On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types

[Jens Nordlunde]

Some of the hilts can with some certainty be pointed to a specific place, but it is not easy and the uncertainty is quite big.
We know that they at Bikaner made hilts for export to other parts of India, but we dont know of it was the same hilt type they made, or if they made the hilts according to the fashion at the place where it was supposed to be sold.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Some of the hilts can with some certainty be pointed to a specific place, but it is not easy and the uncertainty is quite big.
We know that they at Bikaner made hilts for export to other parts of India, but we dont know of it was the same hilt type they made, or if they made the hilts according to the fashion at the place where it was supposed to be sold.

You are right. It would be very interesting if we can know the place of origin or the fashion at the place. But it doesn't make any sense taking into account the degree of mobility of the population of North and Central India in 18-19th.
If only local court fashion...

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

"I'll be back" (c)
Soon )

Not touching why in India some kind of steel was called phauladi (from "phul-" - flower) I can now confidently conclude that "phul-katara" is definitely simply a bunch of gems that was attached to a string which fastened a dagger on a waist belt

[Mercenary]

The same tradition was in Persia (John Chardin, Travelling to Persia, 1811) as "Rose of Dagger" and the words in Jahangir-name in Urdu have the same meaning. In Persian one I will check and let you know.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

[/i]Page 143. "The Emperor bestoved on the bridegroom [Sultan Sulaiman Shukoh, te eldest sone of Dara Shukoh][i] a robe of honour........a jewelled jamdhar with phul-katara........."

Lets say that phul-katara was the flowers like on the dagger in the midle. How can it then be explained that flowers like that can be placed on a jamdahar/katar? The only place I can think of, is chiselled on the blade, gilded and with gems inlaid. But we dont know if it was so.
Jens

Jamdhars with phul-katara:

[Mercenary]

Thanks a lot for such intolerant communication with me in this topic. Because of this I got to the end of researching in this not very important for me field.

Iranian and Mughal phul-katara:

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Not touching why in India some kind of steel was called phauladi (from "phul-" - flower) I can now confidently conclude that "phul-katara" is definitely simply a bunch of gems that was attached to a string which fastened a dagger on a waist belt

Taking into account that the above assertion comes from Pant who was citing Chardin, and who prefaced this statement with words " obscure" and "perhaps", the confidence of the above author seems a bit excessive:-)))))

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Just to add some notes amidst the phulishness theme, it seems Pant ("Indian Arms and Armour", 1980), notes (p.188-89) that "...the word phul (flower) is obscure. Perhaps it means the knot or crochet of jewels called by Chardin ' une enseigne ronde de pierceries' and which the Persians called 'rose de Poignard'.

(( this very topic, post #98))

[Mercenary]

It is very nice that in the end you always agree with me in any subject. If still in the middle of the debate you (and not only you) would be more patient we could all learn more. In any case I found out a lot of interesting things from the time of Jahangir and Shah-Jahan so it will be very good article I hope.

[ariel]

We seem to have heard multiple brilliant, conclusive and mutually-exclusive theories of the origin of "Phul kattara".

Among them a homophony of Hindi "Ful" and Persian " Phulad", allusion to the dried leaves/flowers added to the crucible for wootz manufacture, pommels with flowery figures, gem- studded katars, strings of brilliants attached to daggers etc, etc.


Perhaps, the truth is much simpler than that.

Flower(y) in a sense of flamboyant? Lavishly decorated?

( My free contribution to your future article)

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Originally Posted by*Jim McDougall

Just to add some notes amidst the phulishness**theme, it seems Pant ("Indian Arms and Armour", 1980), notes (p.188-89) that "...the word phul (flower) is obscure. Perhaps it means the knot or crochet of jewels called by Chardin ' une enseigne ronde de pierceries' and which the Persians called 'rose de Poignard'.

Many thanks. It was not in Pant's book. It was the note of a translator in one of translations of the Jahangirnama. Unfortunately, in another later translation, the translator clearly wrote that "phul-katara" is a pommel in the shape of a flower. A misconception took the beginning from there ((

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

We seem to have heard multiple brilliant, conclusive and mutually-exclusive theories of the origin of "Phul kattara".

Among them a homophony of Hindi "Ful" and Persian " Phulad", allusion to the dried leaves/flowers added to the crucible for wootz manufacture, pommels with flowery figures, gem- studded katars, strings of brilliants attached to daggers etc, etc.

In this topic you could observe the usual process of study of any problem. When the wrong versions are gradually discarding and only one are retaining in the end. Usually this process is hidden from prying eyes. But in this case you were lucky enough to witness this firsthand. It was the real research. I am very grateful to all the participants of this discussion.

[ariel]

Never have conducted any research project myself and never have witnessed it being done by an accomplished and world - renown researcher, I feel truly privileged to be given an opportunity to participate in your Master Class. I was awed by your virtuosity with languages, your fountains of ideas, and your ability to copy Internet pictures.
Certainly, your paper will make a tremendous splash!

PNAS?

[mahratt]

I think the splash will be much greater than that of the "fallen coin" ... It's nice that it is understood

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

I feel truly privileged to be given an opportunity to participate in your Master Class.

Why only my master class? There were also Jim, Jens and others - all who really tried to understand.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Why only my master class? There were also Jim, Jens and others - all who really tried to understand.

Actually we are all in the same class.....here we learn together!!!
Mercenary, looking forward to your paper and hope you will keep us apprised. I congratulate anyone and everyone who puts 'pen to paper' and admire them wholeheartedly. It takes courage and stamina to publish .
It has been a most enlightening discussion.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Actually we are all in the same class.....here we learn together!!!
Mercenary, looking forward to your paper and hope you will keep us apprised. I congratulate anyone and everyone who puts 'pen to paper' and admire them wholeheartedly. It takes courage and stamina to publish .
It has been a most enlightening discussion.

