![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE
Posts: 4,408
|
![]()
Salaams, I refer to #17 and its main reference when equating Indian swords to Chinese. I would temper that with what Jim has said about Tunkou.
My main reference is http://thomaschen.freewebspace.com/custom3.html The article notes a fashion in Chinese swords and close ties with sword influence going both ways. Swords made in Beijing were exported to India after 1761 . Further ..a common description amongst Chinese sword design was the pistol grip which is essentially the same as the bird head or parrot head hilt. Note also the practice of cutting grooves in the blade and inserting pearls which roll up and down the grooves; This is a direct copy from Indian blades of that form; Tears of the wounded (afflicted) Shown in addition is the trend in Indian blades; both sword and dagger, of decorating the throat with a cartouche done in Koftgari form but that in the project sword this is of Tunkou style essentially a reinforcement plate giving support to the hilt and enabling a tighter fit for the blade into the scabbard....something koftgari design does not do...nor was it designed to. I accept as Gonzalo points out that the wrap would also have reduced heavy vibration through to the sword hand and as I point out the practical idea that the blade would fit better and more snugly into the scabbard...also noted in #17. Given that in the late 1700s Chinese swords were exported to India it stands to reason that the Tunkou was in fact part of this design imported on these weapons but turned the other way...perhaps to satisfy Indian taste from purely an aesthetic viewpoint as it looked better? Whilst it seems logical it is understood that nothing is certain in this regard and that it may be down to simple design drift and this is simply parallel development or pure chance...and may be how some swords in the South were designed...Kastane often have a similar wrap. Regards, Ibrahiim al Balooshi. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
![]()
Hello Ibrahiim,
Could you please give us a few references to the Chinese export of blades/weapons to India? Jens |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE
Posts: 4,408
|
![]() Quote:
* Ho & Bronson 2004 p111 "... the [Qianlong] emperor appears to have been quite fond of non-traditional curved sabers of the Indian and Middle Eastern type, often furnished with jade hilts carved in the Indian Mughal style. Some were imitations made in the imperial armory in Beijing." * Ho & Bronson 2004 p114 f127 "Qianlong ordered a total of sixty ceremonial curved swords on five occasions, in 1748, 1757, 1779, 1793, and 1795. Each sword was named and numbered, and all were identical in length, weight, and basic design. The scabbards were made either of red or green stingray skin and or patterned bark. The swords differed in terms of their inlaid details and the style of the hilts. Hilts made after completion of the 1757 batch were mostly in Mughal style, often with gold and inlaid gems."Unquote. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
![]()
Thank you very much, and it is quite interesting that the trade went both ways - from very early times.
I know of three dagger blades all with the same decoration, one at a museum in China, one in the MET and one in my collection. Of these two have a pistol grip, and the one in the MET has a grip with a horse head - but all have a stone hilt. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE
Posts: 4,408
|
![]()
I have looked at the hilt situation on the project sword and feel that the entire hilt question is critical to the overall answer to this phenomena. Thus I turn to Stuart Carey Welsh . INDIA. Arts and Culture. 1300 to 1900. for The Met Museum . page 270. however, I note that the front outside cover has a magnificent piece of artwork which was painted in India in about 1620 and is lavishly adorned in Chinese influence. Part of the story is present in that picture as not only were the Chinese merchants on the Indian coast and active in securing South African gold etc. from Indian traders but the Chinese artisans were active also in influencing Indian ateliers and no doubt in the transfer both ways of fine art techniques and subject matter. This must have included the types and decorations of weapons probably both ways.
Please note the Pistol grip dagger described and pictured at page 270; from Stuart Carey Welsh. INDIA. Arts and Culture. 1300 to 1900. for The Met Museum says; Quote''That presumably this was carved for Aurangzeb. The origin of the form can be traced to the Deccan where it must have been admired by Aurangzeb and adapted for his use during his years there as Viceroy. In the early stages of their evolution which probably began in the Southern Deccan, pistol grips terminated not in the round abstract shape but in Parrot heads, complete with beaks and eyes. Deccani examples of the 17th C. already incorporate this change. After Aurangzeb created a vogue for them, pistol grips became common at the Mughal Court during the late 17th and 18th C. some of them repeat the original parrot design.''Unquote. Regards, Ibrahiim al Balooshi. Last edited by Ibrahiim al Balooshi; 22nd May 2017 at 07:41 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,192
|
![]()
This has been a most provocative thread!! and brought out some very interesting aspects of Indian arms as related to Chinese influence and vive versa. I must say Ibrahiim, you are truly an intrepid and tenacious researcher!!! Great links and resources, thank you!
