A pair of basket hilted Firangis

Andy Davis · 3rd February 2006, 08:41 PM

You look for them and there are none...then two turn up at once. Ok I had to buy the two together and the one isnt that great but the first...ahhh I love it.
Have 5 now but this is the only one with a proper tail spike and its terribly long 49inch, tip to tail. But balance...great. Plus, armourers mark aswell.
The other, with the scabbard, a more modest build, in all respects and only comes in at 46inch. Nice but not great, though the blade has certainly been resharpend a lot, so the over the top cleaning may conceal its true age.
Opinions as always appreciated.
Cheers
Andy

Jim McDougall · 6th February 2006, 07:56 AM

Interesting examples of the 'Hindu basket hilt' commonly referred to as the 'khanda', only phirangi if mounted with European or foreign blade (the term refers more specifically to 'Portuguese'). These I would presume to be more northern examples, quite possibly Rajput and possibly even more likely Sikh. These are the swords in form that are held sacred in the Sikh faith and it would seem such representative examples may have been used in the Khalsa, however I am under the impression the sword must be double edged and these do not appear so, which would probably invalidate that theory. Possibly anyone more well versed in the Sikh faith could elaborate on that.

The first example is quite more distinct, although I tend to think the blade may be Indian. The marking is not actually an armourers mark but an interpretation of the well known 'sickle' marks which evolved from early Italian marks later widely copied on trade blades. These marks are commonly found on Afghan paluoars and other sword blades in northern Indian regions, but not as much it seems to the south.
It is hard to say the age of the first example, but the second seems much more stylized and seemingly more recent. I am inclined to consider 19th c. for both as trying to guage from photos only.
Best regards,
Jim

Andy Davis · 6th February 2006, 09:15 AM

Yes Jim, both blades are single edged and I agree that while both are in a European style, I too believe them to be of Indian manufacture. Interestingly enough the first, with its mark, also has it on the other side of the blade but without the eyelash marks. I would therefore guess that the two central figures between the eyelash are something else.
I hope today to take photos of all 5 for a good comparison between the different styles.
Cheers
Andy

Andy Davis · 6th February 2006, 01:50 PM

So as a comparison, a small indication of just how much variety exists, both in size & design, even within a small sample.

Radu Transylvanicus · 6th February 2006, 02:00 PM

Jim put it in good words. As a matter of prefference I like better the term "Rajput basket hilt" so I wont confuse with its ancestor the "Old Hindu Hilt" that developed a lot more earliear than 15th-16th century, normally accepted as the birth of the basket hilt. After khanda swords, the firangi were developed starting becoming popular in the 17th century, same time and in ties with European colonial expansion, as its name implies, the word "firangi" is Hindi for "foreigner", originally reffering to the blade, normally European (Portuguese or English rapier blades). They were well used into battle in the 19th century (Eggerton presents a few examples captured in 19th century battles). One that firangi resembling yours is described by Eggerton in his wonderful "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour" according to older English notes as: " Jumgheerdha (?) long , narrow straight edged swordattached to a kind of basket hilt slightly plated. Time of Hyder Ali. Worn by the Polygars of Nugger. " Note: Hyder Ali (1722-82) is the father of famous Sultan Tippu of Mysore. I'm not implying your swords are necesarilly such but is a good unusual trivia to know for firangi.
In the beggining firangi swords were associated with the Maratha (today's Maharashtra state mostly) warrior caste. Later they were adopted by many others including the Sikh on a large scale. Sikhs use rather the word "ferri" for the firangi swords.
The spike on firangi was used as a second hand grip and perhaps used for stabbing as well in some cases. The basket is usually well padded to absorb blows (royal fists, what can you do

)

Jim McDougall · 6th February 2006, 08:53 PM

Wow!!! breathtaking grouping Andy!!! very nice

Thanks very much Radu. You are right, the old Hindu hilt was the ancestor of the khanda, and ultimately the basket hilt forms. As Rawson states in "The Indian Sword", 1968, (p.28), "...the greater number of the surviving khandas from the Hindu areas of Northern India are, however, mounted in the Hindu Basket Hilt, which is a later version of the old Indian (hilt) improved by the addition of a basketguard. It is probable that this development took place in the western Deccan c.1600 and was prompted by contacts with European basket hilted swords".

The sword hilts of the Hindu Vijayanagara Kingdom from the 14th through the 16th centuries provided the basis for the 'old Indian hilt', and certainly reflected influences of considerably more ancient forms. The Mahrattas are of obscure origin, however as independant tribes they seem to have entered India prior to 11th century. They became organized as a power under Sivaji (1627-80). As Hindus in faith, they certainly would have used weapons of the forms known in India in early times, and situated in the western Deccan, they were well in contact with Portuguese held Goa. There there was brisk trade controlled by the Jesuits, and the contact with European weapons and blades described by Rawson took place, the Portuguese having been established there since c.1510.