Thanks a lot, Jim. The most difficult for the researcher is to admit own mistakes. I had been wrong the most part of this debate, but I was able to admit it publicly. Not everyone can do as well. You pointed to my mistakes and I appreciate it. I hope the most part of topics on the forum will be lead to new knowledge and the truth.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Thanks a lot, Jim. The most difficult for the researcher is to admit own mistakes. I had been wrong the most part of this debate, but I was able to admit it publicly. Not everyone can do as well. You pointed to my mistakes and I appreciate it. I hope the most part of topics on the forum will be lead to new knowledge and the truth.

I do too Mercenary!!! I very much appreciate the reply, and your courtesy as well as the courage to admit misperceptions or mistakes is exemplary.
Our learning here of course often extends beyond knowledge itself.

[Jens Nordlunde]

'The most difficult for the researcher is to admit own mistakes.'

No, not really, you just admit them. I have done it, and I will continue to do so. When you write something, it is with the knowledge you have at the moment, but maybe you later find out that it was wrong - so why not admit it? If we admit that we are all in a learnig session, these things will happen - even if some of the members are on a higher level than others, and that it is the members on a higher level, that are the most to make misrtakes - due to the level.

However, whichever level one is on, it should not leed to sarchasme towards other members, whichever level they are on.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I just found something about the Phul-dagger, or in this case a Phul-katar.
Wheeler M. Thackston: The Jahangirnama, Oxford University Press, 1999. page 469.
'Phul-katara..........phul means 'flower' and refers to ornate jewel-inlay work on the hilt, phul-kataras were mainly ornamental presentation items while ordinary kataras were used as weapons'.

By especially mentening jewel-inlay work, must mean that the author does not regard katars with chiselled/inlaid/koftgari floral decoration to this group.

[ariel]

Sitting in the hotel in Atlanta, waiting for a symposium that starts in 3 hours, re-reading old comments…..
Re. Posts 2,4, 29,123:

Ful-kattara is repeatedly snown in Hales ( and, I think, Elgood, but the books are far away from me at the moment) and designates a “flowery dagger”, i.e. just a dagger with a pommel depicting stone-carved bunch of flowers. No firm connection to wootz, jewels, carved blades etc.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Sitting in the hotel ...

I'm sorry, but no chance. This was examined six years ago from the text of Jahangir-name (in Persian of course) and compared with illustrations depicting specific scenes. Almost all types of daggers and court gifts have been identified. Including the "phul katara", "khapwa" and even the "royal Mazendaran dagger".

[ariel]

Well, further arguments seem to be pointless. At the end of the day, we are obligated to accept the interpretations advanced by professional researchers of Indian weapons well versed in Indian and Persian linguistics and with vast and long experience in that field.

I shall take Hales, Elgood and Jens Nordlunde any moment.

Of course, other people have a right to stick to their guns and advance novel revolutionary interpretations.

But, as my former mentor taught me, the rule #1 of any research is "It is nice to be the "first", but what really counts is to be right".

[ariel]

I am back home.
Please see Elgood’s Jaipur book, #35-38.

I think that closes the question.

[mahratt]

The book of the highly respected Robert Elgood "Arms & Armor: At the Jaipur Court, The Royal Collection", if I'm not mistaken, became available to a wide range of readers in 2016?
Did the Mercenary start this thread in 2015?

[ariel]

Mahratt,
I am purposefully not commenting on your posts. Please do not comment on mine.
Just as an aside, the last communication from Mercenary was posted yesterday, 7 years after the publication of the Jaipur book (2015).

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I just found something about the Phul-dagger, or in this case a Phul-katar.
Wheeler M. Thackston: The Jahangirnama, Oxford University Press, 1999. page 469.
'Phul-katara..........phul means 'flower' and refers to ornate jewel-inlay work on the hilt, phul-kataras were mainly ornamental presentation items while ordinary kataras were used as weapons'.

By especially mentening jewel-inlay work, must mean that the author does not regard katars with chiselled/inlaid/koftgari floral decoration to this group.

As I have mentioned before, research in antique Oriental weapons requires expertise in two unrelated fields: weapons per se and thorough knowledge of languages in question.

Thackston is a well known and highly respected authority on Arabic and Persian languages as well on several other languages pertaining to the Islamic cultures.
However, he will be the first to admit that weapons as such do not fall into his area of expertise.

Elgood is by far the best current authority on Arab and Indo-Persian weapons. But he is very open about his insufficient level of linguistic expertise. Having recognised this shortcoming, he spent many years working shoulder to shoulder with professional Indian and Persian linguists.

This is why I put my trust in his conclusions.

And I fully agree with Jens: research is a risky business and wrong turns are inevitable. That is exactly why good professional researchers are very careful about their final conclusions, scour the literature and perform many control studies aimed at overturning their initial hypothesis. Only if the latter fail to negate their earlier results do they publish the final paper with conclusions. And if some colleague later on finds a way to disprove their conclusions, they freely admit it bruised egos notwithstanding.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

This was examined six years ago

And published, of course.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Mahratt,
I am purposefully not commenting on your posts. Please do not comment on mine.
Just as an aside, the last communication from Mercenary was posted yesterday, 7 years after the publication of the Jaipur book (2015).

Ariel,
I deliberately didn't quote your post. You are not the only one discussing this topic on this forum. So don't assume that I'm talking to you.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

And published, of course.

Can you provide its link, please?
Even better, the pdf?

[mahratt]

Can anyone tell me where the PDF of Robert Elgood's book "Arms & Armour: At the Jaipur Court the Royal Collection" is posted on the Internet? Thanks in advance!