The Sinhalese Kastane: Its Development, Decoration and Symbolism

[Prasanna Weerakkody]

I must say that I had decided to stay away from the thread; not due to being unable to stand argument as some might suggest-but as it no longer seems objective about the study that for me is one of profound personal interest. same things repeat over and over with minor contortions while (sadly) quickly forgetting all the information that has been Included in the previous thread where this discussion initiated. I did feel quite sad as among the noise there was also some very important material being shared and raised and I must say I did learn a lot being part of it.

The reason I am writing this note is to at least provide a re-cap of points that were presented in the other thread that seem to be getting forgotten and to at least try in some way to counter some of the mis-information that seem to be taking root within the thread. being from the country of origin of the Kasthana - It is sometimes difficult not to be amused by some of the things that continue being said (despite errors being pointed out). Many theories about Sinhala arts, crafts, culture and history portrayed seem alien and quite new to me having been a student of Sinhala Art history all my life. - it’s quite an eye opener how much mis-information; just starts as a wild guesses becomes realities and can take root through the internet. (may be it is my disadvantage to be from Sri Lanka - otherwise may be I would have enjoyed the fantasies more freely.)

As David already very correctly pointed out- In Sri Lanka neither Lion, Makara nor Serapendiya are ever considered deities or gods in any form; they are depicted as no more than mere decorative “BEAST” forms (though auspicious- like the lotus or conch-shell). They are used as Icons; Lion representing Sinhala race, Makara as a symbol of protection and regeneration. etc. etc.

The only goddess or deities represented on Kasthana seem to be images that may be Sri-Devi/Luxmi, or Patthini devi depicted sometimes on the outer side of the hand guard and/or on the langet. These on occasion may be only figures of “Nari-latha” or tree nymphs. It is a significant area of study to identify the mostly female deities present on a weapon instead of a warrior gods such as karthikeiya or Kali.

Forum still does not seem to recognize the sources I provided that in a Sri Lankan/ Sinhala historic context clearly establish the Kasthana Sword to mid 16th century. which at least in a local context is backed by examples that have good provenance and supported by strong literary evidence. There is solid local evidence to prove that the Kasthane sword in its proper form and name existed at least in mid 16th century if not earlier. . (please check earlier thread for reference) I do understand that the forum members are at a loss when it comes to reading original historic sources written in Sinhala. but the reality is that they do exist. the post 14th century era saw the emergence of a long series of books written as “Hatan Kavya” (war poems) which give significant details of battles and warriors and arms used.

If the sword (and the name Kasthana) was in existence in the early to mid 16th century and associated well with King Rajasinhe I. it is clear that the origin of the weapon clearly and significantly pre-date the Kandyan kingdom and its workshops; and would have its origin more in the Sithawaka and/or Kotte kingdoms- post the transfer of the capital to Kandy the workshops there would have continued production of the swords. but it would not have originated in “Kandyan workshops” which is a misnomer. The design trends associated with the early (more refined) form of Kasthana can be associated with art trends of even the Dambadeni or Gampola Kingdoms which predate even the Kotte Sithawaka era.

The Sinhala crafts and technology was influenced by more than the 3 European invaders and the moors, The country was visited 3 times by the Navy of Cheng ho (Zheng He) shortly before the arrival of the Portuguese; and there was prolific trade, diplomatic, religious and cultural ties to Thailand to Burma and most of East Asia and even up to China. Mainland India both Northern and Southern continued to be in strong contact throughout time. large Sinhala trade ships are documented sailing to Chinese ports and even to Roman courts more than a millennia before. the concept that the moors were the “mercantile marine” of the sinhales is in error though they did carry out trade in Sinhala ports during the 15th century and supported the Sinhales in some battles as the Portuguese was a direct threat to their trade. The Sinhales craftsmen were good at adapting foreign technology encountered often giving them a local twist. The location of the country at the southernmost tip of the Indian sub-continent necessitated any ships plying the coasts of South Asia would use it as a trade hub. The 14th century text “Kandauru siritha” list many types of foreign swords used by the kings army including swords listed as Pandi, Wadiga, Jaina, Malaya, Madura, Thelangu, Java, Vanga, Ayodhya swords. A total of 32 types of swords are listed including “Wak kadu” or curved swords which may have been the predecessor of the Kasthana type blade- which if true would date the type of blades significantly before the Portuguese encounter.

The craft based “cast” system was in existence in Sri Lanka till the end of the Kandyan Kingdom in 1815. The system was broken down only under the British rule.

