On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types

[ariel]

Homophony can play funny games with people who do not know pertinent languages.
The same Ful in Arabic is a Fava bean. Is Ful Katara an Omani knife to be used for eating Ful Medames? Or does the latter mean Full Madams with Arabic accent? :-)))

[ariel]

I have pondered on Jens' last remark. He is correct 100%.


India is a huge country with very long history, essentially multiethnic population, multiple foreign influences and internal conflicts.

Weapons ( or their components) of very well-defined patterns originated in one corner, then traveled to another, acquired something else in the transition, and were modified over decades and centuries. In the process their names were altered and sometmes downright changed.

The complexity of such an evolution may be enormous for some examples.

In many cases we can discern traces of their former identity, but in some those are masked by time, distance and external changes.

It is important to have a basic agreement on what is what, but we must have a lot of humility to accept the imprecision of our knowledge and understanding as well as the necessity to know "when and where?" Vehement arguments on what constitutes a true Khanda and how it is cardinally different from something we just as vehemently call Dhup ( just an example) are missing the point. This is especially true if such pronouncements are made by people who do not know different languages used in India, cannot study primary sources and never spent time working with local historians/ethnographers.

I have witnessed heated arguments about a "true" name: katar or jamadhar?

As Pushkin used to say about Russian revolts: " senseless and merciless".

[Jens Nordlunde]

Glad you agree Ariel :-)

Tod, vol. II page 158. “The Bikaneris work well in iron, and have shops in the capital and in all the larger towns for the manufacture of sword blades, matchlocks, daggers, iron lances, etc. The sword-handles, which are often inlaid with variegated steel, or burnished, are in high request, and exported to various parts of India.”

Having read this one start to wonder, if the hilts were made in the fashion of Bikaner hilts (whatever that was), or if they adjusted the hilt form in the fashion to the place where they were supposed to be sold?
From what Tod writes they must have had quite a big production, but we must not forget, that Bikaner was pased by a lot of caravans going in all directions.
From Robert Elgood and others, we know that weapons were made at a lot of places, and likely exported, like the ones from Bikaner, to other parts of India.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Glad you agree Ariel :-)

Tod, vol. II page 158. “The Bikaneris work well in iron, and have shops in the capital and in all the larger towns for the manufacture of sword blades, matchlocks, daggers, iron lances, etc. The sword-handles, which are often inlaid with variegated steel, or burnished, are in high request, and exported to various parts of India.”

Having read this one start to wonder, if the hilts were made in the fashion of Bikaner hilts (whatever that was), or if they adjusted the hilt form in the fashion to the place where they were supposed to be sold?
From what Tod writes they must have had quite a big production, but we must not forget, that Bikaner was pased by a lot of caravans going in all directions.
From Robert Elgood and others, we know that weapons were made at a lot of places, and likely exported, like the ones from Bikaner, to other parts of India.

Tod got his materials on Bikaner at the end of 18 - beginning of 19 century. However, ~150 years earlier the entire armoury of Adoni was transferred to Bikaner.
God only knows how the Adoni examples influenced the Rajastani ones. But likely the Bikaner hilts ( whether reflecting pure Rajastani tradition, evolving from the southern one, or any other combination of ethnic inventiveness) that were "... exported to various parts of India" pollinated so many other places, that it might be impossible at the end to separate flies from hamburgers ( a delightful Russian saying). I bet that some of those patterns eventually got new and specific names based on distant localities. Everybody likes to be a source of something unique and patriotic. Perhaps that is why we have so many different hilt patterns:-)
I remember Jonathan Barrett's talk in Timonium in which he ruefully admitted that , perhaps, only Udaipuri hilts have a chance to be firmly attributed.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

I bet that some of those patterns eventually got new and specific names based on distant localities. Everybody likes to be a source of something unique and patriotic. Perhaps that is why we have so many different hilt patterns:-)

It is very nice that my many year's efforts on the Russian forum were not in vain.

[Mercenary]

One more "style". Bundi shahi )))

[Jens Nordlunde]

Mercenary,
How do you know that this is a Bundi hilt, and how old would you say it is?
From which museum is the picture?
Jens

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

I have pondered on Jens' last remark. He is correct 100%.

India is a huge country with very long history, essentially multiethnic population, multiple foreign influences and internal conflicts.

Weapons ( or their components) of very well-defined patterns originated in one corner, then traveled to another, acquired something else in the transition, and were modified over decades and centuries. In the process their names were altered and sometmes downright changed.

The complexity of such an evolution may be enormous for some examples.

In many cases we can discern traces of their former identity, but in some those are masked by time, distance and external changes.

It is important to have a basic agreement on what is what, but we must have a lot of humility to accept the imprecision of our knowledge and understanding as well as the necessity to know "when and where?" Vehement arguments on what constitutes a true Khanda and how it is cardinally different from something we just as vehemently call Dhup ( just an example) are missing the point. This is especially true if such pronouncements are made by people who do not know different languages used in India, cannot study primary sources and never spent time working with local historians/ethnographers.

Hi, Ariel!

I bow to your vast knowledge. But I have two questions after your busy and interesting monologue. When the last time you were in India? And how many primary sources you studied?

Best Regards