Indo-Persian sword with Wootz blade and parrot hilt

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Roland, it is not "wrong" at all, you have your particular version of "Indo-Persian" but it is also used in other contexts.

I was unsure about the meaning of this term, so I visited Wikipedia and the their definition seems reasonable. As you said, it seems that this term has more than one meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Persian_culture

Roland

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Roland_M

I was unsure about the meaning of this term, so I visited Wikipedia and the their definition seems reasonable. As you said, it seems that this term has more than one meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Persian_culture

Roland

True. But the problem comes from the term being mis-used.

And we are collectors of weapons, not etnographs to talk about the broader cultural influeces and about the "Inndo-Persian" culture. In our field, when somebody talks about a typical Indian Khanda and refers to it as being Indo-Persian is doing nothing but creating ambiguity.

I certainly understand calling Indo-Persian a Shamshir with an "Assadullah" blade and a Tulwar hilt, or a Pesh-kabz bearing the traits of both Persian and Indian workmanship, but as I said in my original posting, I think the use of the term is abused, for the sake of "political correctness"... or in other words, just to be on the safe side.

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

And we are collectors of weapons, not etnographs to talk about the broader cultural influeces and about the "Inndo-Persian" culture. In our field, when somebody talks about a typical Indian Khanda and refers to it as being Indo-Persian is doing nothing but creating ambiguity.

I hope, I don't understand you wrong, but swords and all other weapons are an integral part of culture.

A real Assadollah-Blade with a later added Tulwar hilt is clearly a Persian sword in my eyes.

I think there is a kind of border, where the meaning of such term becomes blurred.


Have a nice weekend

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Roland_M

I hope, I don't understand you wrong, but swords and all other weapons are an integral part of culture.

A real Assadollah-Blade with a later added Tulwar hilt is clearly a Persian sword in my eyes.

I think there is a kind of border, where the meaning of such term becomes blurred.

Have a nice weekend

Well, we can debate this at length but I think it is not the place at this thread, as here the discussion should remain focused on Kai's sword.

Maybe we can meet sometime this summer and debate it face to face drinking a beer.


Have a nice weekend too!

[ariel]

I think there is some degree of confusion here: tunkou has nothing to do with S. Indian bladed weapons. It is of a nomadic origin, and was found on Kirghiz sabers dating to VI-VIII centuries. From there it migrated both Eastward to China and Westward/Southward (Mongols, Seljuks) and that's how it reached Europe, Turkey and North India.
It was originally designed to isolate the edge of the blade from a contact with the scabbard and to prevent moisture from entering it. With time, it acquired purely decorative overtones.

Retaining plates on S. Indian katars, patas and khandas were a device aimed at attaching the blade to the handle.

I do not think there is anything in common between the long-bladed shashka-like ( sorry for the term, but you know what I mean) weapons and bichwa, that is a short-bladed dagger deriving from a humble cowhorn with a big hole.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

And we are collectors of weapons, not etnographs to talk about the broader cultural influeces and about the "Inndo-Persian" culture.

Hello Marius,

one remark still let me make, I think that a "good" collector is every time also a little bit an ethnographer since you never will gain a deeper understanding about your toys without being this.

Best regards,
Detlef

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Hello Marius,

one remark still let me make, I think that a "good" collector is every time also a little bit an ethnographer since you never will gain a deeper understanding about your toys without being this.

Best regards,
Detlef

Hard to argue with this one!

Have a nice weekend!

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

The simple process of fusing together two threads dealing with an identical form is requested so that the entire process can be correctly focused upon...without duplication and without confusion... They are of the same subject...the same sword family and .... on the same Forum. Bringing them together allows Forum to treat the subject as a single conundrum ...not two.

Therefor logically ...May the two be joined ?

Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[kai]

Hello Ibrahiim,

When 2 threads are joined, the old responses get mingled in chronological order - this doesn't help with following the extensive discussion already present. I'm not convinced that this really helps.

Both threads are cross-referenced, so anyone stumbling on one of these threads will also see the other one. IMHO that should do - YMMV. I rest my case and leave it for the mods to decide.

Regards,
Kai

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Ibrahiim,

When 2 threads are joined, the old responses get mingled in chronological order - this doesn't help with following the extensive discussion already present. I'm not convinced that this really helps.

Both threads are cross-referenced, so anyone stumbling on one of these threads will also see the other one. IMHO that should do - YMMV. I rest my case and leave it for the mods to decide.

Regards,
Kai

Show me evidence of this...where confusion results from joining two threads dealing with the same basic subject? The two threads focus upon the same sword family/style... It is blindingly obvious that the two should be put together.