Kora
 

Hello again. I'm back and I'd like to share a new acquisition that I managed to obtain just yesterday: the unique sacrificial blade - the Kora. This is the fourth sword to my collection.

I guess I could get into a little backstory, which is a bit fun. Last month, I was browsing the net and I found myself on an auction site. Feeling bored, but a bit adventurous, I found a listing featuring a listing for a "Indo-Persian Sword with Two Shields" with the starting bid at about 10 GBP. After about a couple of days, the final price was 110 GBP, and guess who has two thumbs and won that lot. This guy!lol Anyway, after week of playing the waiting game with the auctioneer and another couple weeks waiting for validation with the shipping company, I managed to get the two swords and the kora at such a low price, I feel like I made off like a bandit!lol So I left the shields in the box still wrapped and have the kora on my wall in all its glory.

Anyway, enough of my gloating, onto the main point. The kora I obtained is roughly twenty-seven inches in length with a sharp curve at the end and a flange. This signature feature is clearly a sign that the weapon in my possession was most likely created for ceremonial purposes as, from what I understand, the versions used for battle were thinner, lighter, and had a smaller flange and curve. There is some light decoration along the blade with a sun with either a gold/brass central face and a war god on opposing sides of the flange and then figures within squares near the hilt of the sword (one of which covered in gold or brass). Speaking of the hilt, this kora's grip has a strange configuration. From what I've seen, kora hilts usually have a pair of disc shaped plates on opposing sides of the leather wrapped handle or at least a simple hand guard. However, this specimen has a metal hilt with balled ends on the crossguard and a remnant of a spike at below the familiar bottom disc. Perhaps this sword is a hybrid carrying a simplified khanda grip?

Anyway, I'm guessing this Kora is either 18th or 19th Century and hailing from Nepal based on the accompanying shields. Of course, I'm not entirely sure if that's the case. Can anyone help me assess this beautiful sword?

It's an Indian tulwar hilt. Sometimes one sees these hilts on Nepali weapons.

In this case, I think it's Bengali. Some past discussion of these:
http://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?p=56083
... and I've seen similar elsewhere described as Bengali. If you google for "tulwar kora", you should a fair number of examples.

Definitely Indian.
Miguel

Congratulation for the brilliant acquisition! :)
Now that's a bargain!

Both shields and sword seem to be Indian to me.

So is there anything I need to know about maintaining this sword? I use mineral oil and a good towel to clean my swords every couple of weeks or so.

So few authentic items that we congratulate the other participants with the items that were made in the late 19th - early 20th centuries as souvenirs for the Europeans? :(

Hmmm... you might be right... :confused:

Why the sarcasm?

A Forumite showed pics, honestly described the story and politely requested help.

A condescending snark was not asked for and was not deserved.

Panzerraptor,
These items date from the end of 19 to the beginning of 20 century. They are ceremonial. They might have been produced as tourist items, but Oliver Pinchot in his book of the late R. Wagner collection had shown a khanda with very similar decorations. In his comment, items of such decorative abundance were produced for the Dehli durbars ( 1877,1903,1911), all-India assemblies at the coronations of British Kings, them being also The Emperors of India. Every Rajah brought a retinue armed to the teeth with very "show-y" weapons. Theatrical? Historical? Depends on the point of view of a collector.

Unless you are specifically interested in the battle-proven weapons, these shields and kora reflect prevailing trends in Indian arms culture of that time.

My question (in any case not sarcasm) was not addressed to the author of the topic. My question to participants who began to admire an item that is a souvenir.

I'm surprised how can compare the elegant sword from the collection of Wagner and rough souvenir sword that we are discussing.

You find these crudely decorated weapons made with flat sheet type metal in the way of swords, daggers and axe heads etc.

Erroneously I mentioned khanda. Sorry.
I meant # 4-21.

Tegha number 4-21, a little closer to the subject under discussion.
But:
1) and it is much more elegant, than the subject discussion.
2) I would love to see photos of the Hindu with such Tegha in the Durbar.

And in Book can write anything you like;) In Russia we have a saying: "Paper endure all" .... I prefer facts rather than captions for pictures in the album for a coffee table.

I wish there were more "coffee table albums" like that...

I tend to respect Oliver Pinchot's opinions. Obviously you do not. To each his own. Pity you cannot comprehend his wise and nuanced insights: you might have changed your mind.

Again, I see only the words ... No photo Hindu on Durbar with the same sword..... But I'm not surprised)))

Folks, what else can I say?
:shrug:

Very well said Ariel!!! and I am with you 150% re: Oliver !!!

Is there a picture of this one?

