Hi Nidhi,
Regarding what I perceive as an evolution of form, the (what appears to be a) bichwa you show above, while indeed 'reverse-curved,' is much later than the examples depicted in the friezes, is it not? I have always been under the impression that the
recurved daggers, such as the bichwa and chillanum, are indeed an indigenous development within the Indian subcontinent, while the
forward-curved blades are not.
Maybe this is conjecture, though it is most certainly supported by the known introduction of the forward-curved kopis to India in the 4th century BCE. By contrast, at least AFAIK, there is no documentation - in art or history - of the introduction of a recurved blade form from elsewhere outside India. I am thusly cautious about the use of "indigenous" in the description of the ayudha katti (in the form we recognize it today). The "indiegenous" people of North America in truth migrated across the Bering Straight at one point in antiquity.
It is for this reason I look to answer the question regarding the possible evolution of form: the temple friezes in Halebidu are the earliest depiction of the kukri I have seen in South India. The frieze from Shimoga - according to the curators as per your post - were constructed a good two centuries later. I guess one could argue it is a matter of semantics, but I would tend to disagree - as the "kink" of the ayudha katti occurs on the interior (cutting) edge, while the "kukri kink" in addition occurs on the spine - IMO the clear identifying factor in the Hoysala friezes. The depictions on the friezes in Shimoga and Halebidu illustrate this difference nicely IMO.
On the other hand, I think the hilt treatment depicted in the Halebidu sculptures
does more somewhat resemble the ayudha katti in its modern form, but that itself begs the question: is typology more closely tied to blade form, or hilt form?
So anyway, you mention you are based in S. India... B'lore? Maybe you'll consider getting together for a temple day trip upon our next return...
Regards,
Chris