While it would be difficult to assign the origins of the khanda itself to the Mahrattas it does seem that the 'firangi' may be placed with them. It is also noted in Rawson (op.cit.p.28) that it is likely that the sword mentioned by Tod ("Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan", J.Tod, London 1829-32) as being worshipped by the Rajputs was the khanda, probably mounted in the old Indian hilt. Clearly these early swords were well known throughout Hindu India, although the Mahrattas were most likely the catalysts for introduction of the European style basket hilt to the khanda.

Best regards,
Jim

B.I · 7th February 2006, 12:07 AM

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.

Jim McDougall · 7th February 2006, 03:49 AM

Hi Brian,
Thanks very much, I was hoping you would be posting on this. Perhaps you aren't presenting conclusions, but your observations are as always, extremely well placed. You are right in that Rawson's work was outstanding for what it was, primarily a typography with emphasis on blade forms.
I agree with your notes on the Mahrattas, who were essentially confederations of tribes and as in such cases were not sedentary and adopted material culture of regions where they located. The Indian subcontinent is a complex patchwork of ethnic groups, languages, religions and as such it takes considerable tenacity to pursue the diffusion and cross influences of these with understanding.
Thank you for posting the art, these present excellent benchmarks to support hilt form development on the baskethilt.
All the best,
Jim

B.I · 7th February 2006, 09:35 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.

Jim McDougall · 10th February 2006, 01:36 AM

Hi Brian,
Very well said! As I have always said, every book published must be held in certain regard, and even though errors will often, if not always, be found, the authors should always be respected for thier courage in publishing. The Rawson book serves well for what it is, and as noted, especially as a benchmark for further research, as seen in subsequent publications such as Pant and Haider.
What you have observed on Robert Elgood's work is also very well said, and what makes his work so essential to serious researchers. Not only is the detail in his work thoroughly referenced and profusely footnoted, he often progressively includes his thoughts and investigative comments, which well illustrates the continuous development of his research. For those of us seriously empassioned with the weapons of India, it is as if we are in a sense working with him on these studies, rather than hearing a lecture on them. This is the absolute excellence of Elgood's writing.

All the best,
Jim

B.I · 10th February 2006, 12:13 PM

hi jim,
totally! stones glossary is one of my favourite books. its all a matter of perspective. i dont look at stones book as a glossary, but as a catalogue of one mans collection (if you ignore the european pieces) and as such, its a fabulous insight into a collectors taste and the ability to amass such a complete collection. i avoid terminology, as its of no real interest to me, so his book is just a pile of great photos and i rarely bother reading the text.
speaking of terminology (which i rarely do :-) robert has written a huge glossary of eastern arms which should hopefully be published this year (fully illustrated). it seems our libraries will need extra shelving soon.

3rd February 2006, 08:41 PM	#1
Andy Davis Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: England, Northumberland Posts: 85	A pair of basket hilted Firangis You look for them and there are none...then two turn up at once. Ok I had to buy the two together and the one isnt that great but the first...ahhh I love it. Have 5 now but this is the only one with a proper tail spike and its terribly long 49inch, tip to tail. But balance...great. Plus, armourers mark aswell. The other, with the scabbard, a more modest build, in all respects and only comes in at 46inch. Nice but not great, though the blade has certainly been resharpend a lot, so the over the top cleaning may conceal its true age. Opinions as always appreciated. Cheers Andy Attached Images

6th February 2006, 09:15 AM	#3
Andy Davis Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: England, Northumberland Posts: 85	Right on the blades Yes Jim, both blades are single edged and I agree that while both are in a European style, I too believe them to be of Indian manufacture. Interestingly enough the first, with its mark, also has it on the other side of the blade but without the eyelash marks. I would therefore guess that the two central figures between the eyelash are something else. I hope today to take photos of all 5 for a good comparison between the different styles. Cheers Andy

6th February 2006, 01:50 PM	#4
Andy Davis Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: England, Northumberland Posts: 85	The group So as a comparison, a small indication of just how much variety exists, both in size & design, even within a small sample. Attached Images

7th February 2006, 12:07 AM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	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. Attached Images

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

6th February 2006, 07:56 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,955	Interesting examples of the 'Hindu basket hilt' commonly referred to as the 'khanda', only phirangi if mounted with European or foreign blade (the term refers more specifically to 'Portuguese'). These I would presume to be more northern examples, quite possibly Rajput and possibly even more likely Sikh. These are the swords in form that are held sacred in the Sikh faith and it would seem such representative examples may have been used in the Khalsa, however I am under the impression the sword must be double edged and these do not appear so, which would probably invalidate that theory. Possibly anyone more well versed in the Sikh faith could elaborate on that. The first example is quite more distinct, although I tend to think the blade may be Indian. The marking is not actually an armourers mark but an interpretation of the well known 'sickle' marks which evolved from early Italian marks later widely copied on trade blades. These marks are commonly found on Afghan paluoars and other sword blades in northern Indian regions, but not as much it seems to the south. It is hard to say the age of the first example, but the second seems much more stylized and seemingly more recent. I am inclined to consider 19th c. for both as trying to guage from photos only. Best regards, Jim