Here is the this sword.

Jim, that's fine - trust people! I repeat to you the question that asked ariel (ariel not answer). You know Durbar photo, for example, in Delhi, which has a similar sword? :)

Just to make sure, my weapon is likely a 19th Century Indian kora/tulwar hybrid crafted for royals? Sounds awesome! I figured that this weapon was ceremonial based on the design and flange size, but I wasn't sure where it was from or who could've actually used it. Also, I forgot to mention that this item still has an edge along the inner curve.

Also, I think I've seen that kind of tegha before. A month or so before, a similar specimen had been circulating around some auction sites and eBay. Though when it was listed, I wasn't sure it was the real deal. Maybe I should take it seriously the next time it ever shows up.

Anyway, about cleaning it. Is there a specific way of doing it for this sword other than the usual mineral oil/paper towel method? Also, are the colored portions of this sword brass or gold?

I probably bad writing in English :) This sword (Kora) - a souvenir of the late 19th - early 20th century for Europeans. And a souvenir of poor quality. yellow metal on the blade - brass.

And the question to all participants. Guys, anyone of you has a picture Durbar Square, where there are people with sword-Kora? ;)

I will be happy to see such a photo.

The hilt type on the Khunda in your original post Panzerraptor, is not uncommon in Nepal on their swords, but rarer on their Khunda

Well, let's not exaggerate:-)
This is a ceremonial weapon 19-20 century, but the purpose of its creation is unknown. More likely it is a purely decorative piece, although the style of decoration is of the pattern that was thought to be used for arming retinues of Rajahs attending Delhi Durbars in an attempt to look colorful and lavish.

That was exactly what I wrote in post #9. Weapons cannot talk and the individual stories of them cannot be known . That's why we cannot be categorical and insist on our version of their origin and purpose. Stating with certainty that it is a cheap souvenir is just as incorrect as claiming that it was produced for a particular celebration and searching for positive or negative evidence. As was said, buy the weapon, not the story:-))
And I agree with Timo: more likely Bengal.

Unfortunately, no one can prove to you that this is a ceremonial weapon. Because no evidence of this - no. You will not find any one pictures of India, where the ceremony would be with such swords))) Books that are written dealers or to assist in the implementation of the collection - it is not the best source of knowledge .... And if there is no evidence that it is the sword for the ceremony, it turns out that it is a souvenir sword.

Always nice to believe that you have in your collection "ceremonial sword", and not old souvenir. But the truth is that the this sword - this souvenir

Dont be upset. We all (with few exceptions) at the beginning of the formation of its collections made similar mistakes.

I'm with Mahratt, I like to see supporting examples whenever possible.

This photo is from a 1903 edition of National Geographic, commemorating the Delhi Durbar held in that year, which celebrated the accession of Edward VII. In the photo is a no-nonsense character in fanciful armor (some of it repurposed from an elephant armor) holding a massive sword of the sort someone pictured above; although it is sheathed, the type can be determined from its size and shape. I no longer have a hard copy of that NG, but I am sure that someone who has the time to do so can find it online. There was a later reissue of the photo in the 1930s or 40s that was colored. Both refer to "The Executioner" in the title, but it looks to me like a posed photo designed strictly to awe European guests.

Delhi Durbar weapons are usually very well made, but not always. Some were actually carried or worn to the Durbar itself by the nobility. Others were carried by lesser attendees. And still others were offered for sale to guests to commemorate their visit, either in the bazaars or hotels; the range of quality from one to the next is enormous.

This famous photo. Unfortunately, the sword in the scabbard, and we can not say how this sword looks. I think it looks like this:

That is what we now call - souvenirs? :)

Oliver,

No arguments about it.
But calling the "for sale" items "souvenirs" would not be correct, IMHO.
Any item connected with an historical event acquires special aura and meaning.


A lavishly illustrated booklet sold to the visitors to the Statue of Liberty is a souvenir. A genuine official programme of the unveiling ceremony of the same Statue of Liberty is a true antique object worth collecting ( I recently saw it being bought by Rick from the "Pawn Stars" for several hundred bucks:-)))

Thus, if one could provenance the Kora in question to the actual Durbar event, it would be a worthwhile collector's item.
Unfortunately, we cannot. However, we also cannot dismiss such a possibility. And that was the entire gist of my comment to the current owner.


I really do not think that this forum needs sarcastic and supercilious snarks addressed to the novices who are genuinely seeking information.

I really like the stories that are concoct (because they have no real evidence) :)

What for is encouraging new participants in the forum, telling them beautiful legends? Does anyone have some real evidence that this bark, as we are discussing here, used to Durbar? Or at least it was prepared to Durbar? I'll be glad to see such evidence.