The Early Kasthana was possibly designed with a lot of thought and reason for each of its components. The traditional systems carry rather firm disciplines in proportions and use of its elements. The texts like the “Vaijayantha-thanthra” are examples. which set guidelines for the length and breadth of blades and the types of decoration and iconographies to be followed. most of the sword lore and smiting techniques became extinct under the extreme repression of the British raj. The Brits took over the country using intrigue not the force of arms in which they repeatedly failed as long as the Sinhala crown lasted. so the Brits knew the need to suppress anything that was even connected to martial traditions in the Sinhales. Orders were given to shoot at anyone practicing “Angam” and all arms and armor related crafts perished in the post 1815 era.

Recently I was rather saddened to see a small “ola leaf” technical manual on ancient sword making being dismantled and sold piecemeal page by page to gullible tourists in an antique shop the South of the country purporting to be “Lord Buddha’s own handwriting”. But the bit that I saw remaining indicate firm guidelines set in construction of the blades.

Though I would not feel confident in identifying the inspiration for the Kasthana design- Based on the way a TRADITIONAL kasthana is constructed and put together I believe that the use of the quillons and the langet is used mainly to strengthen the base of the sword, provide a good seat on the scabbards and also to deflect a sliding cut away from the hand. not for the purpose of holding and locking enemy blades. The association of tibetan vajra with kasthana is purely artificial in a Sinhala context- as I pointed out before the Mahayana/Vajrayana buddhist traditions to which vajra symbolism belonged was extinct or only vestigially present in Sri Lanka the time in question. The predominant Theravada Buddhist traditions give no significance to it. the quillon shape is quite regular within the framework of Sinhala motifs without a need to associate it with the Vajra

Ibrahim I think your classification of Kasthana to include characters of all degenerate deviant sub-species counters the identification of proper kasthana swords- the true Kasthana carries a single edged blade that is curved, The quillons are always 4 and the primary animal heads on quillons, guard and hilt is 6 (or more- never less). There is a firm order and tradition of composition of animal head types and accessory figures and iconography on hilt and quillons. but I shall refrain on commenting further on this as I have given sufficient level of my comments on that topic elsewhere in the earlier thread but the issue within this forum stays stubbornly muddled.

Ibrahim I am not sure how these modern illustrations of Hindu gods become useful in the purpose of the thread. if needed look for period specific reference that may have more value here.

Napoleon- it is best to visit the earlier thread which carried some good illustrations of Kasthana, There are a modest amount of direct historic evidence available within a Sri Lankan archaeological/ historic records. If you would look at my posts I have included some references to heirloom swords still remaining with the original families they were gifted to by Kings which give good provenance as some still even carry gift deeds, flags and other items presented along with the kasthana to the chieftains who excelled in battle. I am also very interested in the typological chronology of the kasthana which seem quite clear path of evolution from the earliest (most refined) to late (of more valuable material but weak craftsmanship and design). a lot of modern poor quality replica’s also float around including brass bladed items. previously I made a possible reference to a source that could well stand as an earlier example of a Kasthana timeline based on the evolution of design elements.

I just hope the forum stay objective and selective in acceptance of the material provided- unless the thread may do more harm to the study of the Kasthana than good.

p.s. Ibrahim thank you for the private message to me. I was any way thinking of posting this.

Regards prasanna

[David]

Originally Posted by Prasanna Weerakkody

I just hope the forum stay objective and selective in acceptance of the material provided- unless the thread may do more harm to the study of the Kasthana than good.

Thanks you so much for returning to this subject once more Prasanna to impart your insights.
Jim seems to think that i am trying to derail this discussion and that i have brought up "unnecessary point(s) of contention". Nothing could be further from the truth. I am simply trying to re-track the train and correct its course as there has been so much misdirection, half-truths and straight out incorrect info somehow portrayed as being correct knowledge reached by some imaginary "consensus" of the members participating here. To be clear, writing the most amount of words on a subject does not create a "consensus". Even if it did, a consensus of this group on any particular idea is useless if in fact it is historically incorrect.
Prasanna, i do hope you stick around this conversation just a little bit longer. I realize that it might feel like you are beating your head against a stone wall at times, but do understand that some of us value the direct cultural input you provide into these questions and are not swayed by the seeming endless flow white noise that attempts to obscure it.

