I think Jens has posted a most interesting topic, and very well made point on the importance of ancillary resources to find important clues and information on the study of weapons outside the standard references. As has been noted, there are many of these princely states which were established, maintained and amalgamated into others throughout the history of India. Naturally as we examine weapons and find inscriptions, abbreviations and various other references marked on them, a good base referencing these would be essential, if not key, in hopefully determining region and period for the weapons.
This has been of course, one of the main themes over the years in trying to catalog the marks and characteristic inscriptions denoting the armouries of many of these defined states.
I think one of the most important factors in Hendley's writing is that he was keenly interested in establishing regional attribution for the material culture produced in India, including of course weapons. To me this represents a turning point in British perception of Indian weaponry with regard to it as an element of art rather than a typologically catalogued tool of war. Egerton in 1880 beautifully illustrated and catalogued these weapons, however there was little attention given to regional attribution or characteristic style. The only possible clues were donors, dates and regions given in the captioning, which may be regarded in a specious sense as these had often been obtained from elsewhere by the original recipient.
It seems that the 'Sirohi' appellation in describing the tulwar noted, was probably a designation of the place of manufacture of the specific example used in that sense rather than indicating a style or form. It seems that I have seen the term used I think in Rawson, but cannot say it applied to a form of weapon, the reference is not handy.
While Rawson, as noted in earlier discussions, placed emphasis on typology of blade forms, the later work by Pant focused on hilt forms. I do not seem to recall the term 'sirohi' applied to any of the hilt types. Perhaps closer review of these resources might reveal more.
Rajasthan appears to have been in general, the 'Birmingham' of India from ancient times even until the present day. The production of the components of weapons from the many regions of Rajasthan and sent to so many other regions of India severely confounds much of the effort to attribute with any accuracy, so many of the tulwars of India, particularly in the 19th century. I think our best hope is to rely as much as possible on the earliest provenanced examples from established regions which might suggest certain pecularities which might have indicated specific preferences.
The recent interest evidenced in the great examples of tulwars that have been posted recently, as well as of course many other Indian weapons, is most inspiring. I think we have made outstanding progress here with our forum as a group in studying these weapons comprehensively and in more and more detail.
Perhaps this is the year for outstanding breakthroughs in the serious study of the weapons of India!!! Robert Elgood has set the pace with his magnificent contribution "Hindu Arms & Ritual".......lets continue!!!
All best regards, and again HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!!!!
Jim