Very Interesting Indian sword for discussion

Jeff D · 19th February 2005, 05:38 PM

Thanks Tom for the description, I am lost without pictures. If you ever take one of these apart again please take some pictures. Actually, you are a fairly adept artist perhaps a drawing. I personally am way to chicken to ever attempt this myself.
I have been under the impresssion that the quillion and hilt are a single piece as I have never seen a junction. I will look closer. This still makes it hard to explain the quillion guard junction on Rick's two examples.

All the best
Jeff

RSWORD · 20th February 2005, 12:58 AM

Jeff

A mystery is fun and I hope more examples will come to light from our collective resources. It is interesting in that the examples that we have found thusfar really do not have a solid identifier but rather very loose descriptions. I am hoping the koftgari provides some insight as well. It is very nicely executed and the decoration is much smaller than I have found on other gold hilts. Hopefully, our Indian contention will join in with some thoughts.

B.I · 20th February 2005, 11:17 AM

hey rick,
sorry for the late reply but i am struggling to add to what you already know. i think you've done a great job in answering your own questions

and i'm pouring through resources in the hope to add something and failing miserably. firstly, its a fabulous piece. there is something in indian 'open' watering that seems to have been overlooked by the more commercial persian contingent until relatively recently. personally, i much prefer indian watering and an example like yours is a pattern you can really get lost in.
the bulbous grip is heavily persian influenced, as is the pommel style. both these features were inherant in north indian pieces, and yet the extreme 'fleur de lys' quillions reek of the south, where the persian influence was less strong. an enigma. i dont have a problem with the quiilion inserts but am confused at the clumsiness. if you hadnt offered an exact example in buttin, i would have doubted the originality (especially with the north'south enigma). i have seem clumsy inserts, but the nature of an indian hilt is in its asthetics and 'flowing form' which seems missing or overlooked here.
the koftgari is of a specific style ond of good quality and i'm sure its style will be seen again in another piece. this may offer more information, but wont help with the location of the piece as the applied decoration was rarely done at the same place as the hilt manafucture and 'raw' hilts travelled well.
i think the main clue is the 'duck' finial. its a common form, so common i couldnt find a single example in my resources

. i know its remeniscent of 17thC deccan, although the 'plainer' form went into the 19thC. i think this form will appear on a ewer handle or something similar.
the pic i've attached is from the khalili collection, and was exhibited in paris '88. the pommel form is along the same lines and the knuckle bow has been removed. the blade is dated 1749 from the provence of Avadh. there are similarities in the form of the hilts and the style of the quillions.
i wish i could add more but i think all i have offered is a padded out 'nice sword' reply.

B.I · 20th February 2005, 12:54 PM

hi rick,
another thing, i cant see the duck emblem on the tipu helmet in elgoods book, no matter how hard i look. all i can see is a symetrical representation of the bubri stripes, back to back and terminating in a chsselled tiger head. i'm not saying its not there, its just i cant see what you see.

tom hyle · 20th February 2005, 02:11 PM

BI, that pic stirs something; I've seen this hilt style made of stone somewhere.....

Jens Nordlunde · 20th February 2005, 03:48 PM

B.I.
To be more precice, the picture you have attached is from the exhibition Splendeur des Armes Orientales, and can be seen in the catalogue of the same name. The text reads: The hilt Deccani, Mahratta(?), probably late 17th century.

What Tom writes about the hilts is new to me too – interesting, we live to learn.
Tom maybe the stone hilt you are thinking of is #167 in the above-mentioned catalogue.
In the catalogue ‘Persian and Indo-Persian Arms and Armour of 16th – 19th Century from Polish Collections’, is shown a shamshir with a hilt of the same type. The text reads: Indo-Persian sabre 18th – 19th century.

Rsword, you really have a very nice sword, and I understand if you are proud of it. Just like B.I., I too have a weakness for this kind of Indian watering which shows very well.
I have a chevron blade where the light parts have the same watering – typical Indian. The hilt is, like B.I. writes, influenced from different cultures, and the koftgari very nice and remarkably intact.

B.I · 20th February 2005, 04:09 PM

almost jens, it is the same sword but i took the image from david alexanders catalogue of the khalili collection (who bought the sword after the parisian exhibition). i mention this because he doesnt mention a possible maharatha connection, which i agree is a little spurious. both this hilt and ricks share the same persian influence, which i dont think effected the maharathan culture. the murals that prevailed throughout their dominance in the region, and the distinctive style of basket hilt have always hinted at a purer hindu heritage in art style, as apposed the the mughal influence and a persian heritage. i think ricketts saw the quillions which hint at a deccani style, but i think the persionised pommel cap hint at heavily influenced style, inherant in more mughal pieces. also, the deccan sultanate took its influences from a persian culture which wasnt maharathan at all. only an opinion and still desperately trying to add to my 'nice sword rick' contribution

yes, jens. lets hope the rest of the commercial world doesnt catch up with our passion for this style of watering. i'm quite happy with indian watering being overshadowed by the more sought after persian style. it makes it still affordable...almost.