[Jim McDougall]

Prasanna, thank you so much for rejoining us here!!! and especially for your outstanding and valuable summary of most important data and perspectives reflecting your command of Sri Lankan history as well as that of the weaponry including the kasthane. Your distinct advantage in this knowledge is of course that you not only are Sri Lankan, but have tenaciously studied the history which is your own ancestry and legacy, and I admire that very much.
I can well understand your previous reluctance to participate as certain errors and misperceptions occurred in degree in our discussions here and on other threads, as these can be frustrating of course for someone as well versed as you are in the history you have devoted a lifetime to. With that I would also note that I hope you will stay with us here, and ask for your patience as we look into learning more on the history of these fascinating swords.

David, I would like to note that while your intent may have been to clarify various aspects of the discussion at hand, it may have been more advantageous to address key talking points specifically and offering alternative views as you did with the term 'deity'. In spending quite some time going through a number of sources to learn more on this definition (as I admit to not clearly understanding it myself prior to this), I found that the term itself has remarkably wide scope. Primarily of course its use seems to refer to supernatural, immortal beings thought to be sacred, holy or even divine. In extremely subjective studies of things mythical, metaphysical and theosophical there are naturally profoundly wide views, so equally wide parlance in various context may be understandable.

The point is, rather than being objective in addressing the issue, the demeanor of your approach seemed dismissive with regard to Ibrahiims participation in the compilation of the Wikipedia entry noted. Obviously the presentation could have been better qualified in being cited, but still the accusatory comment was counterproductive and the subsequent dialogue directed to the values and issues with Wikipedia was in effect 'derailing' in my opinion. Aside from that I appreciate your concerns over the integrity of the discussions and always welcome objective and constructive participation focused on the subject matter at hand.

[David]

Jim, the definition of the word "deity" is pretty cut and dry, for any particular cultural application.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deity
The importance of understanding the difference between deities and mere mythical creatures and what purposes they serve in the culture at hand is of great importance if there is to be any understanding of the weapons under consideration here.
A discussion of the merits of Wikipedia entries is indeed pertinent as well. I also use Wikipedia quite often for quick references when seeking information, but am wary enough to take such info with a grain of salt. It is NOT a credible source for academic study, period. This isn't to say that it isn't useful. As i mentioned before, some entries are better researched with a multitude of references and footnotes. Others, like the kastane entry not so much. What i objected to in Ibrahiim's last posting of his wikipedia entry was that it was being presented as a "culminating note…unveiled by Wikepedia the famous on line encyclopedia" firstly, without full disclosure that it is indeed of his own hand and opinion (sorry, his previous admission to this is buried in a ten page thread that has long since fallen off the main page and does indeed need restating for full transparency) and it is full of errors and speculation. Ibrahiim responds to my questioning with the following:
"I add that since my involvement as a contributor on Forum to this subject that the Wikepedia entry has been considerably and accurately updated with the latest current information researched by me. It stands therefor as a pinnacle of finely tuned detail in parallel with the latest doctrine on the subject...
Surely you would be delighted with that..from the Forum viewpoint?"
No, Ibrahiim, i am not delighted from the "Forum viewpoint". What is written in the wiki article is not "a pinnacle of finely tuned detail in parallel with the latest doctrine on the subject…", it is merely your opinion and some of it is incorrect. It is not the culminated consensus point of view that has come as the fruit of these forum thread discussions on the subject so why should it please me from the Forum viewpoint?
Jim, we will probably, as usual, have to agree to disagree on these points, but i call it like i see it and will continue to do so. It is not an attempt to be dismissive or counterproductive, but rather to keep a sense of transparency and accountability in these threads and allow those with other opinions the room to speak them rather than be carried away by the avalanche of words that seem to dominate the discussion most of the time. If you continue to disregard the number of forum members who have been turned away from this discussion because of this you do so at your own peril of researching a complex subject with a minimum of forum input.

[Rick]

As a long time member I feel I must comment:
Both Kastane threads, were they to be considered in corporeal form would,
IMO, be called morbidly obese .
I believe that the essence has become lost within the folds of 'fat' surrounding the subject under discussion; it becomes obvious that the subject here is, and will remain solely about the kastane .

Gentlemen, I think theis subject has been about laid to rest; I don't believe that I am the only member that feels this way .
I lack the necessary filter and patience to continue to swim in these waters . I expect so do many others of us here on the sidelines .

I also fear for our credibility .

