Significance of Beaded Edges/Borders on South Indian Weapons?

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

In beads there is some aspect possibly linked to metalwork and thus designs in arms and armour. I think some care should be taken when looking at the beads above as they are possibly not all the same style of decoration and could be either small miri bota (leaf pattern) or small water mellon seed designs not the sort of border bead we are looking for... however, this is all good research as it allows members to focus on the various techniques involved. I think there is a distinction however between beadwork and bead impression in art and beadwork attached to textiles as well as bead work in metalwork… In Western India for example beadwork on textiles didn't arrive until the late 19th C according to the book attached below; The front cover has a band of beaded textile running above the title but this is far too late for our subject thus textiles may be sidelined in this respect.

Clearly we need to be on an earlier decorative form which Hindu jewellery does seem to indicate... It carries a much older ticket after all at about 4000 years.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Hindu jewellery… As a decorative form this specialization could well be linked in the distant past to metalworking in Arms and Armour. Here is a book with many examples in Hindu Jewellery which rather suggests a link.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

The next reference is an excellent pocket book on the Mughal Empire and rather confirms that architecture is not the medium in which this beaded border form is obvious perhaps because of my earlier thought on the difficulty of size … we are looking at Taj Mahal and Red Fort sized mega buildings and Temples and Mausoleums etc.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

... and rather confirms that architecture is not the medium in which this beaded border form is obvious perhaps ...

Absolutely right again.
Architectural forms are closely associated with either Buddhism or official Hinduism (it is clear that the Mughal architecture should be excluded from consideration). Our beads have another origin.

[ariel]

If you really want to go into architectural details, Google " crenellated wall india" ( couple of examples below)

Just pay attention: some images in this series are from Italy, West Africa, Jerusalem, France, Poland etc etc. Crenellation is one of the most popular architectural designs, originally intended for purely military purposes ( see three last images with very early European castle wall, predating Indian fancier examples ), but later becoming a decoration.

Personally, I doubt there is any symbolic or sacral connection between different crenellations ( architecture on the one hand vs. jewelry, weapons etc.).

And, re. your assertion that Mughal architecture should not be counted, the upper right image, with the prettiest onion-like crenellations, the closest to the decorative ones on the handles and jewelry, is a part of Taj Mahal, the ultimate Mughal architectural monument.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Interesting additions Ariel and in particular the domes over what appear to be stone Chhatri on top of a Mausoleum or Palace .. Not quite the beaded dot we are looking at in the closer companion to those on arms and armour but an interesting study all the same. I was quite surprised at the crenellations which are taller than a man … and which appear as arches in the likeness to Islamic archways...which I think were amalgamated with Hindu arches by the Mughals.

[ariel]

I do not think these are Ch'hatris: just garden variety arches, another architectural detail hailing back at least to Roman times.
The last image is Damascus Gate in the wall of Old City, Jerusalem, built by Suleiman the Magnificient, 100+ years before Taj Mahal. Look at its crenellations.
And you are correct: Mughal borrowed from Hindu architecture the same way as other things. Not for nothing they were "Indo-Persian".

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Interesting additions Ariel and in particular the domes over what appear to be stone Chhatri on top of a Mausoleum or Palace .. Not quite the beaded dot we are looking at in the closer companion to those on arms and armour but an interesting study all the same. I was quite surprised at the crenellations which are taller than a man … and which appear as arches in the likeness to Islamic archways...which I think were amalgamated with Hindu arches by the Mughals.

In fact from http://islamicarch.blogspot.com/~ Quote."Arches were not used in India before Islamic times where trabeate construction was the main method of roofing an area. However, arches were regarded as essential by the first Muslim rulers who built arched screens in front of trabeate structures such as the Quwwat al-Islam Mosque in Delhi. Even the screens of the earliest Indian mosques were not composed of true arches but were corbelled structures made to look like arches. So this is purely and souley Islamic architecture at it’s best!" Unquote.