I have tried to follow in kind, and it does seem that there must have been a degree of arms which entered the Indian sphere, as there was a great deal of trade activity with China via the varied East India companies from late 17th and into the 18th century. It does seem that the Dutch had a factory in Peking (Beijing) in the late 17th but seem to have closed it early in the 18th. In these times most of the interest and reciprocity seem to have been the export of china and textiles, but around early 18th an interest developed in the decoration of sword hilts (known as Tonquinese, for those regions of N. Vietnam), but apparently thought to have been made in China. While strong export of mercantile commodities seem well known, it does not seem that any export of arms took place in any sort of capacity as the Chinese had a very restrictive attitude toward foreign presence there and the exports seem to have filtered into the Philippines in various channels. I have not been able to find more on the noted Beijing export in 1761, and by this period it seems that the Chinese courts while intrigued by outside styles, such as the Indian influence in some Qianlong hilts, had little to do with exporting arms. Though not exporting arms proper, they did however exert considerable influence in the arms of Europe, particularly the decoration forms known as chinoserie, Tonquinese and Japan had its shakudo. Still it would be hard to imagine that a power such as China would not be involved in certain trade and export outside the direct control of the realm, and as Ibrahiim has noted, the quest for gold in remote ports and centers operated briskly in operations unlikely to be officially recorded. We know that Chinese river pirates were present in regions of SE asia contiguous to India, and other regions in proximity. The exchange and diffusion of all manner of materials of course must have been considerable in such circumstances, and while not technically supportable, it does seem to be reasonably plausible. Returning to the matter of the 'tunkou' feature, I am more inclined to think of it entering these spheres from Ottoman influence rather than Chinese, despite its prevalence on many Qing swords. Many features of Central Asian and Indian weapons carry Ottoman influence from various sources, all of which were prevalent throughout the development of these arms. As for its purpose, I tend to follow the thoughts of Philip Tom, as described in his "Military Sabres of the Qing Dynasty", that they were to stabilize the guard and secure the blade in the scabbard. These were clearly not consistent on these Chinese sabres, whether in yuanshi or fangshi mounts regardless, and were not as far as I have seen ever on jian. Still, the feature clearly became a vestigial notion on a number of weapons in other context ,and as seen on the sword here, and on daggers as discussed, whether physically represented or decoratively applied in koftgari or other means. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]()
Well, the earliest "tunkous" are seen on the nomadic swords dating to at least 8-9 centuries. Subsequent tunkou-like elements are seen on a multitude of blades , all coming from the areas dominated by, or at least in contact with nomadic cultures. Their forms varied : from the " along the edge" in early examples to the "along the spine" in the latter ones, from massive plates to purely symbolic, decorative koftgari or incised outlines, from traditional triangular to "shell-like" in North African yataghans etc. Ottomans were not the originators of tunkou: they got it from their Seljuk and Oghuz ancestors, but due to their exclusive Western location, they were a vehicle of spreading it over the Mediterranean basin. Seljuk Empire had its epicenter in modern Iran, Indian Moghuls came from Central Asia etc.
The earliest European one I know (1321AD)can be seen on the fresco of St. Nikita in the Gracanica church in Serbia, perhaps as a result of Batu Khan invasion half a century earlier. I may go on a limb here, but the so-called Indian ricasso might be a direct descendant of the archaic Nomadic ones. Both Khudyakov and Phillip Tom commented on their original purpose, and suggested purely utilitarian mechanical reasons: plugging the mouth of the scabbard, isolating the edge, or just secure seating of blades within their scabbards. Phillip Tom thinks that Japanese Habaki is unrelated to tunkou, but looking at the origin of Japanese people and their contacts with Koreans, Chinese and Mongols, this assertion may be modified. Last edited by ariel; 23rd May 2017 at 11:48 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,192
|
![]() Quote:
"...blades from China and India were highly sought after in the Middle East, which seems to have been the hub of an astonishing international trade in sword blades, amongst many other items". * during 14th and through 15th centuries and later "The Medieval Swords of Leeds Castle" -Clive Thomas "London Park Lane Arms Fair, 2005" p.26 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE
Posts: 4,408
|
![]() Quote:
Salaams Jim, In addition I note from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_swords Early Three Kingdoms period to late Sui dynasty (220–618) Introduction of the Sassanian/Persian style suspension mounts on Chinese daos. Probable introduction of Damascus wootz steel (for use in jians) from India or the Middle East. In addition the Hudud al alam (10th C Persian) https://books.google.com.om/books?id...istory&f=false it is noted that swords and slaves amongst others were exported from Gujerat. Regards, Ibrahiim al Balooshi. Last edited by Ibrahiim al Balooshi; 7th June 2017 at 04:33 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,255
|
![]()
And another example that might possibly be related: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=26861
The knuckle guard seems to be unique with (now missing) scales attached to it originally. Were these possibly crafted from brass? Regards, Kai |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|