[Jim McDougall]

I guess we have pretty well covered the term 'deity' at this point, and yes, that is yet another dictionary definition. However, as is often the case with words, they can often end up with varying interpretation in parlance with colloquial or contextual usage .
For example, one reference notes, "..all the gods have some animals and birds as their vahana or vehicle, and in the process of time these creatures have become a great object of Hindu veneration".("Sacred Hindu Symbols" Abhinav Publications , 2001). This reference goes on to note, "..another mythological animal DEITY is makara, the sea monster who is the vahana of the Vedic god Varuna". Another reference I came across passim, noted the makara as an elephant headed sea beast is considered to be a benevolent sea DEITY.
The three principal animal deities are described in another reference on Hindu mythology as Ganesha, Garuda, and Hanuman. While this would by implication seem to exclude the makara, it does seem that the term has rather wide latitude. In cases such as metaphysical, mythological and other philosophical and theosophical studies it would seem far less than 'cut and dry'.
One of the best references, in my opinion, for understanding matters of perception in the application of these kinds of mythical figures and decoration on many of these weapons is found in "Hindu Arms and Ritual" (Robert Elgood, 2004, p.130). Dr.Elgood notes, "...since the power of the gods is held to be infinitely greater than than that of man, it follows that their weapons are replete with the supernatural qualities of their owners.They are frequently captured or gifted, thereby transferring potency from one deity to another".
Further, "...lions are symbols of royalty and Vishnu, the Buddha and the ain saviours all sit on lion thrones (Simhasana) while the goddess Durga has a lion as her vehicle".

It would seem that in these views concerning deities that in some cases the lion is indeed representative of supremacy, and in varying circumstances that it may represent a 'vehicle' much as the makara. Since 'deities' are defined as supernatural beings, thought of as divine or sacred and that some are supreme while others are of different ranks...might this not suggest that the term deity could be perceived comprehensively to include these mythical creatures?

Obviously, though Sri Lanka may have different perceptions of these facets of Hindu mythology and the terminology used, these are my own views set forth here as I understand them. In other references I have seen, it is noted that in some faiths it is considered blasphemous to imagine or depict a deity as having a concrete form.
Perhaps this might account for the seemingly stylized interpretations of these mythical creatures and why those of us virtually in layman status find it so difficult to identify them, let alone agree on what to call them or how to term them.

These are the kinds of questions we hope to discover answers for, and to better understand these swords and their history. Since the term 'deity' has become deemed of importance at this point, then we should address it accordingly and return to the kasthane.

I will also point out that my 'industrious' venture here to allow unimpeded focus on the kasthane specifically I believe has been most useful, and that in many cases discourses of this volume often require reiteration....often readers don't read the previous post, let alone the considerable text of the thread. Case in point is Ibrahiims not mentioning his Wikipedia contribution which was 'buried' in previous text. Therefore in many cases it becomes necessary to reestablish material again, even if it seems repetitive for some readers.

[David]

We have a person from the culture we are discussing come on to say that these creatures are not "deities". Let it go Jim…

[Prasanna Weerakkody]

I must say Jim that despite all that you would read- in the ground context of Sri Lanka Makara or Lion is not considered as any god or deities. You must realize Sinhala context is not Hindu either and some of the mainland concepts do not properly apply here anyway.

Fernando I have always found your posts interesting and inspiring as it provided a counter/ more Portuguese oriented perspective to how I experience things down here. Your sources and material presented are just great. I think it is clear that the kasthane origin is Sinhala. but there are many un-answered questions remain and it is also clear that it did draw inspiration from many foreign sources as well. one of the questions that I am intrigued by is that the changeover of the Sinhala fighters from the dominance of double edged long swords of the previous era- that seem quite similar to the arms of the Portuguese roughly at the time of their arrival and shifting to the Kasthana. The Portuguese is possibly the first enemy the Sinhala armies face off that used heavy armor- cuirasses etc at that scale. many other weapons show adaptations to items that are better suited to armor piercing purposes at the time but Kasthana travels a different path in retaining a slashing blade. why? (keeping in mind that Kasthana may not have been a primary weapon of the soldiery of the field (Calachurro example?)). Also I just noted that brass blades are common among modern replica’s but it in no way necessitates that the image you presented is modern. Please let know the date of publication you extracted the swords from. If you look at the proper battle kasthana and the later purely ceremonial ones one of the most noted differences is the way the blade attaches to the hilt (like in the images provided), it will be very interesting to see how far back this type of construction can be set to.
Regards
Prasanna

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by David

We have a person from the culture we are discussing come on to say that these creatures are not "deities". Let it go Jim…