20th February 2005, 11:17 AM	#3
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hey rick, sorry for the late reply but i am struggling to add to what you already know. i think you've done a great job in answering your own questions and i'm pouring through resources in the hope to add something and failing miserably. firstly, its a fabulous piece. there is something in indian 'open' watering that seems to have been overlooked by the more commercial persian contingent until relatively recently. personally, i much prefer indian watering and an example like yours is a pattern you can really get lost in. the bulbous grip is heavily persian influenced, as is the pommel style. both these features were inherant in north indian pieces, and yet the extreme 'fleur de lys' quillions reek of the south, where the persian influence was less strong. an enigma. i dont have a problem with the quiilion inserts but am confused at the clumsiness. if you hadnt offered an exact example in buttin, i would have doubted the originality (especially with the north'south enigma). i have seem clumsy inserts, but the nature of an indian hilt is in its asthetics and 'flowing form' which seems missing or overlooked here. the koftgari is of a specific style ond of good quality and i'm sure its style will be seen again in another piece. this may offer more information, but wont help with the location of the piece as the applied decoration was rarely done at the same place as the hilt manafucture and 'raw' hilts travelled well. i think the main clue is the 'duck' finial. its a common form, so common i couldnt find a single example in my resources . i know its remeniscent of 17thC deccan, although the 'plainer' form went into the 19thC. i think this form will appear on a ewer handle or something similar. the pic i've attached is from the khalili collection, and was exhibited in paris '88. the pommel form is along the same lines and the knuckle bow has been removed. the blade is dated 1749 from the provence of Avadh. there are similarities in the form of the hilts and the style of the quillions. i wish i could add more but i think all i have offered is a padded out 'nice sword' reply. Attached Images

19th February 2005, 05:38 PM	#1
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Thanks Tom for the description, I am lost without pictures. If you ever take one of these apart again please take some pictures. Actually, you are a fairly adept artist perhaps a drawing. I personally am way to chicken to ever attempt this myself. I have been under the impresssion that the quillion and hilt are a single piece as I have never seen a junction. I will look closer. This still makes it hard to explain the quillion guard junction on Rick's two examples. All the best Jeff

20th February 2005, 12:58 AM	#2
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,084	Jeff A mystery is fun and I hope more examples will come to light from our collective resources. It is interesting in that the examples that we have found thusfar really do not have a solid identifier but rather very loose descriptions. I am hoping the koftgari provides some insight as well. It is very nicely executed and the decoration is much smaller than I have found on other gold hilts. Hopefully, our Indian contention will join in with some thoughts.

20th February 2005, 12:54 PM	#4
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi rick, another thing, i cant see the duck emblem on the tipu helmet in elgoods book, no matter how hard i look. all i can see is a symetrical representation of the bubri stripes, back to back and terminating in a chsselled tiger head. i'm not saying its not there, its just i cant see what you see.

20th February 2005, 02:11 PM	#5
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	BI, that pic stirs something; I've seen this hilt style made of stone somewhere.....

20th February 2005, 03:48 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	B.I. To be more precice, the picture you have attached is from the exhibition Splendeur des Armes Orientales, and can be seen in the catalogue of the same name. The text reads: The hilt Deccani, Mahratta(?), probably late 17th century. What Tom writes about the hilts is new to me too – interesting, we live to learn. Tom maybe the stone hilt you are thinking of is #167 in the above-mentioned catalogue. In the catalogue ‘Persian and Indo-Persian Arms and Armour of 16th – 19th Century from Polish Collections’, is shown a shamshir with a hilt of the same type. The text reads: Indo-Persian sabre 18th – 19th century. Rsword, you really have a very nice sword, and I understand if you are proud of it. Just like B.I., I too have a weakness for this kind of Indian watering which shows very well. I have a chevron blade where the light parts have the same watering – typical Indian. The hilt is, like B.I. writes, influenced from different cultures, and the koftgari very nice and remarkably intact.

20th February 2005, 04:09 PM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	almost jens, it is the same sword but i took the image from david alexanders catalogue of the khalili collection (who bought the sword after the parisian exhibition). i mention this because he doesnt mention a possible maharatha connection, which i agree is a little spurious. both this hilt and ricks share the same persian influence, which i dont think effected the maharathan culture. the murals that prevailed throughout their dominance in the region, and the distinctive style of basket hilt have always hinted at a purer hindu heritage in art style, as apposed the the mughal influence and a persian heritage. i think ricketts saw the quillions which hint at a deccani style, but i think the persionised pommel cap hint at heavily influenced style, inherant in more mughal pieces. also, the deccan sultanate took its influences from a persian culture which wasnt maharathan at all. only an opinion and still desperately trying to add to my 'nice sword rick' contribution yes, jens. lets hope the rest of the commercial world doesnt catch up with our passion for this style of watering. i'm quite happy with indian watering being overshadowed by the more sought after persian style. it makes it still affordable...almost.