On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types

Jim McDougall · 31st October 2015, 06:29 PM

Just to add some notes amidst the phulishness

theme, it seems Pant ("Indian Arms and Armour", 1980), notes (p.188-89) that "...the word phul (flower) is obscure. Perhaps it means the knot or crochet of jewels called by Chardin ' une enseigne ronde de pierceries' and which the Persians called 'rose de Poignard'.

It seems that many of the examples shown and described are heavily jeweled, so that might lend to the idea of that kind of decoration, however with many examples of 'phul katara' it seems they are sans jewels but highly decorated florally in theme.

In a number of references from the Turk I Jahangir an account noted an offering to an ambassador to Bijapur in 1613 as a jeweled dagger, and then a phul katara along with other items. Another instance in the same account notes a 'jeweled phul katara' among items.

These suggest some disparity in the idea of 'jewelled' being the case for the term 'phul' as applied on these daggers, and perhaps stronger for the floral theme.

Interesting though is that the article " The Use of Flora and Fauna Imagery in Mughal Decorative Arts" by Stephen Markel (Marg magazine , Vo.50 #3, pp.25-35) throughout the remarkably thorough descriptions and images concerning material culture and arms does not mention the term 'phul' anywhere. Possibly as it was a broader coverage of the decorative theme than just arms.
Possibly then the phul-katara designator was more arms oriented?

As far as the term phul being rooted (no pun intended) in the concept of pulad (=watered steel) as a flowered pattern seems to me tenuous at best, and particularly in the idea that phul katara must have all had wootz blades.
I think this has been well resolved however already but wanted to add these notes.

It seems clear that the debates and discourse pertaining to these kinds of disparity in terminology and classifications especially with ethnographic arms often becomes heated out of pure frustration . Altogether too many times it is misconstrued that debate or difference in opinion has to be contentious or dynamic. For me I learn more from solidly supported and presented ideas and positions. Aside from the occasional barbs, this has been a pretty good discussion.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

31st October 2015, 06:29 PM	#11
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,278	Just to add some notes amidst the phulishness theme, it seems Pant ("Indian Arms and Armour", 1980), notes (p.188-89) that "...the word phul (flower) is obscure. Perhaps it means the knot or crochet of jewels called by Chardin ' une enseigne ronde de pierceries' and which the Persians called 'rose de Poignard'. It seems that many of the examples shown and described are heavily jeweled, so that might lend to the idea of that kind of decoration, however with many examples of 'phul katara' it seems they are sans jewels but highly decorated florally in theme. In a number of references from the Turk I Jahangir an account noted an offering to an ambassador to Bijapur in 1613 as a jeweled dagger, and then a phul katara along with other items. Another instance in the same account notes a 'jeweled phul katara' among items. These suggest some disparity in the idea of 'jewelled' being the case for the term 'phul' as applied on these daggers, and perhaps stronger for the floral theme. Interesting though is that the article " The Use of Flora and Fauna Imagery in Mughal Decorative Arts" by Stephen Markel (Marg magazine , Vo.50 #3, pp.25-35) throughout the remarkably thorough descriptions and images concerning material culture and arms does not mention the term 'phul' anywhere. Possibly as it was a broader coverage of the decorative theme than just arms. Possibly then the phul-katara designator was more arms oriented? As far as the term phul being rooted (no pun intended) in the concept of pulad (=watered steel) as a flowered pattern seems to me tenuous at best, and particularly in the idea that phul katara must have all had wootz blades. I think this has been well resolved however already but wanted to add these notes. It seems clear that the debates and discourse pertaining to these kinds of disparity in terminology and classifications especially with ethnographic arms often becomes heated out of pure frustration . Altogether too many times it is misconstrued that debate or difference in opinion has to be contentious or dynamic. For me I learn more from solidly supported and presented ideas and positions. Aside from the occasional barbs, this has been a pretty good discussion.