Whew!! OK doc!! I'm alright now.......Ok, OK, let it go, let it go!
I'm glad to see the discussion is still going, and as I see various entries I can see just how silly much of it was. What I was trying to do, during my spell, was to illustrate what Prasanna noted quite simply, that the term denoting these mythical entities is different in many cases in Sri Lanka than in other cultural parlances.
The problems of semantics, transliteration and perception of course become issues in studying any facet of one culture by those of another. This is why we have footnotes, qualifying references or simply explanations of alternate views or terms. Actually those practices are unfortunately what often is in place with my 'avalanches'

By this same token, much the same as recognizing that definitions are not necessary applicable in every case (the reason why dictionaries offer multiple meanings) , descriptions of terms and meanings are not always 'cut and dry' particularly with the complexities of deeply subjective material.
With that I would recognize that proper understanding of terms, in the context being observed, is indeed important. This is why as researchers it is important for us to include these disparities in text as part of discussion, which often results in considerably more words. One of the key reasons for disagreements and misunderstandings in these venues is poor wording, lack of qualification or explanatory text, along of course with discourtesy.

I know that in trying to describe many of the figures we have been discussing, I feel very uncomfortable in using descriptions such as 'monster'; 'beast' or 'grotesque' as often used in many descriptions, as these are often seen with pejorative meanings in western culture. In this same manner I know that I try, as clearly has Ibrahiim, to find as proper an unoffensive term as possible to show proper respect in referring to the various elements we are discussing. Thankfully Prasanna has rejoined us to help us with these delicate aspects, for example in properly understanding the term deity, along with his comprehensive overall knowledge of course on these subjects.

What is even better is that Fernando has rejoined us with his extremely valuable knowledge and resources on the Portuguese part in the history of these weapons, not to mention his always brilliant wit which truly helps lighten the admittedly sometimes text laden burden here. With that I would acknowledge Rick's note on that issue, and his concerns on our integrity here due to the 'heavy' demeanor of the thread(s). It is true that many of us here are from different cultures, and certainly all have our own 'styles' and interests. It has always been my position that we should allow patience and understanding to prevail as we interact, as well as observing courtesy and gentlemanly respect toward each other.
A very wise man once said, if you find the style or subject matter of another disturbing or annoying, simply ignore them and avoid the thread and topics.
I am glad this thread has continued, and especially with the outstanding complement of participants now present. While some view the topic as having run its course, I have never seen history of anything as having reached that point, it is very much a living entity, always having more to say.

That is why we are here, and hopefully others sharing these interests will join, and emphatically I will say, all opinions, observations and views are welcome and eagerly accepted.

[fernando]

ආයුබෝවන් Prasanna

No one will doubt that this authentic treatise on the Kasthana is more than enlightening in the most varied points ... speaking by my humble self .
If i am not insisting too much on the same point, i would dare to ask you objectively whether outer influence in the Kasthana form is to be excluded. By placing the Kastana in the mid XVI century we may infer that it was born whilst the Portuguese stayed in the Island; the same Portuguese that a century later mentioned in chronicles various Sinhala weapons (Calachurro and all) but not the Kasthana. Maybe this is due to such sword not being a field weapon, its involvement in bellic narrations didn't occur. I didn't however give up searching this theme in Portuguese history of the period, as i find it hard to beleive that the Kasthana, or the equivalent term attributed by Portuguese, is not mentioned here or there.
Concerning quality of these swords, it is easy to understand that it degenerated within time, specialy attending to the fact that its adornment purposes didn't need their martial skills to prevail in use.
But knowing less than nothing about the subject, i fail to discern how modern examples with blades made of brass are. In page 57 of the book above mentioned, i face the picture of two Kasthanas; one in chiseled gold and silver and rubies in the beast eyes and another with a brass blade and the hilt (and scabbard?) made of turtle.
The pictures are in black and white and not of the best quality. But judging by the knowledge of the owner, i wouldn't imagine this brass example having been used just the other day in belly dance ... although for lack of knowledge i will not reject the idea.


.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Prasanna Weerakkody

I must say that I had decided to stay away from the thread; not due to being unable to stand argument as some might suggest-but as it no longer seems objective about the study that for me is one of profound personal interest. same things repeat over and over with minor contortions while (sadly) quickly forgetting all the information that has been Included in the previous thread where this discussion initiated. I did feel quite sad as among the noise there was also some very important material being shared and raised and I must say I did learn a lot being part of it.

The reason I am writing this note is to at least provide a re-cap of points that were presented in the other thread that seem to be getting forgotten and to at least try in some way to counter some of the mis-information that seem to be taking root within the thread. being from the country of origin of the Kasthana - It is sometimes difficult not to be amused by some of the things that continue being said (despite errors being pointed out). Many theories about Sinhala arts, crafts, culture and history portrayed seem alien and quite new to me having been a student of Sinhala Art history all my life. - it’s quite an eye opener how much mis-information; just starts as a wild guesses becomes realities and can take root through the internet. (may be it is my disadvantage to be from Sri Lanka - otherwise may be I would have enjoyed the fantasies more freely.)

