Enamel hilt - age and place

Jens Nordlunde · 30th March 2006, 02:06 PM

Hi Brian,
Interesting what you write about the drawings although it would be more interesting had they been from the 17th century – but still interesting.
T.H. Hendley’s ‘Damascening on Steel and Iron, as Practised in India, London 1892, also shows drawing of different types of hilts, but is does not show a hilt of this form. Hendley also mentions leaf ‘book’s of great ancients showing, not hilt forms, but decorations. The drawings you refer to could have had the use you describe, or maybe another, it is hard to say to day. If you hear more about the drawings, please let me know.
None of those who has written about enamel decoration has done it in such detail when it comes to the design or to the colours, that we can be sure of, from where a piece origins. They have however given some indications as which colours some of the centres were famous for using, and I agree that Lucknow is a possibility, but so is Jodhpur, Udaipur and Bhuj just to mention a few of them. Bhuj was famous for the way they faded the colours on petals, although they could not make the colours as deep and transparent as they could in Jodhpur (Watt). Another thing we must keep in mind, and which makes it more difficult to tell from where a piece origins is, that it may have been made in Lucknow but sold in Jodhpur. This would mean that if a museum has hilt labelled ‘Jodhpur’ we can’t be sure that it was also made there. To me this suggests that the most reliable source we have are books like Hendley’s, Watt’s and others written at the time, and for good measure, the pieces the museums have should be used for comparison.

Jens Nordlunde · 30th March 2006, 04:25 PM

Come to think of it, there are a few other things, which disturbs me about the theory about an Englishman ordering the hilt. The hilt is mounted on a blade with an armoury mark and number. I have no doubt that it could be done (getting a tulwar out of an armoury), but would this be ‘normal’ procedure? Would the blade and hilt, in such a case – ‘export’, not be ordered without armoury stamps? Don’t forget that both blades and hilts were made at a great number in the 19th century. Another thing, which bothers me about this theory, is, the blade, although with chevron pattern, has a very uneven chevron pattern. Would the ‘English’ buyer not have wanted a more even pattern, when showing it off, in to of his friends, in front of the open fireplace after having returned to England, while telling about this strange country?

Tim Simmons · 30th March 2006, 04:49 PM

My thoughts of British patronage were not on the lines of a purchase to show your friends by the fireside. I was thinking of the many trade/arts and crafts/industrial conventions held to showcase products of the empire. Not necessarily the big events like the "great exhibition" More one of the many shows that must have been held as the British attempted to stimulate Indian labours for thier advantage.

30th March 2006, 02:06 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Brian, Interesting what you write about the drawings although it would be more interesting had they been from the 17th century – but still interesting. T.H. Hendley’s ‘Damascening on Steel and Iron, as Practised in India, London 1892, also shows drawing of different types of hilts, but is does not show a hilt of this form. Hendley also mentions leaf ‘book’s of great ancients showing, not hilt forms, but decorations. The drawings you refer to could have had the use you describe, or maybe another, it is hard to say to day. If you hear more about the drawings, please let me know. None of those who has written about enamel decoration has done it in such detail when it comes to the design or to the colours, that we can be sure of, from where a piece origins. They have however given some indications as which colours some of the centres were famous for using, and I agree that Lucknow is a possibility, but so is Jodhpur, Udaipur and Bhuj just to mention a few of them. Bhuj was famous for the way they faded the colours on petals, although they could not make the colours as deep and transparent as they could in Jodhpur (Watt). Another thing we must keep in mind, and which makes it more difficult to tell from where a piece origins is, that it may have been made in Lucknow but sold in Jodhpur. This would mean that if a museum has hilt labelled ‘Jodhpur’ we can’t be sure that it was also made there. To me this suggests that the most reliable source we have are books like Hendley’s, Watt’s and others written at the time, and for good measure, the pieces the museums have should be used for comparison.

30th March 2006, 04:25 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Come to think of it, there are a few other things, which disturbs me about the theory about an Englishman ordering the hilt. The hilt is mounted on a blade with an armoury mark and number. I have no doubt that it could be done (getting a tulwar out of an armoury), but would this be ‘normal’ procedure? Would the blade and hilt, in such a case – ‘export’, not be ordered without armoury stamps? Don’t forget that both blades and hilts were made at a great number in the 19th century. Another thing, which bothers me about this theory, is, the blade, although with chevron pattern, has a very uneven chevron pattern. Would the ‘English’ buyer not have wanted a more even pattern, when showing it off, in to of his friends, in front of the open fireplace after having returned to England, while telling about this strange country?

30th March 2006, 04:49 PM	#3
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,854	My thoughts of British patronage were not on the lines of a purchase to show your friends by the fireside. I was thinking of the many trade/arts and crafts/industrial conventions held to showcase products of the empire. Not necessarily the big events like the "great exhibition" More one of the many shows that must have been held as the British attempted to stimulate Indian labours for thier advantage.