How old is the Kora, and from where does it origin?

[Gonzalo G]

Thank YOU, Norman, for sharing your pieces and for your interesting points of view.

Berk, very good material! I am always in a need of documental sources. Yes, I know there are some kora scabbards, but my point is if the kora was carried into battle with its scabbard or on the hands of the gorkha. I recall to have read somewere that koras were carried on hand into battle, but I have to check this source, and anyway I have not any certainty about the scientific grounds on which this statement was made. Anyway, these scabbards were in fact scabbards to carry the kora into battle, or only a kind of storage cases? Did this scabbards belong to sacrificial or to fighting koras? Or to both? There are precedents of swords carried into battle on hand, and I ignore if there are sources clearing this point.

Dennee, nobody attributed the koras to the Tibet, but to what it seems the tibetan group which invaded Nepal from a migration originated maybe in Central or East Asia, and I mean the gorkhas. I know this is an uncharted teritory. The gap in the occidental documental sources you mentioned before is a proof that there is much to discover about this migrations and about the koras. For this reason, we can only hypothetize based in the information available. The fact is that the kora is intimately associated to the gorkha and, who they were? Where did this group originated? Did they carried the kora at their arrival to Nepal? I am afraid that we do not have definitive answers based on ultimate scientific evidence. Intercourses among India, Nepal and the Tibet are a fact. But I wonder if the fact that the kora are used in chamanic rites, and this photos you provided are a proof of it, no matter there are no books in the occident dedicated to this subject, is a cricunstantial proof that the kora was in fact an old tibetan (in the ethnic, not the geographical sense) weapon. You know, those people taked very seriously their rites, and there are many precedents of very old and otherwise obsolete weapons from some ethnic gropus, only kept by the chamans or priests to be used on their rites. I think I recall bronze weapons used by roman and egiptian priests (and I believe judean also), in their ritual sacrifices, when iron or steel weapons already have been substituted the bronze ones. Even used flint knives instead, in other ethnic groups.

We need first hand good sources from many countries, since the languaje is a barrier and there are not many nations represented here. And also, we need some well based knowledge on the archaeology and history on many areas not well known for the occidental scientific. For example, I have given sources to proof that not only europeans did in fact forged wootz, but also that in Spain wootz was imported and forged well into mid 19th Century, and my source was unknown only because it came from books written by spanish specialist in castilian languaje and published in 1850. So, there is a problem, and a big one, of lack of information, or from lack of information from available sources in an available languaje for the reader. This absence is not proof of any argument, but of the fact that we don´t have information. The important thing is to have a scientific attitude, recognizing what is a fact based on proof, and what is a probability based on reason, circunstantial facts, logic and so on, and finally, what is only speculation originated in cultural, phsycological, ideological or personal bias or interests. And when only testimonies are given as proof, keeping a healthy skepticism, since even actual archaeologic discoveries have given proof that the classic graeco-roman historians lied many times, were wrong or imprecise, based on the same bias or interests.
Regards

Gonzalo

[sirupate]

Dennee, many thanks for posting the pictures of the khuda, and for your explanation, they are certainley in the style of fighting khuda rather than sacrificial. They may well have got there not only through war, but through cultural exchange, which happened from time to time between Tibet and Nepal.

[dennee]

Gonzalo, I appreciate your statement that the absence of proof is not in itself evidence, but you don't seem convinced of it.

Unless I misread the above, there was reference to a "Tibetan" type of khuda. This may be a term of convenience, but I don't yet see a foundation for such an attribution or origin. I'd suggest then that until we have the evidence, we refrain from the attribution.

True, while most of the books I have read were in English and written by westerners, not all are. And I don't know that I have seen in LaRocca's glossary, compiled from Tibetan-language sources, a description of a weapon that would neatly fit this, other than 'curved sword' generally (I'll double-check). Nonetheless, the writers were describing the weapons they actually saw. I have also been in a number of monasteries and temples in Tibet and have seen photos of others and did not see khuda even in collections (although there are certainly some there) or in wall paintings (something that I tend to study for weapons when I come across them in books or in the field). But I promise to look more carefully in the future.

In Tibetan iconography, you generally see archaic Indian weapons, as India was the source of Buddhism and a source of Buddhist teachers, and the artistic conventions are generally passed down and thus conservative. The appearance of now exotic and archaic weapons is undoubtedly part of the appeal of retaining such conventions, as the weapons are suitably otherworldly to be borne by a supernatural being. I think that that may be the appeal of the khuda here (but remember, these examples, which may be as few in number as three, were found at a single monastery in the south).