As David already very correctly pointed out- In Sri Lanka neither Lion, Makara nor Serapendiya are ever considered deities or gods in any form; they are depicted as no more than mere decorative “BEAST” forms (though auspicious- like the lotus or conch-shell). They are used as Icons; Lion representing Sinhala race, Makara as a symbol of protection and regeneration. etc. etc.

The only goddess or deities represented on Kasthana seem to be images that may be Sri-Devi/Luxmi, or Patthini devi depicted sometimes on the outer side of the hand guard and/or on the langet. These on occasion may be only figures of “Nari-latha” or tree nymphs. It is a significant area of study to identify the mostly female deities present on a weapon instead of a warrior gods such as karthikeiya or Kali.

Forum still does not seem to recognize the sources I provided that in a Sri Lankan/ Sinhala historic context clearly establish the Kasthana Sword to mid 16th century. which at least in a local context is backed by examples that have good provenance and supported by strong literary evidence. There is solid local evidence to prove that the Kasthane sword in its proper form and name existed at least in mid 16th century if not earlier. . (please check earlier thread for reference) I do understand that the forum members are at a loss when it comes to reading original historic sources written in Sinhala. but the reality is that they do exist. the post 14th century era saw the emergence of a long series of books written as “Hatan Kavya” (war poems) which give significant details of battles and warriors and arms used.

If the sword (and the name Kasthana) was in existence in the early to mid 16th century and associated well with King Rajasinhe I. it is clear that the origin of the weapon clearly and significantly pre-date the Kandyan kingdom and its workshops; and would have its origin more in the Sithawaka and/or Kotte kingdoms- post the transfer of the capital to Kandy the workshops there would have continued production of the swords. but it would not have originated in “Kandyan workshops” which is a misnomer. The design trends associated with the early (more refined) form of Kasthana can be associated with art trends of even the Dambadeni or Gampola Kingdoms which predate even the Kotte Sithawaka era.

The Sinhala crafts and technology was influenced by more than the 3 European invaders and the moors, The country was visited 3 times by the Navy of Cheng ho (Zheng He) shortly before the arrival of the Portuguese; and there was prolific trade, diplomatic, religious and cultural ties to Thailand to Burma and most of East Asia and even up to China. Mainland India both Northern and Southern continued to be in strong contact throughout time. large Sinhala trade ships are documented sailing to Chinese ports and even to Roman courts more than a millennia before. the concept that the moors were the “mercantile marine” of the sinhales is in error though they did carry out trade in Sinhala ports during the 15th century and supported the Sinhales in some battles as the Portuguese was a direct threat to their trade. The Sinhales craftsmen were good at adapting foreign technology encountered often giving them a local twist. The location of the country at the southernmost tip of the Indian sub-continent necessitated any ships plying the coasts of South Asia would use it as a trade hub. The 14th century text “Kandauru siritha” list many types of foreign swords used by the kings army including swords listed as Pandi, Wadiga, Jaina, Malaya, Madura, Thelangu, Java, Vanga, Ayodhya swords. A total of 32 types of swords are listed including “Wak kadu” or curved swords which may have been the predecessor of the Kasthana type blade- which if true would date the type of blades significantly before the Portuguese encounter.

The craft based “cast” system was in existence in Sri Lanka till the end of the Kandyan Kingdom in 1815. The system was broken down only under the British rule.

The Early Kasthana was possibly designed with a lot of thought and reason for each of its components. The traditional systems carry rather firm disciplines in proportions and use of its elements. The texts like the “Vaijayantha-thanthra” are examples. which set guidelines for the length and breadth of blades and the types of decoration and iconographies to be followed. most of the sword lore and smiting techniques became extinct under the extreme repression of the British raj. The Brits took over the country using intrigue not the force of arms in which they repeatedly failed as long as the Sinhala crown lasted. so the Brits knew the need to suppress anything that was even connected to martial traditions in the Sinhales. Orders were given to shoot at anyone practicing “Angam” and all arms and armor related crafts perished in the post 1815 era.

Recently I was rather saddened to see a small “ola leaf” technical manual on ancient sword making being dismantled and sold piecemeal page by page to gullible tourists in an antique shop the South of the country purporting to be “Lord Buddha’s own handwriting”. But the bit that I saw remaining indicate firm guidelines set in construction of the blades.

