao,
GAC

Naga Sasra · 7th May 2005, 02:19 PM

Do we really find it necessary to go into these graphic sardistic details in this forum, would these stories not belong in a hunters forum of sorts, where they truly enjoy the story of the various methods of the killing they employ and enjoy.

It would seem to me that the majority of us in this forum have an interest and collect to enjoy the ART of the weapon, that being the design, and the artful workmanship exhibited in the final product weather it come from a primitive tribe or from the most sophisticated makers at the time.
Yes, of cause we all know that some of our art objects may have seen uses in the past that would include killing, but I do not believe that this fact is of any consideration in our collecting habits, and nor should it be a factor as far as I am concerned.

I too was appaled by the graphics of this post, and question the reasons for this exhibition of torture and cruelty in this forum.

7th May 2005, 12:43 PM	#2
George Armstrong Custer Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6	Like Jeff I find some of the responses to the usage of these kaskaras interesting. I'd point out firstly, though, that my intention when posting the extracts was certainly not to offend anyone's sensibilities. It seems to me that an important part of the collecting and ownership of historic weapons ought to be an absolute awareness of the purpose for which they were first produced. It is, perhaps, easy to become so engrossed in the artistic, decorative and manufacturing processes surrounding these weapons, as well as their ethnic and cultural attributes, that one overlooks - or perhaps chooses not to dwell upon - the fact that they were made to be used. And in the vast majority of cases, that use was the killing of other human beings. In my humble opinion it is only by fully appreciating what these weapons were intended to be used for that one can fully understand the nuances of their technical design - that is, they each incorporate specific design features which were intended to enhance their ability to kill by various means. I would go further, and say that it is only by appreciating that these were state-of-the-art killing tools that one can begin to accord them the respect that is perhaps their due - anything else is to trivialise them as mere ornamental objects. By this process also, collectors can begin to understand the reverence with which so many societies imbued these weapons - the creators of these weapons, of course, understood better than anyone their deadly function as an arbiter between life and death, and as a consequence often saw in them an almost mystical quality. The detail of how the weapons in our collections inflicted death does not, of course, make pleasant reading. But I do believe that we lose some of our integrity as collectors and interpreters of the past if we 'conveniently' overlook these unpalatable details - the end purpose of a weapon should be aired and discussed as openly as the decoration applied to it. As to the methodology of killing elephants with the kaskara, when I first read Smith's account I was myself taken aback at the shocking and mortal blow which was inflicted upon the most iconic part of an elephant's anatomy. As I said in my introduction to the piece, the modus operandi of these hunders was truly astonishing. But as I've tried to explain above, I do not believe that we, as collectors, should shrink from such graphic knowledge as to how the weapons in our collections were deployed by their original owners. Bluerf condemns the slaughter of the elephants by these nomadic tribesmen as being merely for the 'vanity of man'. With the greatest of respect, I would beg to differ, and point out that the trade of ivory underpinned the fragile trading economies of these peoples. And there is also the fact that the hunders took on their prey on a one to one basis; they could - and many did - perish in the encounter rather than the elephant. In my personal view it is absolutely pointless to try to impose our 21st-century mores and ethics when trying to understand the way of life of past societies. To try to do so will inevitably distort and obscure a true understanding of their concept of honor and their understanding of the cycle of life and death. Jeff's obsevation on the fact that human gore on a blade can be discussed with apparent equanimity, whilst the bloody slaughter of an elephant can raise declarations of abhorrence is indeed an interesting one, and no doubt a psychologist could give a better explanation of this than I. But it is a curious apparent paradox which I've noticed before. The most extreme example of this phenomenon was probably Hitler, who directed the extermination of millions of human beings without a qualm, and yet was a vegetarian who vocally condemned any cruelty to animals........ Finally, I'd be interested to hear comment on Smith's reiteration of the idea that the kaskara were decended from the swords of European knights in the Crusades. I know that the feature on the kaskara on this site supports the 'revisionist' view that there is little or no connection. But I always feel that so many hundreds of thousands of European warriors went to the Holy Land on Crusade, and so many of these Crusades ended in disaster for them, that there must have been a vast body of European weaponry left in the region. The arid atmosphere was, of course, conducive to their long term survival thereafter. I therefore tend to the idea that it is more likely than not that the form of the kaskaras owed something to the swords of the Crusaders - and also that it is likely to be more than a hoary Victorian myth that a few original European Crusading blades were being carried as cherished heirlooms into the colonial wars of the 19th-century, and used against the decendants of their original owners. Any thoughts on this? Ciao, GAC Last edited by George Armstrong Custer; 7th May 2005 at 01:46 PM.

