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.
|