Kubur,
Thank you for the kind words, and well placed on the book by Dima, who is a very close friend of mine for years now, I am proud to say. I knew when he was writing the book, and had the opportunity to help with some of the material used. His book is EXCELLENT! and cannot be mentioned in the same context as Tirri's, which is a different story, a different kind of book.
Please understand, and I must reiterate, I do not doubt the scabbard is 19th c. nor the hilt, most likely the hilt is newer and is unusual in the type of piercings, the narrow set of the quillons, etc. The blade is certainly 19th c. as well and as noted probably Rajasthani...........the 'sickle' marks are of unusual nature and seem later, perhaps early 20th.
I will have to get my copy of the book, not at hand at the moment.
Please erase the word 'modern' from my comments as it is the source of too much consternation. The sword is late 19th into early 20th, with a older scabbard, and the blade N. Indian mid 19th.
These paluoars were no longer heavily used by the 1880s, except in remote tribal environs. The inscription on the blade suggests a genuinely tribal context, and may well have been a diplomatic presentation as often the case with traditional ethnic forms.
Regarding again the book, of course there will always be disagreements, it is inevitable, but as far as I'm concerned, I admire anyone having the courage to publish......there will always be critics. As I was once told by a well known author, "...just write Jim, tell the people what they need to know...and dont worry about the critics...most of them never lift a pencil.....just write!".
|