Indian armoury markings

Jens Nordlunde · 28th November 2009, 04:14 PM

’The Art and Architecture of Bikaner State’ by Hermann Goetz, on p. 68 the author writes.

“When in 1588-1593 rao Rai Singhji [Singh] constructed his great fort at Bikaner, all the stones had to be brought from Jaisalmer. But only this ruler, who could marshal the revenues of a kingdom increased by the conquest of half Marwar and the grant of half Gujarat, and who could make use of immense booty from Jodhpur, Gujarat, and the North West Deccan, could afford such an expenditure.”

Rao Rai Singh, who was one of the best generals in the Mughal army, served in the army for many years; including as governor of Deccan, but he also participated in many campaigns in places like Afghanistan, Punjab, Sind, Deccan, Bengal to name a few of the places. Many of the later rulers of the Bikaner state also took part in campaigns, but he was no doubt the one, who brought most booty back to Bikaner. By doing this, he helped Bikaner, although placed in the Thar Desert, to be a wealthy state. The fact that Bikaner was placed on the Silk Road and was centre for some of the more local trading routes helped too, but what he brought back must have been enormous amounts of many things – this includes weapons as well.

Most of us know the Bikaner dot marking on the weapons, and I believe that all weapons entering the armoury were marked. If I am right, a lot of weapons with armoury marks from Bikaner origins from somewhere else. Collectors of Indian weapons should be aware of, that weapons with the Bikaner armoury mark, or any armoury mark for that matter, not necessarily origins from the armoury they are marked at, and this goes for weapons being ‘said’ to have come from any armoury.

When you think of the size of the armies they had at the time, it must be clear, that the winners would have brought a lot of weapons back to their armouries, marked them, and a collector to day would believe the marking to be a ‘mark of origin’, but it may not be.

As an afterthought. The marking of the weapons may not have taken place until quite a bit later.

28th November 2009, 04:14 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Indian armoury markings ’The Art and Architecture of Bikaner State’ by Hermann Goetz, on p. 68 the author writes. “When in 1588-1593 rao Rai Singhji [Singh] constructed his great fort at Bikaner, all the stones had to be brought from Jaisalmer. But only this ruler, who could marshal the revenues of a kingdom increased by the conquest of half Marwar and the grant of half Gujarat, and who could make use of immense booty from Jodhpur, Gujarat, and the North West Deccan, could afford such an expenditure.” Rao Rai Singh, who was one of the best generals in the Mughal army, served in the army for many years; including as governor of Deccan, but he also participated in many campaigns in places like Afghanistan, Punjab, Sind, Deccan, Bengal to name a few of the places. Many of the later rulers of the Bikaner state also took part in campaigns, but he was no doubt the one, who brought most booty back to Bikaner. By doing this, he helped Bikaner, although placed in the Thar Desert, to be a wealthy state. The fact that Bikaner was placed on the Silk Road and was centre for some of the more local trading routes helped too, but what he brought back must have been enormous amounts of many things – this includes weapons as well. Most of us know the Bikaner dot marking on the weapons, and I believe that all weapons entering the armoury were marked. If I am right, a lot of weapons with armoury marks from Bikaner origins from somewhere else. Collectors of Indian weapons should be aware of, that weapons with the Bikaner armoury mark, or any armoury mark for that matter, not necessarily origins from the armoury they are marked at, and this goes for weapons being ‘said’ to have come from any armoury. When you think of the size of the armies they had at the time, it must be clear, that the winners would have brought a lot of weapons back to their armouries, marked them, and a collector to day would believe the marking to be a ‘mark of origin’, but it may not be. As an afterthought. The marking of the weapons may not have taken place until quite a bit later. Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 28th November 2009 at 09:25 PM.