Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihl
Just quoting this to emphasize it/because I agree with it so much. There truly are a fascinating amount of minute details that separate different regional styles, at least back in the day when they were actually produced solely in their native regions. I myself am very much a student to this subject, as much of a fools game as it might seem, as it becomes quite rewarding to be able to look at south indian objects and attribute them to somewhere outside of just "the deccan" and Thanjavur lol.
|
Nihl, we are all 'students' of this most intriguing field, and constantly learning. That is what is most important, as we share observations, notes, ideas and examples we all advance in the shared knowledge.
G.N.Pant in his notably useful book (1980) made a valiant effort in trying to classify hilts by regions and similar classifications. These were reasonably supported, however with the reality of the constant flux and diffusion of weapons the most important factor he did establish was establishing a certain semantics in noting particular styles and features. While not always exactly correct, these present an effective 'rule of thumb'.
To those of us deeply involved in seriously pursuing the continued study of these most fascinating and extremely esoteric weapons, it is most assuredly far from a fools game (though the 'name game' does get a bit pretentious).
Robert Elgood very much 'set the stage' for the current levels of understanding we now have , and the other serious scholars who have constantly kept the pace in kind have given us remarkable knowledge in the quest.
It is true, the effort to use distinct and concise classification to Indian weapons is pretty difficult to achieve in many (often even most) cases, but the efforts of those who have toiled to narrow these down have given us most exciting results.