Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Nihl · 10th November 2022, 03:40 AM

Oh my, this is quite a big topic. I certainly hope this thread doesn't spiral into too much of a heated debate, as most often happens when people bring up names and terminology here.

So, while I'll address your post more directly after this, your *general* issue here is the result of two things:
1. India has a unique martial culture, not seen much anywhere else in the world.
2. Colonialism.
To elaborate:

1. India is a entire subcontinent, and as such is so diverse it inherently resists rigid categorization. This is to say that, no real method of naming things will really apply to the entire subcontinent, as there will always be exceptions one can find. This is why there are many contradictions in Indian arms naming conventions, as you pointed out. This diversity is not only linguistic, but also material, which gets into the "unique martial culture" bit from above. In short, arms production in India, given that it was an entire diverse subcontinent, was never standardized. This is the reason why there is so much variation in forms and blade-hilt combinations. Certain state/royalty-funded workshops existed, certainly, but narrowing down such things is still something being researched, and nothing can be said definitively in terms of regional styles quite yet. The point overall though is really that such a decentralized industry had no conventions from city-to-city or region-to-region in terms of what a sword had to "be" or look like, which is why very few Indian swords look identical to one another.

2. Basically, if you wanted a fair look at Indian arms naming and typologies, European (primarily British) colonialism messed the whole thing up. It - very brutally - ended centuries of arms producing traditions, and just as brutally scattered any attempts at preserving much of the art surrounding such production - including any possible naming or typological conventions that may or may not have been present in arms-producing centers. Many of the names we use today also come from colonial ethnographers who did little more than go up to people on the street and ask "Hey, what do you call this?", after which they promptly transliterated the response based on what they heard, with little care for native spelling or dialectical variation. They (old ethnographers) are the reason why we have odd terms like "tooroom" to refer to a hooded katar, or "congavellum" to refer to a type of machete sword in southwest India. In reality, in the modern day, it is near impossible to discern the linguistic validity of either of these terms, and many more like them that have stuck around to the modern day. Ethnographers also tended to just mash terms and objects together, which is why today we call older forms of khanda "patissa", when in reality current research indicates the term "pattisha" was historically used for a type of spear, not a sword.

Despite all this, some communities recently have been able to speak out and state their own native terminology. In Marathi, for example, the term Dhop is used to refer to a basket-hilted sword with a long, curving blade (usually used by cavalry). The term Dandpatta is preffered over just "Pata", as it is their term for the gauntlet sword. With the Sikhs, they insist on the term Goli(y)a (meaning something like "circle") to refer to swords with a shamshir-style blade but conventional tulwar hilts.

--Overall, if you take away anything from the above, just know that Indian terminology is very complex and overlapping due to historic decentralized production, mixed with centuries of colonialism.

NOW to get on to your actual post. I suppose it would be best to address everything in the order that you listed it:

1. I don't see an issue with these examples of "classic" tulwar, just know that all of your examples are from different regions and likely, technically, are not all the same type. One might be referred to as "punjabi-style" vs "delhi-style" for example.
2. Not to be insulting, but IMO this is a poor example of a golia. As stated earlier, golia is a punjabi sikh term, referring to a sword with a tulwar hilt and a deeply curving, shamshir-style blade. While your provided example does have a noticeable curve, I would say it straddles the line too much to definitively say it's a golia-style sword.
3. "Sirohi" is not an actual style of sword, classically speaking. It was a certain blade shape produced in the Rajasthani town of sirohi during the 19th century, but does not have any huge, historical precedence anywhere else in India. Sirohi-made swords had a positive reputation in 19th century India, and as such the place of origin stuck as a name for the most common blade shape they produced, but again, "sirhois" aren't an actual style of sword.
4. No issue, teghas r cool lol. Example D looks unusually short though.
5. While your top example works, the bottom one to me looks like a khyber knife-style blade that is just bent into a recurving shape. This, to me, makes it too idiosyncratic to really categorize.
6 - 8: All good

9: None of these are really examples of what is considered a patissa in modern collector parlance, sorry. Example A is an afghan pulwar hilt with a 19th century wootz khanda blade. B. looks to be a malabari brass or bronze reproduction of an earlier, mid-late medieval version of a khanda. C. is just an 18/19th century khanda. For an example of what is considered a patissa by modern collectors, see the link I attached earlier.
10. Yep, that is a very archetypical version of a firangi.
Q. 1: Sure! The term makes no such distinction inherently. If you want to make sure everyone knows that the tulwar you're referring to has a straight blade, just call it a straight-bladed tulwar!
Q. 2: Do you mean like the example of a firangi you posted, but with an indian-made blade and not a european one? Again, all fine! We currently know of no such terms to distinguish the two, and everyone just calls any indian sword they see with a european-style blade a firangi these days. That's not a very satisfying answer, but sadly such is the world of Indian arms classification.
Q. 3: Yep! All the term specifies is that the sword has a european-made blade, not specifically a straight one. Although again, as shown in my previous answer, the denotative and connotative uses of these terms quite vary.
Q. 4: I, personally, like to be as accurate as possible in my names, so I apologize for these not being very concise answers. 12: A cavalry sword (dhop) with a likely Tamil-made 18th century basket hilt and a 19th century slab-style native blade. 13: A tulwar with a 19th century Aurangzebi-type hilt and native blade (also 19c) with worn decoration.

