XXL size

Ian · 13th April 2005, 08:23 PM

Hi Jens:

When looking at the statuary of Hindu gods, and perhaps some Buddhist works as well, it is common to see the forefinger and little finger raised, even when holding certain objects (as in this picture). I believe this representation has some religious significance. Similar hand postures are seen among traditional dancers in India, Thailand and elsewhere in SE Asia, where the third and fourth fingers are flexed towards the thumb, forming a C-shape, and the forefinger and little finger are extended. I don't know the name for this posture, but it seems to have been around for a long time and must have a particular significance.

Ian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

On the picture you can see how I think they held the swords with the small hilts. Part of the palm of the hand rested against the flat pommel. If this is so, when stabbing, it would almost be like stabbing with a katar - very powerfull. This kind of grip is of course impossible with a tulwar hilt.
The picture is a Kashmeri bronze. If I remember correctly it is ealier than 15th century.

Jens Nordlunde · 13th April 2005, 09:38 PM

Ian, you are right of course, but this does not change the size of the grip/hilt. I still think the flat pommel rested against the palm of the hand - just like Tom described it.
If the grip on the hilt was like this, the ' freedom' to move the sword in any direction would be the best possible, and I don't think the strokes would be less fatal.

BTW - calling Rivkin - HALLO, do you hear me?

Jens

Rivkin · 14th April 2005, 03:59 PM

I here ye, loud and clear

. I know nothing about indian swords, so I prefer to listen for now, however here is something related to the question - it's understandable why some of the grips are very small, but why there are some classes of swords where the hilt is actually quite comfortable for a big hand:

Hand and a half sword (It was not really designed to be a two handed sword, was not it ?)
Katanas (well, they are two handed, so it's quite ok to use one hand).
Kindjals (you can have a very comfortable kindjal, but shashkas usually do not have a large hilt).

Conogre · 17th April 2005, 07:05 AM

Good observation Ian and Tom......with many of my African pieces, Poto, just as one example, by holding the flared multi-disc hilts with the thumb and first two or three fingers and extending the pinky, Victorian tea cup fashion, I long ago found that I can get a very secure grip with a LOT of power behind it, plus it automatically tends the make the wrist extremely flexible, wheras it tends to stiffen automatically with a full fist grip.
Justin and I had EXACTLY that same discussion last week, with I the pinky flicker and he the gripper

This same grip works excedingly well with the curved kanjars and khoumiyas, with the curve pointing inward and the point facing backward for the "whirling dervish" (thanks Hal!) fluid style of middle eastern fighting.
When it comes to the actual size of native peoples, keep in mind that while Africa had the Pygmies, they also had the Watusi that regularly stood 7' tall (they did seem to be exceptionally fine boned as well though)...does anyone know or have examples of any Watusi weapons (and no basketball photos, either! **grin**)
Finally, when it comes to tribesman/weapons sizes and correlations, does that have any relevence in relation to the New Guinea gourds?

Mike

17th April 2005, 07:05 AM	#4
Conogre Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Clearwater, Florida Posts: 371	Good observation Ian and Tom......with many of my African pieces, Poto, just as one example, by holding the flared multi-disc hilts with the thumb and first two or three fingers and extending the pinky, Victorian tea cup fashion, I long ago found that I can get a very secure grip with a LOT of power behind it, plus it automatically tends the make the wrist extremely flexible, wheras it tends to stiffen automatically with a full fist grip. Justin and I had EXACTLY that same discussion last week, with I the pinky flicker and he the gripper This same grip works excedingly well with the curved kanjars and khoumiyas, with the curve pointing inward and the point facing backward for the "whirling dervish" (thanks Hal!) fluid style of middle eastern fighting. When it comes to the actual size of native peoples, keep in mind that while Africa had the Pygmies, they also had the Watusi that regularly stood 7' tall (they did seem to be exceptionally fine boned as well though)...does anyone know or have examples of any Watusi weapons (and no basketball photos, either! grin) Finally, when it comes to tribesman/weapons sizes and correlations, does that have any relevence in relation to the New Guinea gourds? Mike Last edited by Conogre; 17th April 2005 at 07:20 AM.

13th April 2005, 09:38 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Ian, you are right of course, but this does not change the size of the grip/hilt. I still think the flat pommel rested against the palm of the hand - just like Tom described it. If the grip on the hilt was like this, the ' freedom' to move the sword in any direction would be the best possible, and I don't think the strokes would be less fatal. BTW - calling Rivkin - HALLO, do you hear me? Jens

14th April 2005, 03:59 PM	#3
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I here ye, loud and clear . I know nothing about indian swords, so I prefer to listen for now, however here is something related to the question - it's understandable why some of the grips are very small, but why there are some classes of swords where the hilt is actually quite comfortable for a big hand: Hand and a half sword (It was not really designed to be a two handed sword, was not it ?) Katanas (well, they are two handed, so it's quite ok to use one hand). Kindjals (you can have a very comfortable kindjal, but shashkas usually do not have a large hilt).