Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

B.I · 6th June 2006, 11:36 PM

hi ian,
thanks for the email and sorry to have ignored your post. i can happily offer an opinion of your sword, but afraid it will be speculative as anything is on indian weapons. there is little written on early indian swords and what little there is goes not much further than basic terminology. however, i still feel much can be said of this piece.
i feel the sword is south indian, and of this i am pretty sure. it is probably 18thC and towards the earlier half, and more than likely maharathan. the overall style can only be south indian as it has not the asthetics of moghul nor rajput in form. they both had basket-hilted swords but they were of a different style, cleaner lines and less 'sculptural'. i put the word in inverted commas because the maharathan scultural form was crude in comparison to the kingdoms they surplanted.
i've given maharathan art a hard time in the past as i feel that they didnt contribute much themselves, when they had ample opportunity to (they formed a kingdom, with a centre and had enough time to leave their mark which they didnt). this comes from frustration as i find more information in earlier kingdoms than i can during their 'reign'.
they did, however, adopt the current style of sword and add their own asthetic to it. this hilt shows this in full glory. the maharathan style is a mixture of a 'developed' hindu and islamic southern slant. elgood shows much of this in his recent book, although he doesnt really cover the latter periods (past nayaka). nayakan style is very dominant and still evident in the architecture left behind. the maharathan kingdom was instilled in this same area and their style was an almost diluted version of the nayak. so, where the nayak took the full sculptural form from the bigger hindu kingdoms (vijiyanagara), the maharathan 'flattened' it off.
the guard on a 17thC hilt would be beaded and pierced. yours shows a latter version of this, where the beads are inscribed as apposed to relief chisselled and the piercing is nowhere near refined (more like perforations than symmetrical piercing - again, a maharathan feature).
please dont feel i am critisizing your hilt. i like it a lot, but am trying to validate my opinion and describe the maharathan features, or at least open up a chance to argue (debate) against it.
the 17thC hilt would be more zoomorphic, instead of lightly chisselled. your pommel is almost as typically maharathan as you can get (short, stumpy, leaning off to a 90 degree angle and ending in a lotus bud), and this is a feature that i really enjoy in these weapons. i like the lotus design terminals, used all over india, but with a certain style in the south (both in hindu and islamic weapons). i have seen this type pommel many times, and on tulwars as well as firangis. this shows in miniatures from the late 17thC and into the 18th, but then they tend to extend and become longer, giving rise to the opinion that they were meant for two-handed use (i dont agree at all i'm afraid).
most firangis of the south had the hilts riveted to the blades, but this wasnt always so.
i dont feel it could be later than 18thC as i have seen a few weapons taken from the last maharathan war (19thC) and these were cruder and not as distinct.
i didnt quite get your last question about the gap, but there is supposed to be a gap between the langets and the blade (like in tulwars) and this incorporates it's fit over the scabbard.
however, that said, i feel that your blade is not original to the hilt. the resin seems to have been removed and the gap where the blade sits in seems to go in too deeply.
i understand ian's (the other one) reference to the pointed grip section being of a northern origin (punjab). i think this information came from rawson, and it was never validated. i personally think this feature existed in both north and southern swords and was never specifically punjabi. rawson was more infuriating for the info he left out, that what he included. nothing existd in his notes, so anything stated without reference has to be ignored (such a shame!!!)
i like your sword a lot. the fact that the blade has possible been refitted (am guessing this) doesnt matter. the hilt is early, has good asthetics and is bulky, all features i look for in a good maharathan sword.
well done for aquiring such an interesting piece.

6th June 2006, 11:36 PM	#8
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi ian, thanks for the email and sorry to have ignored your post. i can happily offer an opinion of your sword, but afraid it will be speculative as anything is on indian weapons. there is little written on early indian swords and what little there is goes not much further than basic terminology. however, i still feel much can be said of this piece. i feel the sword is south indian, and of this i am pretty sure. it is probably 18thC and towards the earlier half, and more than likely maharathan. the overall style can only be south indian as it has not the asthetics of moghul nor rajput in form. they both had basket-hilted swords but they were of a different style, cleaner lines and less 'sculptural'. i put the word in inverted commas because the maharathan scultural form was crude in comparison to the kingdoms they surplanted. i've given maharathan art a hard time in the past as i feel that they didnt contribute much themselves, when they had ample opportunity to (they formed a kingdom, with a centre and had enough time to leave their mark which they didnt). this comes from frustration as i find more information in earlier kingdoms than i can during their 'reign'. they did, however, adopt the current style of sword and add their own asthetic to it. this hilt shows this in full glory. the maharathan style is a mixture of a 'developed' hindu and islamic southern slant. elgood shows much of this in his recent book, although he doesnt really cover the latter periods (past nayaka). nayakan style is very dominant and still evident in the architecture left behind. the maharathan kingdom was instilled in this same area and their style was an almost diluted version of the nayak. so, where the nayak took the full sculptural form from the bigger hindu kingdoms (vijiyanagara), the maharathan 'flattened' it off. the guard on a 17thC hilt would be beaded and pierced. yours shows a latter version of this, where the beads are inscribed as apposed to relief chisselled and the piercing is nowhere near refined (more like perforations than symmetrical piercing - again, a maharathan feature). please dont feel i am critisizing your hilt. i like it a lot, but am trying to validate my opinion and describe the maharathan features, or at least open up a chance to argue (debate) against it. the 17thC hilt would be more zoomorphic, instead of lightly chisselled. your pommel is almost as typically maharathan as you can get (short, stumpy, leaning off to a 90 degree angle and ending in a lotus bud), and this is a feature that i really enjoy in these weapons. i like the lotus design terminals, used all over india, but with a certain style in the south (both in hindu and islamic weapons). i have seen this type pommel many times, and on tulwars as well as firangis. this shows in miniatures from the late 17thC and into the 18th, but then they tend to extend and become longer, giving rise to the opinion that they were meant for two-handed use (i dont agree at all i'm afraid). most firangis of the south had the hilts riveted to the blades, but this wasnt always so. i dont feel it could be later than 18thC as i have seen a few weapons taken from the last maharathan war (19thC) and these were cruder and not as distinct. i didnt quite get your last question about the gap, but there is supposed to be a gap between the langets and the blade (like in tulwars) and this incorporates it's fit over the scabbard. however, that said, i feel that your blade is not original to the hilt. the resin seems to have been removed and the gap where the blade sits in seems to go in too deeply. i understand ian's (the other one) reference to the pointed grip section being of a northern origin (punjab). i think this information came from rawson, and it was never validated. i personally think this feature existed in both north and southern swords and was never specifically punjabi. rawson was more infuriating for the info he left out, that what he included. nothing existd in his notes, so anything stated without reference has to be ignored (such a shame!!!) i like your sword a lot. the fact that the blade has possible been refitted (am guessing this) doesnt matter. the hilt is early, has good asthetics and is bulky, all features i look for in a good maharathan sword. well done for aquiring such an interesting piece.