Ancient, armed Indian from Kabul

[Jens Nordlunde]

In a reprint from ‘Musée de Tzarskoe-Selo ou Collection d’Armes’, 1835-1853, plate 54, I have found the picture below. The text under the plate is short: ‘Ancient armed Indian from Kabul’.
Notice especially the sword.

[Rick]

Hi Jens , He is described as an Indian rather than an Afghan . Was Afghanistan ever conquered and occupied by India ?
My history is weak on this subject .

I'm having some trouble equating the Katar with Afghan martial culture , but again I am admittedly a novice in this subject . The round pommelled sword is interesting and resembles those of Bokhara . I know the date is mentioned , but what century would you guess the actual subject to be from ?

[Aqtai]

Afghanistan was never part of India, but Babur, the first Mughul Padishah of India originally ruled a small state in Afghanistan. Futhermore, going back further I think the Ghurid Sultans of Delhi originally came from Afghanistan as well. Of course many Afghans also served as soldiers in the Mughul army.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Rick,

Don’t let the katar bother you, the history is a bit defuse here, but I would say yes, the Indians, from ancient time, ruled over, at least, a big part of Afghanistan, or maybe you could say that they had a very heavy influence over a big part of the country. Had it not been like this, you would not find Afghan governors in places like Sind and even in Bengal, which is a very long way from ‘home’ for the Afghans.

True the katar is not normally a weapon you would expect to find in Afghanistan, but the text says that it is an Indian, so the rulers of India at the time could/would, most likely, have had one or more Indian garrison in Afghanistan, most likely in Kabul and Kandahar, to make sure the Afghans would not do anything the ruler would not like – or what is just as likely, to keep the Persians, and other ‘friendly’ neighbours at bay.

The ‘catalogue’ does not say anything about the age, and when they reprinted it, they photographed the whole thing down, so the text is rather small. One other thing you must keep in mind is, that old catalogues mostly lack a lot of information, and even some of the information they do give, must be taken with half a handful of salt. When it comes to the age I would not like to guess – but maybe someone else will.

The sword and scabbard are strange, if it is an Indian soldier showed, but I think that so much to the north you would be able to find many different kind of mixtures of weapons.

Hi Aqtai,

The Indian rulers were smart, they had different armies, which were used according to whom they were fighting at the moment, like a Muslim army would not be the best against the Persian king as they regarded him as their spiritual leader, so here they might use a Hindu army, and so on.

[Rick]

Many thanks to both of you for the information .

[RSWORD]

What strikes me about the sword depicted is that it looks a lot like a Dha. The shape of the scabbard, the ball pommel and the grip structure and it is too bad his hand covers the guard to see how the hilt butts against the scabbard but it certainly seems non-Indian, Afghan or even Central Asian for that matter in style but more closely a Dha.

[Radu Transylvanicus]

At any given point, no Afghanies were known to sport such martial attire, without doubt this is a depiction of a Hindustani warrior, likely Mughal or post-Mughal if I judge by simplistic eliminational logic, the undergarments seem rather Islamic or Eastearn Hindoo and then there is the jamdhar (kattar) which is quickly eclipsating the fact that he might be Persian and definatelly excludes the very tought of a local Afghani. Indeed Persian soldiers were very common in Afghanistan in 18th and 19th century fighting the locals in endless wars of conquest so the presence of such garments in Kabul is almost certain, however as "foreign" and not to be regarded as local. Equally, many Hindoo troops, from very early Timurid times all the way to the British Sikh regiments were deployed to the area, all the way to the last part of 19th century.
I believe this is just another one geo-historical error sprunged from the classical semi-docent thinking of Eurocolonial-Victorian views of the "fascinating Orient" , this is not a fashion victim, it is a victim of geographical misplacement ; we discussed similar in few other past threads like the paintings of Dutch masters and Indonesian weaponry like keris and tombak to give one example ...
Quick reminders that the artist is pushing his knowledge a bit are the presence of a nasal piece and a ostrich feather over a coif rather tha a khula-khoud and the mismatch of the char-aina plates of armour but on the other hand there is excelent detail on the bazou-band armguards and patterns present on the zirah on the chainmail shirt makes this piece of art a very desirable one...
I quickly reminded I have many similar mild erroneous drawings in my library and here is an example from the 1870 Parisian book of P. Lacombe entitled "Les Armes et les Armures" depicting a fierce display of Japanese battle dress and arms that might seem alright to the untrained eye perhaps with the gross exception of the Chinese falchion rather a "dao" than a katana and the other sword having rather Chinese features as well ...
However they were the "creme de la creme" then at the time and Tsarskoe Selo was, if not still is, the Tower of London of the Eastearn Europe, the conquerer and conquered Royal armouries...
Oh well, those were the times; " O, TEMPORA, O, MORES!"