10th November 2022, 03:40 AM	#6
Nihl Member Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 87	Oh my, this is quite a big topic. I certainly hope this thread doesn't spiral into too much of a heated debate, as most often happens when people bring up names and terminology here. So, while I'll address your post more directly after this, your general issue here is the result of two things: 1. India has a unique martial culture, not seen much anywhere else in the world. 2. Colonialism. To elaborate: 1. India is a entire subcontinent, and as such is so diverse it inherently resists rigid categorization. This is to say that, no real method of naming things will really apply to the entire subcontinent, as there will always be exceptions one can find. This is why there are many contradictions in Indian arms naming conventions, as you pointed out. This diversity is not only linguistic, but also material, which gets into the "unique martial culture" bit from above. In short, arms production in India, given that it was an entire diverse subcontinent, was never standardized. This is the reason why there is so much variation in forms and blade-hilt combinations. Certain state/royalty-funded workshops existed, certainly, but narrowing down such things is still something being researched, and nothing can be said definitively in terms of regional styles quite yet. The point overall though is really that such a decentralized industry had no conventions from city-to-city or region-to-region in terms of what a sword had to "be" or look like, which is why very few Indian swords look identical to one another. 2. Basically, if you wanted a fair look at Indian arms naming and typologies, European (primarily British) colonialism messed the whole thing up. It - very brutally - ended centuries of arms producing traditions, and just as brutally scattered any attempts at preserving much of the art surrounding such production - including any possible naming or typological conventions that may or may not have been present in arms-producing centers. Many of the names we use today also come from colonial ethnographers who did little more than go up to people on the street and ask "Hey, what do you call this?", after which they promptly transliterated the response based on what they heard, with little care for native spelling or dialectical variation. They (old ethnographers) are the reason why we have odd terms like "tooroom" to refer to a hooded katar, or "congavellum" to refer to a type of machete sword in southwest India. In reality, in the modern day, it is near impossible to discern the linguistic validity of either of these terms, and many more like them that have stuck around to the modern day. Ethnographers also tended to just mash terms and objects together, which is why today we call older forms of khanda "patissa", when in reality current research indicates the term "pattisha" was historically used for a type of spear, not a sword. Despite all this, some communities recently have been able to speak out and state their own native terminology. In Marathi, for example, the term Dhop is used to refer to a basket-hilted sword with a long, curving blade (usually used by cavalry). The term Dandpatta is preffered over just "Pata", as it is their term for the gauntlet sword. With the Sikhs, they insist on the term Goli(y)a (meaning something like "circle") to refer to swords with a shamshir-style blade but conventional tulwar hilts. --Overall, if you take away anything from the above, just know that Indian terminology is very complex and overlapping due to historic decentralized production, mixed with centuries of colonialism. NOW to get on to your actual post. I suppose it would be best to address everything in the order that you listed it: 1. I don't see an issue with these examples of "classic" tulwar, just know that all of your examples are from different regions and likely, technically, are not all the same type. One might be referred to as "punjabi-style" vs "delhi-style" for example. 2. Not to be insulting, but IMO this is a poor example of a golia. As stated earlier, golia is a punjabi sikh term, referring to a sword with a tulwar hilt and a deeply curving, shamshir-style blade. While your provided example does have a noticeable curve, I would say it straddles the line too much to definitively say it's a golia-style sword. 3. "Sirohi" is not an actual style of sword, classically speaking. It was a certain blade shape produced in the Rajasthani town of sirohi during the 19th century, but does not have any huge, historical precedence anywhere else in India. Sirohi-made swords had a positive reputation in 19th century India, and as such the place of origin stuck as a name for the most common blade shape they produced, but again, "sirhois" aren't an actual style of sword. 4. No issue, teghas r cool lol. Example D looks unusually short though. 5. While your top example works, the bottom one to me looks like a khyber knife-style blade that is just bent into a recurving shape. This, to me, makes it too idiosyncratic to really categorize. 6 - 8: All good 9: None of these are really examples of what is considered a patissa in modern collector parlance, sorry. Example A is an afghan pulwar hilt with a 19th century wootz khanda blade. B. looks to be a malabari brass or bronze reproduction of an earlier, mid-late medieval version of a khanda. C. is just an 18/19th century khanda. For an example of what is considered a patissa by modern collectors, see the link I attached earlier. 10. Yep, that is a very archetypical version of a firangi. Q. 1: Sure! The term makes no such distinction inherently. If you want to make sure everyone knows that the tulwar you're referring to has a straight blade, just call it a straight-bladed tulwar! Q. 2: Do you mean like the example of a firangi you posted, but with an indian-made blade and not a european one? Again, all fine! We currently know of no such terms to distinguish the two, and everyone just calls any indian sword they see with a european-style blade a firangi these days. That's not a very satisfying answer, but sadly such is the world of Indian arms classification. Q. 3: Yep! All the term specifies is that the sword has a european-made blade, not specifically a straight one. Although again, as shown in my previous answer, the denotative and connotative uses of these terms quite vary. Q. 4: I, personally, like to be as accurate as possible in my names, so I apologize for these not being very concise answers. 12: A cavalry sword (dhop) with a likely Tamil-made 18th century basket hilt and a 19th century slab-style native blade. 13: A tulwar with a 19th century Aurangzebi-type hilt and native blade (also 19c) with worn decoration.