The Sinhalese Kastane: Its Development, Decoration and Symbolism

[David]

Jim, the definition of the word "deity" is pretty cut and dry, for any particular cultural application.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deity
The importance of understanding the difference between deities and mere mythical creatures and what purposes they serve in the culture at hand is of great importance if there is to be any understanding of the weapons under consideration here.
A discussion of the merits of Wikipedia entries is indeed pertinent as well. I also use Wikipedia quite often for quick references when seeking information, but am wary enough to take such info with a grain of salt. It is NOT a credible source for academic study, period. This isn't to say that it isn't useful. As i mentioned before, some entries are better researched with a multitude of references and footnotes. Others, like the kastane entry not so much. What i objected to in Ibrahiim's last posting of his wikipedia entry was that it was being presented as a "culminating note…unveiled by Wikepedia the famous on line encyclopedia" firstly, without full disclosure that it is indeed of his own hand and opinion (sorry, his previous admission to this is buried in a ten page thread that has long since fallen off the main page and does indeed need restating for full transparency) and it is full of errors and speculation. Ibrahiim responds to my questioning with the following:
"I add that since my involvement as a contributor on Forum to this subject that the Wikepedia entry has been considerably and accurately updated with the latest current information researched by me. It stands therefor as a pinnacle of finely tuned detail in parallel with the latest doctrine on the subject...
Surely you would be delighted with that..from the Forum viewpoint?"
No, Ibrahiim, i am not delighted from the "Forum viewpoint". What is written in the wiki article is not "a pinnacle of finely tuned detail in parallel with the latest doctrine on the subject…", it is merely your opinion and some of it is incorrect. It is not the culminated consensus point of view that has come as the fruit of these forum thread discussions on the subject so why should it please me from the Forum viewpoint?
Jim, we will probably, as usual, have to agree to disagree on these points, but i call it like i see it and will continue to do so. It is not an attempt to be dismissive or counterproductive, but rather to keep a sense of transparency and accountability in these threads and allow those with other opinions the room to speak them rather than be carried away by the avalanche of words that seem to dominate the discussion most of the time. If you continue to disregard the number of forum members who have been turned away from this discussion because of this you do so at your own peril of researching a complex subject with a minimum of forum input.

[Rick]

As a long time member I feel I must comment:
Both Kastane threads, were they to be considered in corporeal form would,
IMO, be called morbidly obese .
I believe that the essence has become lost within the folds of 'fat' surrounding the subject under discussion; it becomes obvious that the subject here is, and will remain solely about the kastane .

Gentlemen, I think theis subject has been about laid to rest; I don't believe that I am the only member that feels this way .
I lack the necessary filter and patience to continue to swim in these waters . I expect so do many others of us here on the sidelines .

I also fear for our credibility .

[Jim McDougall]

I guess we have pretty well covered the term 'deity' at this point, and yes, that is yet another dictionary definition. However, as is often the case with words, they can often end up with varying interpretation in parlance with colloquial or contextual usage .
For example, one reference notes, "..all the gods have some animals and birds as their vahana or vehicle, and in the process of time these creatures have become a great object of Hindu veneration".("Sacred Hindu Symbols" Abhinav Publications , 2001). This reference goes on to note, "..another mythological animal DEITY is makara, the sea monster who is the vahana of the Vedic god Varuna". Another reference I came across passim, noted the makara as an elephant headed sea beast is considered to be a benevolent sea DEITY.
The three principal animal deities are described in another reference on Hindu mythology as Ganesha, Garuda, and Hanuman. While this would by implication seem to exclude the makara, it does seem that the term has rather wide latitude. In cases such as metaphysical, mythological and other philosophical and theosophical studies it would seem far less than 'cut and dry'.
One of the best references, in my opinion, for understanding matters of perception in the application of these kinds of mythical figures and decoration on many of these weapons is found in "Hindu Arms and Ritual" (Robert Elgood, 2004, p.130). Dr.Elgood notes, "...since the power of the gods is held to be infinitely greater than than that of man, it follows that their weapons are replete with the supernatural qualities of their owners.They are frequently captured or gifted, thereby transferring potency from one deity to another".
Further, "...lions are symbols of royalty and Vishnu, the Buddha and the ain saviours all sit on lion thrones (Simhasana) while the goddess Durga has a lion as her vehicle".

It would seem that in these views concerning deities that in some cases the lion is indeed representative of supremacy, and in varying circumstances that it may represent a 'vehicle' much as the makara. Since 'deities' are defined as supernatural beings, thought of as divine or sacred and that some are supreme while others are of different ranks...might this not suggest that the term deity could be perceived comprehensively to include these mythical creatures?

