[Jim McDougall]

This discussion has become a fascinating look into these swords from Tibet and Nepal, which have clearly long remained relatively loose as far as general understanding of development and history of the forms.

Focusing on the issues concerning the classification by Stone of a distinct form of kora as being 'Tibetan', it would seem that is likely quite improperly classified as far as an accepted form regularly produced there or widely used by them.
As has been shown by Estcrh, the references from Rockhill (1895) which presumably is where he obtained his data are notably void of mention of a sword of kora type. So it is curious where he might have gotten this assumption of a 'Tibetan form of kora'.

What is most interesting on these are the longer, more slender blade, as well as the distinctively Indian (cf. temples, viragals and other early iconography from their regions) style of hilt. While the kora (proper) seems to characteristically have the rondel type hilt, which is much simplified of these early Indian temple type swords, the swept up lotus (?) type base and stacked stupa form pommel resemble the more complex forms and seem to traditionally recall those early Indian forms.

Most interesting is the 19th century image of a Sikh clearly depicted with one of these, and begs the question of why a Sikh would have a weapon of presumably 'Tibetan' form. We know that the Sikhs indeed did 'invade' Tibet in 1841 via the Dogra's (their Rajput vassals) ....however this would not necessarily account for a Sikh brandishing this weapon.

Perhaps we should look earlier into Nepali heritage, and the Gorkhas.
In 1769, the Bag Bharirav Temple at Kirtipur was sacked by the Gorkhas, though the rest of Kathmandu had already fallen. A photo of this was posted by Sirupate 11 Sep 2005 (unable to repost) of groups of kora taken from the defenders.......on the left is one of these type kora.

We know that Nepal and its heritage is primarily of Rajput descent, and that Tamils fled northward in earlier times as the Mughal Empire expanded. We know that the kora as a form likely evolved out of early Indian forward angled swords and probably has early evolution from the Deccan and Tamil regions. These trace as far as 9th century AD, if not earlier, and as far as their northward diffusion, their Gorkha presence seems represented as early as 16th century (one of Draya Shah founder of Gorkha Kingdom c. 1560).
The Bengali associations of the kora may be attributed to Tamil mercenaries who likely carried them north.

We know of the kora in traditional form as well from 8 examples in Copenhagen (from East India venture by Denmark at Tranquebar c.1620) which were catalogued 1674 and 1689 but of course collected earlier.
These seem to be a bit longer and narrower blade form (attached B&W photo).

So returning to these kora as a 'Tibetan' form. These seem well situated in Nepali and Gorkha context, and the image of a Sikh holding one is likely a 19th century account of either the Sikh conflict in 1841 or possibly this as a 'trophy' type weapon.

That these were not included in nor apparent in accounts of the Younghusband Expedition of 1903-1904 is certainly because there were probably no examples of these to be found. It would seem that either the unusual nature of this form of kora is most probably of traditional Indian style applied to examples in minority or border regions of Nepal and Tibet with unclear period of use. As these were, like many forms in these regions, in use for many generations, let alone centuries.

As well noted, weapon forms cannot typically be confined geographically, and cannot be classified to certain cultures or regions unless there is a profound preponderance of examples and production of them centered in that context.

As for George Cameron Stone, in the introduction to his monumental work, he clearly states, "..I am fully aware that this book is far from complete or perfect, but I trust that it may be an incentive to someone better qualified than I to write another in similar lines that will give more accurate information".

Thus, he set the course for those of us who would desperately try to follow, and indeed continue to try to pursue the history development and classification of weapon forms. I know that to me personally, he has always been a cornerstone and benchmark in this pursuit, which I have always believed is exactly what we all do here, on these pages.