7th May 2005, 07:07 AM	#1
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi All, Although Wilbur tends to exagerate most details I think he is not far from the truth on how elephants were hunted with kaskaras. Check this site that has come up before, near the end. http://www.worldwideschool.org/libra...nia/chap8.html "The elephant-hunters, or aggageers, exhibited their swords, which differed in no respect from those usually worn; but they were bound with cord very closely from the guard for about nine inches along the blade, to enable them to be grasped by the right hand, while the hilt was held by the left; the weapon was thus converted into a two-handed sword. The scabbards were strengthened by an extra covering, formed of the skin of the elephant's ear. In a long conversation with these men, I found a corroboration of all that I had previously heard of their exploits, and they described the various methods of killing the elephant with the sword. Those hunters who could not afford to purchase horses hunted on foot, in parties not exceeding two persons. Their method was to follow the tracks of an elephant, so as to arrive at their game between the hours of 10 A.M. and noon, at which time the animal is either asleep, or extremely listless, and easy to approach. Should they discover the animal asleep, one of the hunters would creep stealthily towards the head, and with one blow sever the trunk while stretched upon the ground; in which case the elephant would start upon his feet, while the hunters escaped in the confusion of the moment. The trunk severed would cause an haemorrhage sufficient to insure the death of the elephant within about an hour. On time other hand, should the animal be awake upon their arrival, it would be impossible to approach the trunk; in such a case, they would creep up from behind, and give a tremendous cut at the back sinew of the hind leg, about a foot above the heel. Such a blow would disable the elephant at once, and would render comparatively easy a second cut to the remaining leg; the arteries being divided, the animal would quickly bleed to death. These were the methods adopted by poor hunters, until, by the sale of ivory, they could purchase horses for the higher branch of the art. Provided with horses, the party of hunters should not exceed four. They start before daybreak, and ride slowly throughout the country in search of elephants, generally keeping along the course of a river until they come upon the tracks where a herd or a single elephant may have drunk during the night. When once upon the tracks, they follow fast towards the retreating game. The elephants may be twenty miles distant; but it matters little to the aggageers. At length they discover them, and the hunt begins. The first step is to single out the bull with the largest tusks; this is the commencement of the fight. After a short hunt, the elephant turns upon his pursuers, who scatter and fly from his headlong charge until he gives up the pursuit; he at length turns to bay when again pressed by the hunters. It is the duty of one man in particular to ride up close to the head of the elephant, and thus to absorb its attention upon himself. This insures a desperate charge. The greatest coolness and dexterity are then required by the hunter, who now, the HUNTED, must so adapt the speed of his horse to the pace of the elephant, that the enraged beast gains in the race until it almost reaches the tail of the horse. In this manner the race continues. In the meantime, two hunters gallop up behind the elephant, unseen by the animal, whose attention is completely directed to the horse almost within his grasp. With extreme agility, when close to the heels of the elephant, one of the hunters, while at full speed, springs to the ground with his drawn sword, as his companion seizes the bridle, and with one dexterous two-handed blow he severs the back sinew. He immediately jumps out of the way and remounts his horse; but if the blow is successful, the elephant becomes disabled by the first pressure of its foot upon the ground; the enormous weight of the animal dislocates the joint, and it is rendered helpless. The hunter who has hitherto led the elephant immediately turns, and riding to within a few feet of the trunk, he induces the animal to attempt another charge. This, clumsily made, affords an easy opportunity for the aggageers behind to slash the sinew of the remaining leg, and the immense brute is reduced to a standstill; it dies of loss of blood in a short time, THUS POSITIVELY KILLED BY ONE MAN WITH TWO STROKES OF THE SWORD! This extraordinary hunting is attended with superlative danger, and the hunters frequently fall victims to their intrepidity. I felt inclined to take off my cap and make a low bow to the gallant and swarthy fellows who sat before me, when I knew the toughness of their hearts and the activity of their limbs. One of them was disabled for life by a cut from his own sword, that had severed the knee-cap and bitten deep into the joint, leaving a scar that appeared as though the leg had been nearly off; he had missed his blow at the elephant, owing to the high and tough dried grass that had partially stopped the sword, and in springing upon one side, to avoid the animal that had turned upon him, he fell over his own sharp blade, which cut through the bone, and he lay helpless; he was saved by one of his comrades, who immediately rushed in from behind, and with a desperate cut severed the back sinew of the elephant. As I listened to these fine fellows, who in a modest and unassuming manner recounted their adventures as matters of course, I felt exceedingly small. My whole life had been passed in wild sports from early manhood, and I had imagined that I understood as much as most people of this subject; but here were men who, without the aid of the best rifles and deadly projectiles, went straight at their game, and faced the lion in his den with shield and sabre. There is a freemasonry among hunters, and my heart was drawn towards these aggageers. We fraternised upon the spot, and I looked forward with intense pleasure to the day when we might become allies in action." Although I am not a hunter, and in fact both my parents were veterinarians, I do find it interesting, the shock of most of the replies. There is a dead human on another thread and most of the comments are what the "gore" on his blade is, no shock. This isn't a chastisement but an interesting observation. I thought all aspects of these weapons should be freely discussed? All the best. Jeff

7th May 2005, 02:19 PM	#3
Naga Sasra Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Boca Raton, Florida, USA Posts: 108	Do we really find it necessary to go into these graphic sardistic details in this forum, would these stories not belong in a hunters forum of sorts, where they truly enjoy the story of the various methods of the killing they employ and enjoy. It would seem to me that the majority of us in this forum have an interest and collect to enjoy the ART of the weapon, that being the design, and the artful workmanship exhibited in the final product weather it come from a primitive tribe or from the most sophisticated makers at the time. Yes, of cause we all know that some of our art objects may have seen uses in the past that would include killing, but I do not believe that this fact is of any consideration in our collecting habits, and nor should it be a factor as far as I am concerned. I too was appaled by the graphics of this post, and question the reasons for this exhibition of torture and cruelty in this forum.