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

The sword and scabbard are strange,

Not to my eye, Jens.

I think Rick's onto something. To my eye, that's a dha. Even without a complete view of it, it's apparant there is no cross-guard, or even a disc guard of any size. In fact, I think the subject's hand is covering the middle of a long handle's grip, and we're shown a flared ferrule below the hand, leading to the top of the scabbard which, itself, is clearly that of a dha. The squared tip and segmented appearance from the retaining bands are conspicuous.

Thanks for sharing this with us!

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Radu Transylvanicus

I believe this is just another one geo-historical error sprunged from the classical semi-docent thinking of Eurocolonial-Victorian views of the "fascinating Orient" , this is not a fashion victim, it is a victim of geographical misplacement ; we discussed similar in few other past threads like the paintings of Dutch masters and Indonesian weaponry like keris and tombak to give one example ...

I agree completely, Radu. The perspective of the "Orientalist" artists can be as frustrating as it is edifying.

[Mark]

No doubt a dha. The only reason that I can think of to explain this warrior carrying a dha is that it was acquired during the frequent conflicts between the Moguls and Burma and/or Arrakan in the Bengal and Bihar regions.

It is probably more likely, however, that the artist had a barrel of "oriental" swords in his studio to use as models, and he picked the wrong one. One I remember from art history class is David's "Oath of the Horatii" (1784), a semi-mythical event in Roman history. Detail below:

[B.I]

hi,
i think we ought to remember the date of the image in order to reason the description/ensemble. the Musée de Tzarskoe-Selo ou Collection d’Armes was started in 1835, which means its one of the first 'books' on oriental arms. meyricks study, which opened the doors of academia and studied thought on arms was written in 1854. egertons tremendous study, which was the basis of all other studies on indian arms was written in 1880. so, in the 1830's, there was very little written records to fall back on, except provenance and eye witness accounts.
the tzarskoe selo catalogue was a first of the time, and it was a collection being compiled from previous holdings, as well as new aquisitions.
all this means that the descriptions could be wrong, or at least assumed wrongly at the time. the artist was of a high standard, and illustrated individual pieces well, but his 'artistic licence' was a little astray when grouping arms onto a costumed figure.
mark mentioned the artist studio, which was often the case in 'orientalist' images. however, this was a catalogue and so each piece actually existed in the collection, but obviously not all from the same source, as hinted in the image.
the sword looks very dha-like and am happy to agree with the dha experts, who we can all assume will recognise one of their own instantly.
if there were no records with the dha in question, there is no reason why an artist with no knowledge of arms would not throw it on an armed indian figure for dramatic effect. i've attached another image which shows the same careless abandon (look at the helmet!)
the arms in jens' image are all indian, and kabul was indeed a staging point and a place of importance in moghul history. but, thats about as accurate as it gets.
i believe the chainmail shirt is 'modern' at the time of the illustration, or at least not that old. this pattern and style was a 19thC concoction, although the use of patterned brass/copper butted links goes back to the late 18thC. the pattern indicates a lahore origin. the 1851 exhibition at crystal palace displayed shirts of this kind. although the displays showed both collections and artistic crafts made for sale, the catalogue of the time and the few surviving images (see attached) show the pieces by their location, and the industrial arts of both lahore and sailkot were well displayed. egerton shows this pattern on helmets bought at the exhibition, and the V&A hold other pieces bought at the time.
similar dispays were held in paris a decade later and both these exhibitions were a good benchmark for the arts of the time. also, decosson illustrates a zirah of the same style in 1881 (see attached image) which he describes as modern sikh work. his was a good study, with som einnacuracies but i'm sure he wouldnt state 'modern' unless he had good reason to do so.
the artist also shows both a zirah and a khud worn together. i can assume this was done as the mail decorations were similar (or the same) and he thought they went together.
also, does anyone have any thoughts on the lance. the piece does not look eastern (oriental) to me at all. the grip/lance shoe shows a european style. i know that this style didnt exist in india, but am guessing it doesnt follow with rest of the east. anyone?