Archaeology in Tibet is still in its infancy, and is mostly now concentrating on the prehistoric era, so the lack of that sort of evidence is expected and far from conclusive, but in celebrated sites such as at Guge, seventeenth-century Indian weapons were found, but I don't recall seeing anything in the reports resembling a khuda.

Another problem is that very few Tibetans retain historical knowledge of traditional weapons, despite them being used as recently as a half century ago against the Red Army.

I don't pretend to know much about the Gorkhas, but they are traditionally considered to have originated in a Rajput clan that migrated into Nepal and no doubt represent a mixing of indigenous and outside peoples. If you have a new theory, I'm certainly not the one to dispute it.

And there are certainly Tibetans in Nepal, most notably the Sherpas and the people of Mustang or Lo Monthang in the west. They are generally considered to have come from the north and live in the north of Nepal.

I for one will consider the khuda to have originated in the south, given that it is prevalent in Nepal and northern India, until I see evidence to the contrary.

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by dennee

Unless I misread the above, there was reference to a "Tibetan" type of khuda. This may be a term of convenience, but I don't yet see a foundation for such an attribution or origin. I'd suggest then that until we have the evidence, we refrain from the attribution.
I don't pretend to know much about the Gorkhas, but they are traditionally considered to have originated in a Rajput clan that migrated into Nepal and no doubt represent a mixing of indigenous and outside peoples. If you have a new theory, I'm certainly not the one to dispute it.

And there are certainly Tibetans in Nepal, most notably the Sherpas and the people of Mustang or Lo Monthang in the west. They are generally considered to have come from the north and live in the north of Nepal.

I for one will consider the khuda to have originated in the south, given that it is prevalent in Nepal and northern India, until I see evidence to the contrary.

My attribution in fact is not so. I only present alternatives, based on the fact that we don´t have secure knowledge about most of this subject. I cannot make definitive statements about a matter over which not even the occidental specialists in ethnology, archaeology and history have not definitive answer, as far as I know. And I don´t pretend to have better knowledge about it. When I writte about a tibetan group, I mean the migration of the tibetan branch of the mongolic race which invaded Tibet and part of Nepal, and not to a latter migration from the Tibet. At least, this how it is described in my History of Central Asia. I can give bibliographical references about it. Those mongolic groups were not there, in Tibet and Nepal, in the more antique times, and this migration is documented. Maybe I am wrong about the gorkha, but I am talking not about the gorkha kingdom but about the gorkha ethnic group. Were they for sure rajputs? Or just considered so? I know there was an indian invassion into Nepal but, were they ethnically the ones considered as gorkha? Is there a definitive proof of this? I know the gorkha proclaimed themselves as descendants from the warrior-saint from which they took their name and from a rajput clan, but are we sure if this legend was not adopted by reasons of prestige and that in fact the gorkha population had not many mongolic elements with their own traditions? Then again, maybe I am wrong, but I understood that the indian ethnic group, which is not mongolic, came from that rajput invassion or migration into Nepal, but I cannot believe that they alone (this indian element) created the gorkha state from a confederation of smaller atates and latter unfied Nepal. Did the higher castes were integrated by this indian element alone? Or were the amalgamation of diverse ethnic groups? Some people states that gorkha were a nation from which a place took its name, and not otherwise, but then, wouldn´t it be the indian element the superior caste from which the mongolic groups would be excluded, or occupied inferior levels? Do we have definitive answers to this questions?

Otherwise, the kora could be originated as an indian weapon, and so the khukri. Maybe the indian element had a high level of prestige as carriers of a much advanced culture, and in fact those weapons developed in Nepal were originally carried by this ethnic element. I think that the fact the koras have been obsolete for many years does not make proof that they were not used in other times by the superior castes of all Nepal. I already had given some resons why they don´t appear in the villages and are not used anymore. Of course, it is only a conjeture and latter proofs can demostrate otherwise. But I think this actual absence is not enough proof to minimize or discard it as a nepali weapon.