6th February 2006, 02:00 PM	#5
Radu Transylvanicus Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: 2008-2010 Bali, 1998-2008 USA Posts: 271	Jim put it in good words. As a matter of prefference I like better the term "Rajput basket hilt" so I wont confuse with its ancestor the "Old Hindu Hilt" that developed a lot more earliear than 15th-16th century, normally accepted as the birth of the basket hilt. After khanda swords, the firangi were developed starting becoming popular in the 17th century, same time and in ties with European colonial expansion, as its name implies, the word "firangi" is Hindi for "foreigner", originally reffering to the blade, normally European (Portuguese or English rapier blades). They were well used into battle in the 19th century (Eggerton presents a few examples captured in 19th century battles). One that firangi resembling yours is described by Eggerton in his wonderful "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour" according to older English notes as: " Jumgheerdha (?) long , narrow straight edged swordattached to a kind of basket hilt slightly plated. Time of Hyder Ali. Worn by the Polygars of Nugger. " Note: Hyder Ali (1722-82) is the father of famous Sultan Tippu of Mysore. I'm not implying your swords are necesarilly such but is a good unusual trivia to know for firangi. In the beggining firangi swords were associated with the Maratha (today's Maharashtra state mostly) warrior caste. Later they were adopted by many others including the Sikh on a large scale. Sikhs use rather the word "ferri" for the firangi swords. The spike on firangi was used as a second hand grip and perhaps used for stabbing as well in some cases. The basket is usually well padded to absorb blows (royal fists, what can you do )

6th February 2006, 08:53 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,955	Wow!!! breathtaking grouping Andy!!! very nice Thanks very much Radu. You are right, the old Hindu hilt was the ancestor of the khanda, and ultimately the basket hilt forms. As Rawson states in "The Indian Sword", 1968, (p.28), "...the greater number of the surviving khandas from the Hindu areas of Northern India are, however, mounted in the Hindu Basket Hilt, which is a later version of the old Indian (hilt) improved by the addition of a basketguard. It is probable that this development took place in the western Deccan c.1600 and was prompted by contacts with European basket hilted swords". The sword hilts of the Hindu Vijayanagara Kingdom from the 14th through the 16th centuries provided the basis for the 'old Indian hilt', and certainly reflected influences of considerably more ancient forms. The Mahrattas are of obscure origin, however as independant tribes they seem to have entered India prior to 11th century. They became organized as a power under Sivaji (1627-80). As Hindus in faith, they certainly would have used weapons of the forms known in India in early times, and situated in the western Deccan, they were well in contact with Portuguese held Goa. There there was brisk trade controlled by the Jesuits, and the contact with European weapons and blades described by Rawson took place, the Portuguese having been established there since c.1510. While it would be difficult to assign the origins of the khanda itself to the Mahrattas it does seem that the 'firangi' may be placed with them. It is also noted in Rawson (op.cit.p.28) that it is likely that the sword mentioned by Tod ("Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan", J.Tod, London 1829-32) as being worshipped by the Rajputs was the khanda, probably mounted in the old Indian hilt. Clearly these early swords were well known throughout Hindu India, although the Mahrattas were most likely the catalysts for introduction of the European style basket hilt to the khanda. Best regards, Jim

7th February 2006, 03:49 AM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,955	Hi Brian, Thanks very much, I was hoping you would be posting on this. Perhaps you aren't presenting conclusions, but your observations are as always, extremely well placed. You are right in that Rawson's work was outstanding for what it was, primarily a typography with emphasis on blade forms. I agree with your notes on the Mahrattas, who were essentially confederations of tribes and as in such cases were not sedentary and adopted material culture of regions where they located. The Indian subcontinent is a complex patchwork of ethnic groups, languages, religions and as such it takes considerable tenacity to pursue the diffusion and cross influences of these with understanding. Thank you for posting the art, these present excellent benchmarks to support hilt form development on the baskethilt. All the best, Jim

7th February 2006, 09:35 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.

10th February 2006, 01:36 AM	#10
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,955	Hi Brian, Very well said! As I have always said, every book published must be held in certain regard, and even though errors will often, if not always, be found, the authors should always be respected for thier courage in publishing. The Rawson book serves well for what it is, and as noted, especially as a benchmark for further research, as seen in subsequent publications such as Pant and Haider. What you have observed on Robert Elgood's work is also very well said, and what makes his work so essential to serious researchers. Not only is the detail in his work thoroughly referenced and profusely footnoted, he often progressively includes his thoughts and investigative comments, which well illustrates the continuous development of his research. For those of us seriously empassioned with the weapons of India, it is as if we are in a sense working with him on these studies, rather than hearing a lecture on them. This is the absolute excellence of Elgood's writing. All the best, Jim

10th February 2006, 12:13 PM	#11
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi jim, totally! stones glossary is one of my favourite books. its all a matter of perspective. i dont look at stones book as a glossary, but as a catalogue of one mans collection (if you ignore the european pieces) and as such, its a fabulous insight into a collectors taste and the ability to amass such a complete collection. i avoid terminology, as its of no real interest to me, so his book is just a pile of great photos and i rarely bother reading the text. speaking of terminology (which i rarely do :-) robert has written a huge glossary of eastern arms which should hopefully be published this year (fully illustrated). it seems our libraries will need extra shelving soon.