hi andy,
nice grouping. it seems you are closer to the 'dark side' than you think
jim,
its great to see you back in full flow, and i would agree with a lot that you say. however, i would look a little earlier to the development of the full basket hilt, which seemed to cross over many cultures and for many years. i too, believe it hailed from the south but i dont believe originated from the maharathas. when i first started collecting and studying indian, i was fascinated by the maharathas. mainly because their arms were asthetic, and available. but the more i looked, the more i realised that they didnt actually offer much to the culture of the south, nor to that of india in general. in fact, all they offered was the legacy of one man, whose honour and presence within the greatness of india will always be questioned. they offered nothing to the development of art, nor architecture and what little they offered was crude in comparison to the greater kingdoms that they sat alongside of. yes, they did adopt the firangi, and in their own way, develop it to a style of their own. however, i dont believe the sword originated there. as with the kingdoms they took over, they just adapted whatever they could find.
also, i dont think that the full basket hilt was a definate development of the earlier hilt, as claimed by rawson. rawsons book was a milestone in the bibliography of indian arms, but it should not be taken word for word. the earlier hilt was of a specific from, that went back 500 years. during this time, the sword kept its overall shape (in blade and hilt). together, they do have much in common with the basket hilted firangi, which does lead to obvious assumptions. however, there is evidence of the full basket hilt with sabre blades in the 16thC, held by islamic hands. this, as a theory, is pure speculation and i leave this completely open. there are also full basket hilts of the same period with the khanda type blade as well, so it could go either way. however, what the hindu maharathan kingdom failed to provide, its predecesors did so with honours. the kingdom of vijayanagara and nayak both left much of their culture in architecture and sculpture, which clearly show their arms in good detail. it shows the sword that rawson calls the early hindu hilt, but there is evidence of the full basket hilt in its completely developed form existing at the same time. many people tend to assume the south was hindu, and the north moghul, with rajput and maharathas living within. the deccan, until relatively recently seemed to be ignored. the great (and infuriating) thing about the early south, is that the cultures did indeed cross over. the deccani sultans adapted the art and culture of the hindu, and vice versa. the early deccani manuscripts clearly show this but, as with vijayanagara, the work is theirs, but with a hint of something else. vijananagara is pure hindu, with a clear hint of the islamic deccan. so, i would shy away from calling firangis 100% hindu, as it is not certain that they are. there is evidence in art and actual examples from the 16thC that are almost pure islamic. the question is, are they islamic with a hindu tint, or hindu with the influence of the deccan. we are certain that it was developed by the latter hindu kingdoms, and we always have the problem of a lack of hindu court art (as apposed to the flourishing courts of moghul and sultanate).
sorry to babble, and not sure i have led to any conclusions, but hopefully opened up a different tangent.
attached are two images from the nirum al alum (1570/71) which is islamic deccani (bijapur), but with clear hints of hindu culture.
the third image is more islamic and from the early 17thC. this is interesting, as its from golconda which was less forgiving of its hindu neighbours than bijapur. this image shows abdullah qutb shah in full islamic dress, bearing what we consider a firangi in full and complete form.