Though I would not feel confident in identifying the inspiration for the Kasthana design- Based on the way a TRADITIONAL kasthana is constructed and put together I believe that the use of the quillons and the langet is used mainly to strengthen the base of the sword, provide a good seat on the scabbards and also to deflect a sliding cut away from the hand. not for the purpose of holding and locking enemy blades. The association of tibetan vajra with kasthana is purely artificial in a Sinhala context- as I pointed out before the Mahayana/Vajrayana buddhist traditions to which vajra symbolism belonged was extinct or only vestigially present in Sri Lanka the time in question. The predominant Theravada Buddhist traditions give no significance to it. the quillon shape is quite regular within the framework of Sinhala motifs without a need to associate it with the Vajra

Ibrahim I think your classification of Kasthana to include characters of all degenerate deviant sub-species counters the identification of proper kasthana swords- the true Kasthana carries a single edged blade that is curved, The quillons are always 4 and the primary animal heads on quillons, guard and hilt is 6 (or more- never less). There is a firm order and tradition of composition of animal head types and accessory figures and iconography on hilt and quillons. but I shall refrain on commenting further on this as I have given sufficient level of my comments on that topic elsewhere in the earlier thread but the issue within this forum stays stubbornly muddled.

Ibrahim I am not sure how these modern illustrations of Hindu gods become useful in the purpose of the thread. if needed look for period specific reference that may have more value here.

Napoleon- it is best to visit the earlier thread which carried some good illustrations of Kasthana, There are a modest amount of direct historic evidence available within a Sri Lankan archaeological/ historic records. If you would look at my posts I have included some references to heirloom swords still remaining with the original families they were gifted to by Kings which give good provenance as some still even carry gift deeds, flags and other items presented along with the kasthana to the chieftains who excelled in battle. I am also very interested in the typological chronology of the kasthana which seem quite clear path of evolution from the earliest (most refined) to late (of more valuable material but weak craftsmanship and design). a lot of modern poor quality replica’s also float around including brass bladed items. previously I made a possible reference to a source that could well stand as an earlier example of a Kasthana timeline based on the evolution of design elements.

I just hope the forum stay objective and selective in acceptance of the material provided- unless the thread may do more harm to the study of the Kasthana than good.

p.s. Ibrahim thank you for the private message to me. I was any way thinking of posting this.

Regards prasanna

Salaams Prasanna ~ Thank you for your note about my PM and your early response which is very highly regarded. Not being Srl Lankan in this regard I do apologise for the indelicate descriptions involving the famous and fabulous Icons surrounding the very convoluted story so far on the Kastane. From an outsiders viewpoint the best words to describe the designs seemed to be Deity..This is not simply an arrived at conclusion but appears in many references which we understand may have got it slightly off frequency...when perhaps to satisfy the equation Icon would be a better word, however, to the researcher there was no reason to be concerned since they both mean the same ... to them. I hope no offence has been made in this regard.

I was actually about to reitterate what you had pointed out regarding the Home Grown nature of The Kastane illustrating your post of the earlier thread showing the stone figure "Hanguranketha" with a sword clearly of similar Quillon style at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...8&page=9&pp=30 and more or less ruling out any foreign influence altogether... though in fact the influence clearly flowed the other way much later than the 16th C. onto European Dogheads and in fact earlier referring to the Benin weapon(Hybrid) and to some extent the Popham Armour(Courtsword) and even the Sendai item ..

I hope you agree that though this has been a huge and difficult task especially as the research is so difficult and in particular from the foreigners viewpoint..and not being versed so well in Buddhism nor Hinduism that what we actually have achieved ...stormy at times ... ....is not a bad effort since now practically all the detail that is currently available rests on these pages. I make no apology for repetition or what some describe as "fat" since it is easy to jab remarks at what has been a difficult struggle to say the least. I believe that those who have fallen by the wayside did so because they couldnt stand the pace...or just were unable to get involved..maybe they can join later. The ink is free ! and they are always welcome.

In your other post in which you state Quote
"I think it is clear that the kasthane origin is Sinhala. but there are many un-answered questions remain and it is also clear that it did draw inspiration from many foreign sources as well. one of the questions that I am intrigued by is that the changeover of the Sinhala fighters from the dominance of double edged long swords of the previous era- that seem quite similar to the arms of the Portuguese roughly at the time of their arrival and shifting to the Kasthana". Unquote. This is a fascinating subject and I hope you can advise us further.

