Сlassification of Indian swords.

[Norman McCormick]

Sukhela ? or does this term refer to the flexibility of the blade?

Regards,
Norman.

[Norman McCormick]

Cutlass for want of a better term. Maybe someone could give a better description.
23 1/2 inch blade and not cut down. The pommel is weighted and thus gives the sword a good balance in the hand.
Regards,
Norman.

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Cutlass for want of a better term. Maybe someone could give a better description.
23 1/2 inch blade and not cut down. The pommel is weighted and thus gives the sword a good balance in the hand.
Regards,
Norman.

In an Indian context (given that this is indeed an indian sword), this would best be referred to as a Tegha. Based on it's size though, it would likely function similar to a cutlass, so technically that term would work too, albeit it wouldn't be a native term.

[Jim McDougall]

Runpel, this is an excellent idea, and a great way to approach this quite formidable topic of Indian sword terminology. Thank you for setting this up so systematically, and carefully separating and numbering these examples to avoid confusion in discussion. This is a fantastic collection BTW, and wonderful exemplars of the various forms.

Nihl, this is exactly what you were talking about in previous discussions. Thank you for establishing a detailed and well explained path forward in addressing the various terms used for these and the noted applications as far as common use and proper dialectic terms.

I think this can prove to be a valuable comprehensive resource that can compile the best and most useful terms to describe these many weapon forms. While I have studied these for many years, I must admit that many of these terms remain confusing, and it is often, if not typically a factor in many
issues in discussion.

There is no need for any sort of heated debate in this, as long as everyone remembers this is essentially 'brainstorming' and sharing their experience in the use of terms and offer supported background to explain them. It is key to keep this collecting of data objective and most helpful if those writing offer cited sources . This is most important in comparing data for evaluation and compiling a bibliography that will accompany this material.

Full speed ahead!

[ariel]

Nihl put his finger right on the target: our current " classification" of Indian weapons largely comes from European ethnographers with all its limitations of : a). defining the name based on a limited local moniker, b). mistaken transliteration due to the inability of the ethnographers to account for their imperfect hearing of a local dialect ( "Karud" is a classic example) and c). if in the dark, just give it a name of your own invention ( Khyber knife, salawar yataghan, Madrasi rapier etc.). On top of that I would add the timing of the encounter: India is an ancient civilization and a particular weapon might have had several names over 2-3 millennia or being lost altogether.
This is why we are so confused and even antagonistic when the name of, say, khanda is used the define swords clearly not agreeing with " classic" forms as per the same Egerton and Stone? Naive question: is what we call Patissa as per Egerton and Stone, simply an earlier local name for what in the future would be called Khanda?

Regretfully, Indian arms historians were not of much help early on and jumped on board when the Egerton/Stone approach was already firmly established and their books were used as standard sources by the European museums, collectors and dealers.

I think that Elgood's alternative naming of some Indian weapons is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to bring their classification closer to truth.

[Jim McDougall]

While to be sure, Egerton and Stone set the pace for describing Indian arms, whether correct or entirely incorrect, the terms became the lexicon for writing on these weapons over the next century.
Then came Rawson as he catalogued the huge Victoria & Albert collections and pretty much followed the earlier writings, but with certain limited adjustments.
Followed by Pant (1980) who decides to 'correct' Rawson on many counts, but adds to the confusion with his own perspectives.
His attempts to regionalize and add dynastic terms to certain hilts only add more confusion to the conundrum of weapon terms in India.

This melange of terms has been the character of description we have all muddled through these years in discussions, pretty much the 'Tower of Babel' syndrome in many cases.

[ariel]

As per Jens Nordlunde ( http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...hlight=sailaba) #5 is a
Hyderabadi sword called Sailaba. It is listed in a catalogue of the Hyderabad museum, dated 1780 and the legend says that they have 27 sailabas dated to 17-19 century.

I have one for sure, another of similar profile, extremely large and heavy, and yet another with tulwar handle and Ottoman yataghan blade dated ( presumably) 1101 H, i.e. 1689 Gregorian.

[rumpel9]

I'll add a couple more Indian swords. I'm not sure they have proper names at all. Their purpose, I believe, is ritual or decorative. I note that both swords are very poorly balanced.

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Sukhela ? or does this term refer to the flexibility of the blade?

Regards,
Norman.

So "Sukhela" originated as a native term used to refer to pattern welded ("damascus") steel in the 19th century. The thing is, because natives would sometimes describe their swords solely by the blade material, ethnographers ended up mixing up the term with with other characteristics, like rigidity, blade form, etc.