I don't trust everyone........but I will tell you that if Oliver says it, you better believe it! He says more in just a few well chosen words than a lot of arms scholars can put together in many (including me :). That is why I always resent this book of a fine collection by him being even remotely classified as 'coffee table' !!!

So that was a serious question (or statement?) on photos being required as proof of the weapons appearing in these Durbars, as well noted by Ariel ?
That particular prerequisite seems rather humorous in this context, as I would imagine many archaeological and anthropological papers and texts must be rendered inconsequential as many assertions concerning artifacts do not have photographic proof. There weren't many cameras around before the 1850s (at least as far as I know).

In any case, Oliver perfectly responded to this (I believe tongue in cheek question?) insistence on photographic proof of weaponry at durbars. This was in my opinion well placed as it illustrated the sort of weaponry, and clearly somewhat theatrical or exaggerated types of costume etc. were extant in these events.

The British Raj and many colonial circumstances in various countries and regions lent well to the cottage industry of supplying souveniers to both occupying forces and whatever tourism might have developed by visitors.

These items were inherently of traditional forms, and meant to be impressive. They were not of the quality of diplomatic gifts or presentation items, but as Ariel has noted, have gained their own historic value as pertains to the events in which they might have been emplaced.

To speak of these kinds of items dismissively seems unwarranted when being shown in good faith for discussion.
I would share this little note here for consideration:

" ...I was once told that it was said of Laking that he
would always find something kind to say about
a fellow collectors object".
re: Sir Guy Francis Laking (1875-1919) arms collector and historian
-"Arms & Armour Study in Edwardian Britain"
Sid Blair and Michael Lacy (1999)

I guess sort of the mark of a gentleman. I know I choose to try to
follow that lead......but not all collectors do.

My dear friend, Jim, of course, I understand that in 1850 there were some problems with taking pictures :) But, we're kind of talking about 1903? I do not get them mixed up?

But I do not insist on the pictures. After all, we both know that nobody knows these photos if no one was able to show this photo. For I will have enough historical source of the late 19th - early 20th century, which will be write of such items. Anybody can quote? I am very interested.

Can you give more examples (besides photos that kindly showed Oliver), where clearly somewhat theatrical or exaggerated types of costume etc.? I can show you a few images of Durbar. But there are all dressed real, without exaggeration.

I understand that tolerance is fine :) I love when forum participants see an modern item (such as a souvenir knife) and a few posts flowery praise this item. And to end the discussion, the words that it "is not quite old an item". But I do not understand why can not just say, "Man, this is not the authentic item is. Great if you like him, but this is not the old thing..."

Is telling the truth - this is not the act of a gentleman? ;)


Dear Oliver, you write about an similar item in his book: "Many were produced for the Dehli Durbars". Tell me, please, in which a book on Delhi Durban you get this information?Or is it your personal opinion?

Hi Mahratt:

Perhaps some of the discussion of durbars reflects the different functions of these events, especially under British rule in India during the second half of the 19th C and into the 20th C.

Durbar is originally a Persian word for the King's Court--a place where the king did his business with nobles and courtiers, and important ceremonies were held. A special durbar could be called for major events, such as the marriage of the next heir to the kingdom, etc. These practices continued in the various Indian princely courts, even during the time of the British Raj. Traditional durbar were held into the first half of the 20th C. in many of the princely states.

The British somewhat corrupted the process by holding large gala pageants when a new Viceroy was installed or a new British monarch was crowned or celebrated a jubilee. This practice started in the late 19th C. In keeping with local custom, the British called these events durbar but there was no traditional business conducted at these spectaculars.

I think it's important to distinguish between the traditional functions of durbar and what foreigners introduced at a fairly late stage. That's not to say that traditional durbar were devoid of spectacle, but the British versions were all spectacle and no real substance other than showing loyalty to the Viceroy and the Crown.

Ian.

Ian, thank you!

I have no doubt that you are right. But I understand that there is no evidence that at the time of such theatrical durbars for Europeans, the Hindu had swords, like a sword that we are discussing? Or I'm wrong?

Ian, thank you so much for the great synopsis on durbars! This really gives a great perspective on the significance of these notable events. Clearly these evolved into events of quite different character eventually, and of course the nature of items either presented, displayed or sold would have had various degrees of character.

