Your chillanum is from the 17th c.

Kubur · 28th August 2017, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In "Arts of the Muslim Knight", Furusiyya Art Foundation, 2008, there are a number of 'chilanum' included in the well described examples which seem to range from the 16th to well through the 17th c.

On p.143, in the introductory chapter on daggers, it is noted that "...chilanum hilts first appear in miniature paintings from the second half of the 16th century".
* ref cited, "Imperial Mughal Painting", Stuart Cary Welch, 1978, London, pl.4

In "Arts' (op.cit. p.207) a 'chilanum' is shown which is stated as closely related to one in the David Collection, which was the property of
Ali Adil Shah I (r. 1558-1580), and another which stylistically is suggested possibly earlier.
The 'Adil Shah' dagger is also illustrated in "Hindu Arms and Ritual" (Robert Elgood, 2004, pp.109-10, fig. 11, 1-4.

Hi Jim,

Ok look at
Hales, pp. 67-70; or Elgood, Jaipur, pp. 44-50; or Pinchot pp. 45-46

And it's not because a chillanum appears in a miniature that we can date all the chillanum from the 16th or 17th...

Best,
Kubur

Jim McDougall · 28th August 2017, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi Jim,

Ok look at
Hales, pp. 67-70; or Elgood, Jaipur, pp. 44-50; or Pinchot pp. 45-46

And it's not because a chillanum appears in a miniature that we can date all the chillanum from the 16th or 17th...

Best,
Kubur

Hi Kubur,
I don't have these references at hand right now, but are you saying that these references state all chilanum are from 17th c. ?

I see what you mean on basing the date range of chilanum based on the miniatures. However I am under the impression that aligning the appearance of such a weapon in these art pieces with known figures such as reigning rulers who have historically placed detail is somewhat reliable.
It seems that those with notable knowledge and skill in assessment of these miniatures are typically quite accurate in references toward them.

These have seemed more reliable than for instance iconography in friezes in temples or other kinds of artwork where artistic license and/or certain atavism may be present.

Jim McDougall · 28th August 2017, 06:06 PM

One thing I would note at this point toward establishing date or period assessment on many forms of edged weaponry in the Indian subcontinent is that it is perhaps one of the most daunting spheres in which to do so.

The continued use traditionally of forms which were in use for many centuries has maintained perpetually with little change in styling or key elements. Most enabling in proper identification and classification is probably the decoration or motif in the hilt, as makers marks and related stamps are typically not placed in these weapons. Most cases of arsenal marks found on weapons are of course post production and only viable in dating in degree, and the numbers of arsenal marked examples is quite limited.

As has been noted, artistic or iconographic sources for establishing the terminus post quem for a weapon form is often questionable or easily compromised. The use of narrative accounts or records may often be defeated in degree by the inarticulate or collective terms used to describe or refer to a particular weapon, and dialectic, colloquial and vernacular terms may vary semantically in translations.

With most published material, authors tend to be either overly optimistic in setting captioned date for a described weapon, or overly cautious. Tulwars will characteristically (almost invariably) be listed as 19th century. Yet these weapons were well in use in the previous centuries.

It is within these existing conditions that we examine and try to prudently assess the date and period of these arms of India. While not 'impossible', it is only achievable in degree with the kind of scrutiny, investigation, analysis and constructive discussion we have always shared here.
We continue to learn, and together.

28th August 2017, 06:06 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	One thing I would note at this point toward establishing date or period assessment on many forms of edged weaponry in the Indian subcontinent is that it is perhaps one of the most daunting spheres in which to do so. The continued use traditionally of forms which were in use for many centuries has maintained perpetually with little change in styling or key elements. Most enabling in proper identification and classification is probably the decoration or motif in the hilt, as makers marks and related stamps are typically not placed in these weapons. Most cases of arsenal marks found on weapons are of course post production and only viable in dating in degree, and the numbers of arsenal marked examples is quite limited. As has been noted, artistic or iconographic sources for establishing the terminus post quem for a weapon form is often questionable or easily compromised. The use of narrative accounts or records may often be defeated in degree by the inarticulate or collective terms used to describe or refer to a particular weapon, and dialectic, colloquial and vernacular terms may vary semantically in translations. With most published material, authors tend to be either overly optimistic in setting captioned date for a described weapon, or overly cautious. Tulwars will characteristically (almost invariably) be listed as 19th century. Yet these weapons were well in use in the previous centuries. It is within these existing conditions that we examine and try to prudently assess the date and period of these arms of India. While not 'impossible', it is only achievable in degree with the kind of scrutiny, investigation, analysis and constructive discussion we have always shared here. We continue to learn, and together.