[Aqtai]

Lord Egerton of Tatton's 'Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour' has a plate with a similar armour, also from the Zarkoe Selo collection. The mail camail in particular has a strong resemblance to the one above.

[Radu Transylvanicus]

B.I. quote: "also, does anyone have any thoughts on the lance. the piece does not look eastern (oriental) to me at all. the grip/lance shoe shows a european style. i know that this style didnt exist in india, but am guessing it doesnt follow with rest of the east. anyone?"

There are planty of bi-headed lances in the Indian history, it was mostly the Mughals influenced by their Timurid origins that head two heads while Hindus preffered a simple stopping ball if anything at the lesser end of their traditional lances. Also the hair tuft is likely an evolution from the Timurid-Mongol proto-tugra of the stepe warriors that were part of the nobility ancestry. Also the Naga had large spears with hair tufts but shaped differently and I would say have no connection to here,
Places to see such spears are the Mughal miniatures, I am looking over a reprint of Babur-Nama manuscript drawing from 1597 of the Delhi Museum. If it wouldnt be for the exact tufts of hair (whom would hardly survive the passing of years anyhow) there are many Mughal lances like this one.
Lord Egerton's "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour" from where Agtai posted the previous gravure, has a denominational plate of many weapons at pages 22 & 23 where he introduces the double headed lance (spear) as named tschehouta.
In the minibooks from the Men-at-Arms series in the "Mughul India 1504-1761" plates B & C or even on the cover have examples of the Mughal cavalry carrying hair tufted lances. Horse tail tufts, died or not were popular ornamentsand readily available inthe horse culture.

[B.I]

it is not the head, nor the hair tufts that i have a problem with. it is the lance 'shoe' which gived the impression of a 'hilted' grip, which is not an indian design at all. this seems european, but am happy to hear any other theories.
i agree, the only true source to start with is miniatures or sculpture, and the miniatures i have seen show a spear (held in the middle), as apposed to a long lance. the lance butts of the south are well known in form, and depicted well in sculpture and images. also, the moghul style is the spear, with a similar 'ball and spike' shoe, or in some cases double ended. we can all agree the artist
is of merit, and so the depiction accurate. to my eye, the bottom of the spear could be carved wood and made to be held there. if there are 'many mughal lanced like this one', i'd appreciate a scan for i am not aware of them.
keen for more opinions and possible back up.

[Radu Transylvanicus]

B.I. the dilema is with the artist not with the spear itself. He (the artist) was not Indo-Persian or nor has he ever seen a live Mughal rider ever but he had likely seen many Cossack cavalrymen and their lances, its a Tsarskoe-Selo gravure not Mughal artistry (besides the lance I see much imperfections on the helmet, on the mirror armor plates and then there is the sword, which I wont even go there...) The drawing you reproduced from Lord Egerton is a perfect example of how a armorial depictions should be like, compared they are like like a race car in two different images: one drawing in action of a good street artist and one draft from the studio, made by an engineer.

[B.I]

i think you misunderstand my original enquiry. i was asking where people thought the lance came from. the lance is not a figment of the artists imagination, it exists in the collection, as do all the pieces illustrated in the catalogue.
if it is misrepresented in the image, it is down to the artist's lack of knowledge of arms. my question and enquiry still remains. does anyone think this could be oriental, and are familiar with this style of shoe butt on eastern weapons.

[Radu Transylvanicus]

It would be interesting to see if anyone has a Tsarskoe-Selo catalogue with photographs of such lance ? Or a second drawing of the same lance, perhaps ? If anyone probably Wolviex, Jens or Jim does ...

[Jim McDougall]

I have been reading this thread with great interest, and as always, Jens has posed a fascinating topic. There have been some great observations on this paradoxical figure, especially the incredibly astute observation by Rick that the sword carried is a dha, with compelling agreement by Andrew and Mark whose expertise on these is clear.