Obviously, though Sri Lanka may have different perceptions of these facets of Hindu mythology and the terminology used, these are my own views set forth here as I understand them. In other references I have seen, it is noted that in some faiths it is considered blasphemous to imagine or depict a deity as having a concrete form.
Perhaps this might account for the seemingly stylized interpretations of these mythical creatures and why those of us virtually in layman status find it so difficult to identify them, let alone agree on what to call them or how to term them.

These are the kinds of questions we hope to discover answers for, and to better understand these swords and their history. Since the term 'deity' has become deemed of importance at this point, then we should address it accordingly and return to the kasthane.

I will also point out that my 'industrious' venture here to allow unimpeded focus on the kasthane specifically I believe has been most useful, and that in many cases discourses of this volume often require reiteration....often readers don't read the previous post, let alone the considerable text of the thread. Case in point is Ibrahiims not mentioning his Wikipedia contribution which was 'buried' in previous text. Therefore in many cases it becomes necessary to reestablish material again, even if it seems repetitive for some readers.

[David]

We have a person from the culture we are discussing come on to say that these creatures are not "deities". Let it go Jim…

[Prasanna Weerakkody]

I must say Jim that despite all that you would read- in the ground context of Sri Lanka Makara or Lion is not considered as any god or deities. You must realize Sinhala context is not Hindu either and some of the mainland concepts do not properly apply here anyway.

Fernando I have always found your posts interesting and inspiring as it provided a counter/ more Portuguese oriented perspective to how I experience things down here. Your sources and material presented are just great. I think it is clear that the kasthane origin is Sinhala. but there are many un-answered questions remain and it is also clear that it did draw inspiration from many foreign sources as well. one of the questions that I am intrigued by is that the changeover of the Sinhala fighters from the dominance of double edged long swords of the previous era- that seem quite similar to the arms of the Portuguese roughly at the time of their arrival and shifting to the Kasthana. The Portuguese is possibly the first enemy the Sinhala armies face off that used heavy armor- cuirasses etc at that scale. many other weapons show adaptations to items that are better suited to armor piercing purposes at the time but Kasthana travels a different path in retaining a slashing blade. why? (keeping in mind that Kasthana may not have been a primary weapon of the soldiery of the field (Calachurro example?)). Also I just noted that brass blades are common among modern replica’s but it in no way necessitates that the image you presented is modern. Please let know the date of publication you extracted the swords from. If you look at the proper battle kasthana and the later purely ceremonial ones one of the most noted differences is the way the blade attaches to the hilt (like in the images provided), it will be very interesting to see how far back this type of construction can be set to.
Regards
Prasanna

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Prasanna Weerakkody

... Fernando I have always found your posts interesting and inspiring as it provided a counter/ more Portuguese oriented perspective to how I experience things down here. Your sources and material presented are just great. I think it is clear that the kasthane origin is Sinhala. but there are many un-answered questions remain and it is also clear that it did draw inspiration from many foreign sources as well. one of the questions that I am intrigued by is that the changeover of the Sinhala fighters from the dominance of double edged long swords of the previous era- that seem quite similar to the arms of the Portuguese roughly at the time of their arrival and shifting to the Kasthana. The Portuguese is possibly the first enemy the Sinhala armies face off that used heavy armor- cuirasses etc at that scale. many other weapons show adaptations to items that are better suited to armor piercing purposes at the time but Kasthana travels a different path in retaining a slashing blade. why? (keeping in mind that Kasthana may not have been a primary weapon of the soldiery of the field (Calachurro example?)). Also I just noted that brass blades are common among modern replica’s but it in no way necessitates that the image you presented is modern. Please let know the date of publication you extracted the swords from. If you look at the proper battle kasthana and the later purely ceremonial ones one of the most noted differences is the way the blade attaches to the hilt (like in the images provided), it will be very interesting to see how far back this type of construction can be set to ...

Thank you for your complacency, Prasanna .
I didn't dare familiarizing the Kasthana with the Calachurro, although it crossed my mind; but these inferrments are waters too deep for me to navigate .
I have tried again to get the semanthics of Kasthana in the same glossary where the term Calachurro is contemplated. The author, Monsignor Sebastião Rodolfo Dalgado (Assagaum, Bardez, Goa 1855 - Lisbon 1922) is completely above suspicion, from the heigths of his knowledge of Devanagari, Latin, Concani, Lecturer in Sanscrit, Doctor in letters, author of a study of Portuguese influence in Indian subcontinent languages and other.
I was not surprised in not finding the term in the letter K, as such letter is not used in the portuguese alphabet. Then i tried the letter C (for Castane or similar) and still i found nothing, apart from the term Catana, derived from the well known Katana, which has a dozen quotations from the various chroniclars, but no one linking it to Sinhalese Kasthana, a possibility suggested by some. It is for me a great mistery that the Kasthana is not mentioned in this glossary ... unless the Portuguese gave it a name with a different composition.
I have phoned Mr. Daehnhardt, the book author and collector who owns the the brass blade Kasthana, besides several others, some of them highly valuable examples. I asked him to place an age on the example in the book and he answered, not mentioning that specific one but, brass blades in general, which certainly were from the 19th century ... even from the 20th. Talking about these swords in general he is of the opinion that the Kasthana dates from medieval times ( 4th, 6th, 7th century); ands he reiterates that it only achieved the lower curved (pseudo) quillons after association with the Portuguese ... whatever this statement is worth (my remark).

