Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

B.I · 7th February 2006, 08:35 AM

hi jim,
i must admit i have always found the maharathen culture a little frustrating as they were in a part of india that i have a particular passion for, and within a time period that could have left so many more clues.
the good thing about india, is that it did have specific 'kingdoms' which stayed in place for some centuries, long enough to leave a mark in their individual style. however, this only applies to moghul and deccani, along with the hindu kings of vijayanaga (and the kingdoms beneath them). the rajput style is harder to distinguish because of thier closeness to the moghul court.
i think we both agree with rawson. its an extremely important book in any library, but each page just begs questions. he was a little too quick to give terms with no references for us to backtrack them (i've tried by looking at his source material). also, like elgood, it was a thesis that was eventually published. it was originally written some 14 (i think) years before publication and the original is the same as the published book. this means that in 14 years, there was no development. as rawsons real passion was indian art, i feel this was written for publication and not for his own personal interest. this fact was reinforced by a conversation a friend had with him, where he said that all his information was in his book, and he had moved on to other sunjects. i read elgoods original thesis, written some 10 years before his book (hindu arms) was eventually published. in this 10 years, he re-wrote and developed his work continuosly and so it offers much more for the enquisitive mind. i still revere my copy of rawson, as i do all the books in my library (ahem, ok reverence is a little strong for some of the 'picture books').
as for tulwars and firangis, i know there is more information out there, past what has been written already and this is a great place to put it together and discuss it.

7th February 2006, 08:35 AM	#9
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi jim, i must admit i have always found the maharathen culture a little frustrating as they were in a part of india that i have a particular passion for, and within a time period that could have left so many more clues. the good thing about india, is that it did have specific 'kingdoms' which stayed in place for some centuries, long enough to leave a mark in their individual style. however, this only applies to moghul and deccani, along with the hindu kings of vijayanaga (and the kingdoms beneath them). the rajput style is harder to distinguish because of thier closeness to the moghul court. i think we both agree with rawson. its an extremely important book in any library, but each page just begs questions. he was a little too quick to give terms with no references for us to backtrack them (i've tried by looking at his source material). also, like elgood, it was a thesis that was eventually published. it was originally written some 14 (i think) years before publication and the original is the same as the published book. this means that in 14 years, there was no development. as rawsons real passion was indian art, i feel this was written for publication and not for his own personal interest. this fact was reinforced by a conversation a friend had with him, where he said that all his information was in his book, and he had moved on to other sunjects. i read elgoods original thesis, written some 10 years before his book (hindu arms) was eventually published. in this 10 years, he re-wrote and developed his work continuosly and so it offers much more for the enquisitive mind. i still revere my copy of rawson, as i do all the books in my library (ahem, ok reverence is a little strong for some of the 'picture books'). as for tulwars and firangis, i know there is more information out there, past what has been written already and this is a great place to put it together and discuss it.