I think Brian's assessment of the figure as being composite depicting holdings within the Musee d' Tsarskoe-Selo is right on target. Although I don't have a copy of this catalog, I think it is available in reprint, and sounds like another item I would like to have a copy of. As Brian has well described, in the period when this work was compiled, there was very little material on arms and armour, especially oriental items, which were viewed primarily as exotic and interesting trophies or collectibles by Europeans.

While looking at the illustration, and overlooking the fact that we presume this is an artists impression of an 'armed Indian from Kabul' using components from a museum being worn grouped together, I felt compelled to determine how these incongruous items ended up worn by an Indian, and why he was in Kabul. In addition to the already well placed comments, just a few notes (keeping in mind the hypothetical perspective).

Afghanistan has always been largely divided, and very diverse ethnically. The eastern part of the country is primarily Pathan with that being the common thread that denominates the many independant and often at odds tribes.
The country has as been noted, been a suzerein of Persia mostly, while in the same manner annexed nominally by the Mughals. This included regions of now Pakistan, Baluchistan and Sind. The regions in Afghanistan were of mostly the three primary city states of Herat, Kandahar and Kabul. As has also been noted, while Afghans, especially the Pathans, could hardly be subdued, they would become mercenaries for the Mughals.

Concerning the costume, for which good comparisons have already been shown, I would like to note that H. Robinson ("Oriental Arms" p.101) there is a description of fabric armour from central India and Rajputana that seemed to derive from that of the steppes and Central Asia. Apparantly the quilted fabric included a hoodlike cap which was sometimes fitted with a metal nasal, and a long straight coat. This would seem a variation of this, with the char aina added. I believe that the ostrich feather was highly favored by Rajputs as a heraldic or regimental device as well.
On the lance, which seems the key item unresolved here, I can see what Brian is referring to on the shoe, which seems to have some resemblance to the carved wood and fluted styles seen on many early jousting type lances of Europe. The flattened and fluted orb style is however seen on a number of oriental lances as seen in Stone and it seems Mahratta type lances have similar elements, but this needs more research.

While I can agree that warriors of Pathan tribes would likely never have worn such costume, even as mercenaries for the Mughals, the Afghans to the west seem to have been more receptive to outside influences in arms and armour, much as they were in the latter 19th century. During the British Raj the Afghan army adopted many British styles including the Albert helmets and even wore a form of kilt in some units.

The dha? There I think we return to artistic license as I cannot imagine these finding use in these regions, even with the plausible suggestion by Mark of having come from earlier campaigns in Burma.

The period intended for the figure, probably latter 18th century.

Best regards,
Jim

[tom hyle]

I'm pretty sure the armour is patterned chainmail with plates, like what BI and Aqtai have shown us.

[Jim McDougall]

Its really hard to tell by the drawing as it appears to be fabric, however if chain mail it would even be more in line with the Rajput type described in Robinson (op.cit.) who describes the mail as being in diamond pattern with steel studs centre. The peaked flaps downward as seen in the Egerton example shown seem also to concur.
Best regards,
Jim

[B.I]

hi jim/tom,
jims assessment is eloguent, informative and annoyingly well-written, as ever :-)
its interesting that jim took the artists drawing to be possibly fabric armour and not chainmail. it could easily be, but i think that i would be more likely patterned chainmail, as tom agreed. the style of the shirt is well known, as they were late examples and many still exist in collections to compare with. also, the camail and the zirah are of a familiar pattern and if they were of fabric, they would be unusually rare (but again, possible).
i am away from my library, but does robinson state any more in his description. if not, i would assume the armour he is describing could be fabirc armour, and of the type known collogually as a shirt 'of a thousand nails'. this armour had a chequered pattern sewn into the quilted fabric and each chequer was centred with a brass stud. no chainmail though. the helmets (the one in powis is complete) was a steel bowl (khud) with fabric ear and neck sections, not a hood as you describe.
the fabric hood with a nasal bar seems more likely southern and possibly of the well known 'tipu' form, which exists in windsor, in a private london collection and in wiggingtons collection.
i'm glad you saw the point i was referring to on the lance. a silly enquiry, but it just didnt fit into the image (even an image wrongly assembled). maybe its form will jog someones memory as it would be a good discussion on its own.

i have just seen a copy of robinson, and the armour he describes is the 'wallace' type fabric armour, and not chainmail. he refers to a good example being the royal armouries suit, which has the 'hood' helmet.
i am trying to source images of the great exhibition, which i know must exist. there were a series of 'art portfolios' in the india museum, many of which illustrated arms collections of the 19thC. i am hoping they are now in the V&A and when found, i think they may yield some good starting points for comparative discussions.