[Jim McDougall]

I think the architectural connections to edged weapon hilts in Hindu instances are indeed heavily connected, as well explained through many examples in Robert Elgood's "Hindu Arms & Ritual" (2004) and often discussed here over the years. Naturally the Hindu and Buddhist Faiths were in many circumstances syncretically aligned in degree, and the material culture often carried influences of their traditions and symbolism.

The Mughal arts, while deeply inspired by Persian verse and styles also seem to have often adopted of course elements of the Hindu and Buddhist artistic manner in degree. As noted, while Mughal architecture in India was certainly present , it does not seem necessarily prevalent in these kinds of decoration.

It does seem however that in the tulwar hilt, the flueret terminals of Deccani forms seem to reflect Muslim character, as do the distinctive langet style which have been suggested to resemble architectural elements such as the Mighrab. In other instances Muslim hilts pommels are sometimes believed to reflect the domes of Minarets.


While not necessarily relevent here of course, these suggestions and examples of Muslim architectural presence in hilts are simply noted as references in consideration. As Ibrahiim and Mercenary have both noted, Muslim/Mughal architecture I agree does not seem to be our influence source here.


Emphatically, the beads do seem to come from influences in other material culture and great examples shown here in textiles and especially jewellery.
I think one of the key references Jens has long used in the study of hilt designs and decoration is one on Indian jewellery (I cannot think of the title).

Jewellers have long been the artisans creating hilt decoration, regardless of culture and this has been the case into recent and modern times. They are the metalworkers skilled in the often flamboyant and detailed designs and application of precious stones etc. as well as inscribing, engraving and precious metal inlay.

It stands to reason that jewellery would provide influences and inspiration for many forms of decoration on hilts, the beading notwithstanding. While of course some sort of 'beading' might be found architecturally, I would think its influence subordinate to that of jewellery in this case.


On that note, personally I don't think of beading and crenellation in the same context in that crenellation is distinctly architectural, specifically in fortification design (in purpose) but often followed otherwise in design but in other architecture. It would not be used in the delicate manner of beading in my opinion.

[ariel]

Agree. Architecture is a dead end in the search for the origin of beading: no connection to jewelry in all its applications.


We are left with two possibilities:
1. Beading was just a " prettyfying" design, devoid of any deep significance.
2. Beading has deep sacral meaning. Proponents of this theory should find primary sources supporting this hypothesis.

[mross]

Originally Posted by ariel

Agree. Architecture is a dead end in the search for the origin of beading: no connection to jewelry in all its applications.


We are left with two possibilities:
1. Beading was just a " prettyfying" design, devoid of any deep significance.
2. Beading has deep sacral meaning. Proponents of this theory should find primary sources supporting this hypothesis.

I'm going with #1. Simplest reason is usually the best.

[Ren Ren]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Absolutely right again.
Architectural forms are closely associated with either Buddhism... Our beads have another origin.

Sino-Tibetan style of Buddhist bronze sculpture. Beginning of the 15th century.

[Ren Ren]

Courtesy of James McElhinney & Peter Dekker.
Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese under strong Tibetan influence.

[ariel]

Yes, there are beadings there.
But the question we are addressing here is not their existence ( this is beyond any argument), but their sacral meaning or absence thereof.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Ren Ren

Sino-Tibetan style of Buddhist bronze sculpture. Beginning of the 15th century.

In India Buddhism has absorbed less archaic beliefs than Hinduism. Beautiful sculpture, but what else?

[Ren Ren]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

In India Buddhism has absorbed less archaic beliefs than Hinduism. Beautiful sculpture, but what else?

Sculpture of the early 15th century, in accordance with the canons and rules of the 10th century. At a minimum, we can put aside talk about European influence.
The number of channels of Tibetan influence on the weapon style of China and Japan was very small. First of all, it is Tibetan Buddhism and its religious meaning.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

In India Buddhism has absorbed less archaic beliefs than Hinduism. Beautiful sculpture, but what else?

Naturally. Hinduism is much older religion.

And, indeed.... what else?

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Hindu jewellery… As a decorative form this specialization could well be linked in the distant past to metalworking in Arms and Armour. Here is a book with many examples in Hindu Jewellery which rather suggests a link.

Very good research. Million thanks.