Nice to see your post and thank you for the excellent and constructive content... Great Country, Great People, Great Sword !

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[David]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

…when perhaps to satisfy the equation Icon would be a better word, however, to the researcher there was no reason to be concerned since they both mean the same ... to them.

They most certainly do not…not to researchers or anyone for that matter.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by David

They most certainly do not…not to researchers or anyone for that matter.

Salaams David. I think the matter is properly addressed now dont you? Despite vast references that illustrate the words Deity and note the huge variance in descriptive terms; dragon, snake, eagle, serpent, Makara, beast, gargoyle, Lion, to name a few... does it really actually matter ? The more important weight is concerned with the date and timing of any Sri Lankan adoption of this weapon style ... not whether Europeans transliterate what they see and what the references describe. Deity \ Icon??

Perhaps it would be like flogging a dead horse to continue arguing the point no?

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[David]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams David. I think the matter is properly addressed now dont you? Despite vast references that illustrate the words Deity and note the huge variance in descriptive terms; dragon, snake, eagle, serpent, Makara, beast, gargoyle, Lion, to name a few... does it really actually matter ? The more important weight is concerned with the date and timing of any Sri Lankan adoption of this weapon style ... not whether Europeans transliterate what they see and what the references describe. Deity \ Icon??

Perhaps it would be like flogging a dead horse to continue arguing the point no?

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Well Ibrahiim, you claim to want to understand the kastane. Any ethnographic weapon cannot be properly understood without a clear understanding of the culture that spawned it or that culture's intent in its design. Deities are gods and goddess, supreme beings that are worshipped by the people that attend to that culture. An "Icon" if you choose to insist on that term, when not used in its original sense of a painting of Jesus Christ, can be viewed as "a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something." If the Sinhalese people were placing their gods and goddess on these hilts it would have a certain meaning and power to it. That they chose the iconic lion, a symbol of the Sinhalese people, to place on the pommel, conveys a separate purpose, meaning and understanding. To confuse "Deity" with "Icon" or see them as somehow interchangeable terms will only lead to continued confusion on the intent, place and purpose of the kastane within Sinhalese culture. So, you ask "dragon, snake, eagle, serpent, Makara, beast, gargoyle, Lion, to name a few… does it really actually matter?" Come on Ibrahiim, of course it matters.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by David

Well Ibrahiim, you claim to want to understand the kastane. Any ethnographic weapon cannot be properly understood without a clear understanding of the culture that spawned it or that culture's intent in its design. Deities are gods and goddess, supreme beings that are worshipped by the people that attend to that culture. An "Icon" if you choose to insist on that term, when not used in its original sense of a painting of Jesus Christ, can be viewed as "a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something." If the Sinhalese people were placing their gods and goddess on these hilts it would have a certain meaning and power to it. That they chose the iconic lion, a symbol of the Sinhalese people, to place on the pommel, conveys a separate purpose, meaning and understanding. To confuse "Deity" with "Icon" or see them as somehow interchangeable terms will only lead to continued confusion on the intent, place and purpose of the kastane within Sinhalese culture. So, you ask "dragon, snake, eagle, serpent, Makara, beast, gargoyle, Lion, to name a few… does it really actually matter?" Come on Ibrahiim, of course it matters.

Salaams David, I think you are confused by the terminology and where I note your reference to religion, perhaps it underlines how difficult it is to engage in discussion without mentioning it. However, I am clear in my mind how these are viewed from the foreigner viewpoint and not being a follower of that religion... however, out of respect I have viewed the terms from a students angle in studying those religions from the Sri Lankan ancient historical viewpoint..

I have no problem with the words Icon or Deity. No it probably does not matter whether someone describes an Icon as a fish or dragon or Makara etc since it is only their perception ... nothing to get hung up about and since this is a discussion; no malice however hot the anvil becomes..

Prasanna Weerakkody would perhaps describe something as Iconic whereas I may perhaps call it a Deity... it doesn't matter. we are talking about the same thing.

What matters is in getting together a set of informative details however hard that is...and being able to step back and freely admit that Library has been served and as having contributed to the understanding of this very difficult subject; I think that is fair.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[David]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Prasanna Weerakkody would perhaps describe something as Iconic whereas I may perhaps call it a Deity… it doesn't matter. we are talking about the same thing.

If that is really what you choose to believe Ibrahiim, good luck with that, but you have not convinced me in the least and your understanding of these weapons will continue to remain muddled as long as you cannot understand the importance in making a distinction between "Deity" and "Icon" when discussing what is represented on these hilts.