[Aqtai]

I also feel that the armour is mail, not a quilted aketon. In the 18th century Indians and Iranians used mail that mixed brass and steel rings in order to create patterns.

I have a picture here of Indian armour from the Victoria and Albert Museum which includes patterned mail:

[B.I]

hi Aqtai,
the armour you show is a perfect example, and originates from lahore (according to their accession records, which also correspond in decoration with a similar piece in the royal armouries, which was brought back from lahore by Login).
jens illustration shows a slight variation in patterning, with the chequers pierced with dots, which are either brass as well, or copper giving a more attracting contrast.
a nice picture, by the way. where was it taken from?

[Aqtai]

The picture was scanned from a postcard I bought from the V&A in 1999 .

I've just had a look in G.C. Stone's 'Glossary of...". In India armour made of a mixture of mail and brass links was called Ganga Jamni. Stone also points out that armour of this type was invariably unrivetted, which reduces it's efficacy somewhat.

On the subject of Orientalist painting and drawing, many artists tended to mix together armour and clothing from different times and places for maximum visual impact. So the hypothesis that this is a composite figure based on several pieces in The Tzarcoe-Selo collection is probably true.

One of my favorite orientalist paintings is the 'Nubian Guard' by Ludwig Deutsch. This shows a Nubian standing outside what look the doors of the mosque of Sultan Barquq in Cairo. This 'Guard' is wearing a kulah khud, a mail shirt, a red 'abaya, and has a Caucasian khindjal and a pistol thrust through some kind of leather sash. To top it off he appears to be holding an Ottoman standard! The picture is beautiful, but obviously accuracy is not high on Deutsch's agenda, nor was on most Orientalist artists agendas, with the exceptions of David Roberts and Prisse D'Avennes.

[ariel]

Gentlemen,
I recently visited Leeds Royal Armoury and made quite a lot of pictures of their Oriental collection. I apologize for the quality, as I had to photograph through the glass ant the lights were very bad (perhaps, the real reason is my substandard ability).
Well, I photographed a dagger that may provide an answer to the current argument: an Indian (Rajastani) Dha

[Rick]

I photoshopped the overall view for better clarity .

[ariel]

Many thanks. I guess the pic of the scabbard is beyond repair but it gives the idea.

[Andrew]

Thanks for posting that, Ariel!

I think, however, that the museum's attribution is dubious. Given the provenance that apparantly came with the knife, one can hardly blame the museum, but I've never seen such a knife reliably attributed to India.

Ariel, is it double edged?

[B.I]

well spotted, ariel. it seems that i dont know the armouries anywhere as well as i thought, and that my trips there are spent looking in the wrong direction :-)
unfortunately i dont have a better image (or a worse one either) but it seems to give the original post a different outlook. maybe it was as first assumed, but your new evidence seems just as plausable. would the dha experts give their opinion. the armouries piece (i am assuming) is in no way typical of burma, just heavily influenced (? i'm guessing here). then, is the illustrated dha typical in form or possibly some sort of hybrid.
although relatively late in date, the great exhibition gave us a definate starting point in back-tracking. the only faults are assumption of course. the stands held collections as well as items for sale/examples of stock. if the description given at the time was on an older piece/antique, then this can only come under assumption of the knomledge known at the time. however, most of the pieces there were examples of stock and so we can normally bowl ahead.
attached is from the armouries and is an example of lahore armour. again, a description by a museum is in no way evidence, but these pieces were brought back by Login fron the sikh courts and so we can verify their origin, especially when compared with evidence from the great exhibition.

[B.I]

aqtai,
i just realised that the image you posted was the same as the one i just added. the V&A and armouries loan for special occasions, but other than that keep their collections seperate. mine was definately the armouries so am assuming that you may have made a mistake. either that, or your postcard showed a piece from the armouries, loaned for a special exhibition at the V&A.