[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by dennee

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.
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.

My attribution in fact is not so. I only present alternatives, based on the fact that we don´t have secure knowledge about most of this subject. I cannot make definitive statements about a matter over which not even the occidental specialists in ethnology, archaeology and history have not definitive answer, as far as I know. And I don´t pretend to have better knowledge about it. When I writte about a tibetan group, I mean the migration of the tibetan branch of the mongolic race which invaded Tibet and part of Nepal, and not to a latter migration from the Tibet. At least, this how it is described in my History of Central Asia. I can give bibliographical references about it. Those mongolic groups were not there, in Tibet and Nepal, in the more antique times, and this migration is documented. Maybe I am wrong about the gorkha, but I am talking not about the gorkha kingdom but about the gorkha ethnic group. Were they for sure rajputs? Or just considered so? I know there was an indian invassion into Nepal but, were they ethnically the ones considered as gorkha? Is there a definitive proof of this? I know the gorkha proclaimed themselves as descendants from the warrior-saint from which they took their name and from a rajput clan, but are we sure if this legend was not adopted by reasons of prestige and that in fact the gorkha population had not many mongolic elements with their own traditions? Then again, maybe I am wrong, but I understood that the indian ethnic group, which is not mongolic, came from that rajput invassion or migration into Nepal, but I cannot believe that they alone (this indian element) created the gorkha state from a confederation of smaller atates and latter unfied Nepal. Did the higher castes were integrated by this indian element alone? Or were the amalgamation of diverse ethnic groups? Some people states that gorkha were a nation from which a place took its name, and not otherwise, but then, wouldn´t it be the indian element the superior caste from which the mongolic groups would be excluded, or occupied inferior levels? Do we have definitive answers to this questions?

Otherwise, the kora could be originated as an indian weapon, and so the khukri. Maybe the indian element had a high level of prestige as carriers of a much advanced culture, and in fact those weapons developed in Nepal were originally carried by this ethnic element. I think that the fact the koras have been obsolete for many years does not make proof that they were not used in other times by the superior castes of all Nepal. I already had given some resons why they don´t appear in the villages and are not used anymore. Of course, it is only a conjeture and latter proofs can demostrate otherwise. But I think this actual absence is not enough proof to minimize or discard it as a nepali weapon.

My argument goes in the sense of questioning conjetures and hypothesis (and speculations) which had became official truth, and in the same way I answer to Simon: does the fact that Lord Egerton of Tatton DID travel to India (and I don´t), gives him better argument to state that this weapons are descent from the greek ones carried by Alexander the Great? I mean, of course this travels gives a great advantage about the weapons actually seen, and from the testimonies actually taken in those places. But testimonies have a relative value unless conffirmed in material evidence. Local historians could be biased or be less than competent in some areas of knowledge, specially when traditional historian are more interested in the great heros, leaders and kings, and in in great battles and gestures. Not many of them actually master the knowledge of the weapons used in those events. And sometimes, when they come to this point, they are vague and imprecise, as Polibius writting about the spanish gladius. I mentioned elsewere a study in which an actual historian demonstrate that the use of specific terms by the ancient classic historians to denominate certain greek weapons (kopis, machaira), in fact are terms referred to different weapons, and so the terms are very imprecise. Languaje complicate this problems. A saif, a kiliç and a shamshir means only ´swords´ in their original languajes, and not the taxonomic elements we have always understood by. Interpretations by occidental specialist complicates furthermore the situation. That is why I see the need to question what it has not to my eyes, enough scientific grounds.
Regards

Gonzalo