.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by David

We have a person from the culture we are discussing come on to say that these creatures are not "deities". Let it go Jim…

Whew!! OK doc!! I'm alright now.......Ok, OK, let it go, let it go!
I'm glad to see the discussion is still going, and as I see various entries I can see just how silly much of it was. What I was trying to do, during my spell, was to illustrate what Prasanna noted quite simply, that the term denoting these mythical entities is different in many cases in Sri Lanka than in other cultural parlances.
The problems of semantics, transliteration and perception of course become issues in studying any facet of one culture by those of another. This is why we have footnotes, qualifying references or simply explanations of alternate views or terms. Actually those practices are unfortunately what often is in place with my 'avalanches'

By this same token, much the same as recognizing that definitions are not necessary applicable in every case (the reason why dictionaries offer multiple meanings) , descriptions of terms and meanings are not always 'cut and dry' particularly with the complexities of deeply subjective material.
With that I would recognize that proper understanding of terms, in the context being observed, is indeed important. This is why as researchers it is important for us to include these disparities in text as part of discussion, which often results in considerably more words. One of the key reasons for disagreements and misunderstandings in these venues is poor wording, lack of qualification or explanatory text, along of course with discourtesy.

I know that in trying to describe many of the figures we have been discussing, I feel very uncomfortable in using descriptions such as 'monster'; 'beast' or 'grotesque' as often used in many descriptions, as these are often seen with pejorative meanings in western culture. In this same manner I know that I try, as clearly has Ibrahiim, to find as proper an unoffensive term as possible to show proper respect in referring to the various elements we are discussing. Thankfully Prasanna has rejoined us to help us with these delicate aspects, for example in properly understanding the term deity, along with his comprehensive overall knowledge of course on these subjects.

What is even better is that Fernando has rejoined us with his extremely valuable knowledge and resources on the Portuguese part in the history of these weapons, not to mention his always brilliant wit which truly helps lighten the admittedly sometimes text laden burden here. With that I would acknowledge Rick's note on that issue, and his concerns on our integrity here due to the 'heavy' demeanor of the thread(s). It is true that many of us here are from different cultures, and certainly all have our own 'styles' and interests. It has always been my position that we should allow patience and understanding to prevail as we interact, as well as observing courtesy and gentlemanly respect toward each other.
A very wise man once said, if you find the style or subject matter of another disturbing or annoying, simply ignore them and avoid the thread and topics.
I am glad this thread has continued, and especially with the outstanding complement of participants now present. While some view the topic as having run its course, I have never seen history of anything as having reached that point, it is very much a living entity, always having more to say.

That is why we are here, and hopefully others sharing these interests will join, and emphatically I will say, all opinions, observations and views are welcome and eagerly accepted.

[David]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I know that in trying to describe many of the figures we have been discussing, I feel very uncomfortable in using descriptions such as 'monster'; 'beast' or 'grotesque' as often used in many descriptions, as these are often seen with pejorative meanings in western culture.

Jim, i completely agree with your distain for the use of the above terminology and its possible pejorative nature. This is why it is perhaps best to refer to these figures simply as "mythical creature" for that is surely what they are and the terminology should, hopefully, offend no one.
While i agree with you that language is indeed flexible, the word "Deity" refers to the divine no matter how you cut it or which of its multiple meanings we apply. It is from the word "Deus" which quite literally means "god". There is no other way to look at it. Really…
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us..._english/deity
I do really hope we can ALL just let this go now as it seems a bit like wagging the dog to me. BTW, it was not your "avalanche of words" that i was referring to in my previous post.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks David, at last we agree on some stuff!!! and the mythical creature term seems a most applicable one. I recognize the root word from the Latin 'deus' (oh oh, I admit, it was on Wiki and that it does apply to divinity, so the application does become tenuous when applied to the creatures ( in Texas terminology 'critters') which are subordinate or supportive to the properly recognized deities.
Thanks for the note on the avalanches, and I admit I feel a bit sensitive on that..after all I am seldom brief ya think????

[fernando]

Originally Posted by David

... It is from the word "Deus" which quite literally means "god"...

Wait a minute
Deus is precisely how we spell God in portuguese; you could have asked me that one .

Originally Posted by David

BTW, it was not your "avalanche of words" that i was referring to in my previous post.

Jim knows that; but he is a true chevalier

[fernando]

Ah ... cross posts within two minutes flat