Cool Kukri

[Jim McDougall]

If these names are not confusing enough, the complexity of British regimental naming, numbering and amalgamations is over the top!

In entries I found that Capt. Kalu Thapa went to Shillong (NE INDIA/ASSAM)
in 1867 with 44th (Sylhet) Regiment of Bengal Infanty.
Apparently much later the 44th regiment became 1st Battalion of 8th Gurkha Rifles (1903)
It would seem that since he was never with the 8th, he held to the 44th, and the GR (Gurkha Rifles) was already long standing as the term for the regiment despite official designations.

By the turn of the century, Gurkhas were being recruited into military police, the Assam divisions here of course. One reference noted that Thapa is buried at Shillong.

While these are sundry notations found searching online, I believe there may be a solution :
perhaps as earlier noted, Kalu Thapa after retirement did serve in some capacity with the military police, and this could have been a personal weapon. Possibly recalling 44th and Gurkha Rifles standing as his personal identifier?

To me this sounds reasonably plausible, but I aint a paleontologist

[ariel]

I see Kubur’s point, but the kukri is clearly marked as 44 GR ( Gurkha Rifles) and it acquired its name only in 1901. Prior to that it carried other names.
Also, for a kothimora kukri the inscription is rather crude, isn’t it?

I do not think there is an unequivocal evidence in favor of this inscription being 100% genuine. I might be wrong.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

I see Kubur’s point, but the kukri is clearly marked as 44 GR ( Gurkha Rifles) and it acquired its name only in 1901. Prior to that it carried other names.
Also, for a kothimora kukri the inscription is rather crude, isn’t it?

I do not think there is an unequivocal evidence in favor of this inscription being 100% genuine. I might be wrong.

I see what you mean, but as I had suggested, this may well be a personally inscribed weapon, and regardless of the 'official' designation of the regiment, this is a 'casual' application, written in cursive. In addition, in seems interesting that the 'th' in 44th has what appears to be a 'Nepalese' sense, resembling the character of their letters in some cases.....certainly not normal cursive script in English.

Kothimora or not, is it not possible a personal weapon might be so inscribed reflecting the persons regiment 'unofficially' as it was probably colloquially known in the time he served in it? Naturally this is speculative, but seems worthy of consideration.

[ariel]

Yea... I see what you are saying.
But as a rule , gifting a weapon was a ceremonial occasion.
We can speculate till the cows come home, but the name is there, and that cannot be disregarded.
No matter what, an extremely nice kukri with a potential of belonging to a real warrior.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Yea... I see what you are saying.
But as a rule , gifting a weapon was a ceremonial occasion.
We can speculate till the cows come home, but the name is there, and that cannot be disregarded.
No matter what, an extremely nice kukri with a potential of belonging to a real warrior.

Gifting a weapon was of course 'ceremonial' , no matter if privately done or in an event with fanfare. I am thinking of an inscription as a means of identification or ownership. If in circumstances where numerous people are involved, things such as tools etc. often had the owners name scribed or initials at least. As tenuous as this sounds, it does seem feasible.

If involved in a police situation as many Gurkhas were, they may have marked their weapons to prevent mixups (let alone being inadvertantly purloined). While initials often work elsewhere, there were so many the same in these contexts, more specific identity might have been better.