Mahratt, you do know of course that the analogy on cameras was to illustrate a point. We do not always have the benefit of photographic evidence to support every aspect of our observations or suggestions.
Naturally much of what is presented here in discussion will be a matter of opinion, but in most cases 'informed' opinion. I am more inclined to accept an opinion offered by a person who has handled enormous numbers of weapons, studied academically and produced considerable published material on topics than someone who simply makes an off the cuff comment.

While you clearly do not approve of Oliver's book on the Wagner Collection, referring to it as 'coffee table' level, he entered a post supportive of your other comments and tried to accommodate your 'requests' for images of durbars. He was being in my view quite gentlemanly if you noticed.

His comments on the durbars and nature of the weaponry found in them is based on profound experience, and many years of handling and researching arms. Just how much proof is needed to convince you of the integrity of his comments ? It is often difficult for someone to produce exact references for every observation over many years of studies. I know that I cannot always do so regarding my mere five decades of study, and citing examples from many years back....but I know the veracity of what I say . Would then a comment by me be considered useless if I could not produce exact reference?

Here we have friendly (?) usually, discussions where stringent academic protocol is not required to make observations or comments. If another does not agree, then that is their own choice.

As for making comments on a weapon here for discussion. There is nothing wrong with being truthful, however it seems that it should not be too hard to say an item is probably modern and commercial.......but to withhold calling it junk or low quality etc. It is not necessary to deride others who politely comment on an item regardless of its quality, and these things are just common courtesy.

Regarding the question you just asked Ian........yes, there is evidence that there were weapons like this in use. I have one, a kora with a tulwar hilt. These I have found are Bengali, just as noted in earlier discussions.These I have been told were used in sacrificial rituals of doves , but I have no proof or pictures, and I have not had access to the sword for years, and mine was not embellished.
Im just sayin' :)

Dear Jim, I did not want to offend anyone. But I prefer the concrete facts of the private view.

Do I understand correctly that if someone will handle a lot of weapons, even if this man will not have any historical evidence of his words, you will consider these words right? (Sorry for my english, but I hope you understand my question?)

I thank Oliver for the fact that it supports my words. And I really liked his article on the Shamshir and collaboration with K.RIvkin "Arms and military history of the Caucasus".
Dear Oliver, accept my compliments.

But let's talk referring to the facts. Here are the photos with the Delhi Durbar in 1903 and 1911's. I'll be glad if You show on these photos of people who would be overly theatrical or exaggerated types. Maybe someone will see too theatrical weapon in these photos?

Jim,
You have opened an interesting angle on the theory of evidence.

There is a well-known rule in science: absense of evidence is not the same as evidence of absense.

Ignoring it is a routine mark of an inexperienced or , even worse, overzealous researcher trying to prove his (or her) pet theory :-))

Well, facts probably will not ...

Actually Mahratt, your English is remarkably clear, and clearly in our discussion there are some different points of view. I agree with you and of course Oliver, that it is preferred that substantial evidence should be provided in support of assertions. In the case of photographic evidence, even this cannot always be trusted for irrefutable truth.

For example, it is well known, particularly in earlier stages of the 'photographic era', that photos were typically staged, and in many cases (often possibly most) used props and various embellished posturing etc. .
This is often seen in the military photos of the times, where actual combat scenes were staged, and there are many other examples.

With reference to these durbars, most of these photos I would suspect fall into these categories. It is, in my mind, inconceivable that the entire scope of these events would be captured photographically. I perceive these durbars as much like 'fairs', where these scenes involving significant people and groups are shown do not include the lesser scenes at accompanying bazaars with vendors hawking their wares and materials,

In many cases facts may be found in related mediums, such as narratives, personal notes or recollections, and particularly provenanced items.
Sometimes it may be that a reasonable assumption might be made which is compelling by other factors, but these cases are so many that including them here would be almost impossible. Most of these kinds of situations are well explained in books like "After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection",
( J.W. Davidson, M.H. Lytle, N.Y. Knopf, 1982).
Those interesting in carrying investigations in these degrees would be most enlightened by this and other writings on this topic. Here, we maintain a more fluid and not quite as collegiate discussion format, which enables us to cover a broader scope pertaining to items at hand. Naturally many elements of these discussions serve as benchmarks for those choosing to pursue detailed factors to more comprehensive study .

While your personal levels of study and research are clearly of very high standards and academically exemplary, they are not necessarily demanded nor even expected in our formats. While recommendations for more thorough supportive findings are welcomed, it is purely elective as far as the other participants in discussion are concerned. With that in mind, those recommendations should be entered as just that, and in a cordial manner, without negative feature.

I think in that light, your knowledge will be better employed to the advantage of us all, rather than in conflicting interaction.

Best regards
Jim

The Durbars were not theatrical performances.