My argument goes in the sense of questioning conjetures and hypothesis (and speculations) which had became official truth, and in the same way I answer to Simon: does the fact that Lord Egerton of Tatton DID travel to India (and I don´t), gives him better argument to state that this weapons are descent from the greek ones carried by Alexander the Great? I mean, of course this travels gives a great advantage about the weapons actually seen, and from the testimonies actually taken in those places. But testimonies have a relative value unless conffirmed in material evidence. Local historians could be biased or be less than competent in some areas of knowledge, specially when traditional historian are more interested in the great heros, leaders and kings, and in in great battles and gestures. Not many of them actually master the knowledge of the weapons used in those events. And sometimes, when they come to this point, they are vague and imprecise, as Polibius writting about the spanish gladius. I mentioned elsewere a study in which an actual historian demonstrate that the use of specific terms by the ancient classic historians to denominate certain greek weapons (kopis, machaira), in fact are terms referred to different weapons, and so the terms are very imprecise. Languaje complicate this problems. A saif, a kiliç and a shamshir means only ´swords´ in their original languajes, and not the taxonomic elements we have always understood by. Interpretations by occidental specialist complicates furthermore the situation. That is why I see the need to question what it has not to my eyes, enough scientific grounds.
Regards

Gonzalo

[fearn]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

Dennee, nobody attributed the koras to the Tibet, but to what it seems the tibetan group which invaded Nepal from a migration originated maybe in Central or East Asia, and I mean the gorkhas. I know this is an uncharted teritory. The gap in the occidental documental sources you mentioned before is a proof that there is much to discover about this migrations and about the koras. For this reason, we can only hypothetize based in the information available. The fact is that the kora is intimately associated to the gorkha and, who they were? Where did this group originated? Did they carried the kora at their arrival to Nepal?

Hi Gonzalo,

I was recently re-reading Egerton's Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour and he made an interesting distinction. He attributed the kukri to the Gorkhas, and the kora to the "Nepali people." It's an interesting book, and while he's far from a perfect source, he was writing during the colonial time, when the Brits were dealing with the various tribes and kingdoms of India and the Himalayas.

My question is, does this remark make sense? I know that Nepal is a multi-ethnic kingdom, but I'm still not sure whether it's as strongly tied to the Gorkhas as you state. Is that just my confusion?

Best,

F

[sirupate]

I was recently re-reading Egerton's Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour and he made an interesting distinction. He attributed the kukri to the Gorkhas, and the kora to the "Nepali people." It's an interesting book, and while he's far from a perfect source, he was writing during the colonial time, when the Brits were dealing with the various tribes and kingdoms of India and the Himalayas.

Some intersting points there Fearn,

The main problem with Egerton's work is that he never visited Nepal, so information was at least third hand. The term Gorkhas is actualy quite a complicted one, and more to do with Rajput terminology, cerainley most Parbatiyas and definately the Kiranti would not consider themselves 'Gorkha', except in an employed military sense. However the kukri was universal in Nepal. The khunda is not universal in Nepal, and is infact comparitively rare, it is not commonly found in the villages of Nepal (so not a Nepali people weapon), remembering that Gorkha itself was only a village in reality!
I hope that helps a little, cheers Simon

[sirupate]

Hello Dennee,

Crossed posts!

I don't pretend to know much about the Gorkhas, but they are traditionally considered to have originated in a Rajput clan that migrated into Nepal and no doubt represent a mixing of indigenous and outside peoples. If you have a new theory, I'm certainly not the one to dispute it.

Quite correct about the Rajput clan IMHO

And there are certainly Tibetans in Nepal, most notably the Sherpas and the people of Mustang or Lo Monthang in the west. They are generally considered to have come from the north and live in the north of Nepal.

Tibetans are all over Nepal these days, and have an amazing ability to locate you when your trekking in some distant mountain to sell you their goods!!

I for one will consider the khuda to have originated in the south, given that it is prevalent in Nepal and northern India, until I see evidence to the contrary

The khuda is not particularly prevalent in Nepal, but I agree it comes from the south, south of Nepal IMHO

[dennee]

Good, point, sirupate. Since the occupation of Tibet by Chinese troops, many Tibetans fled to Nepal. Before the twentieth century, Tibetan peoples were more concentrated in the north.

I didn't get into this discussion because of a special interest in khuda, but because of the characterization of a type of khuda as Tibetan. I'd sure like to know all about Tibetan weapons, so if the khuda is Tibetan or there is a Tibetan offshoot, I'd like to know. Hopefully, more information is forthcoming from our membership (and I'd like to hear discussion about the blade shapes in the photos), and I'm willing to keep my mind open enough to accept evidence that contradicts what I currently think. But the few examples I see in photos from the 1940s are not much more compelling as evidence of a Tibetan origin than is the fact that I have one hanging on my wall evidence of an eastern U.S. origin.

It is a general characteristic of traditional Tibetan blades longer than several inches that they are constructed of laminated steel. If we found khuda of laminated steel, for instance (as there are kukhri blades of laminated steel), we might have something as to the origin of the blade steel at least, if not necessarily its shape and its use, as the ultimate shape of a blade can be determined by the end users.