Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mariusgmioc
Well Fernando and Jim it is precisely this common established knowledge, that I am challenging based on logic and common practical sense.
It is precisely this common knowledge that very often can be fundamentally flawed as it was based on flawed original information.
Now what if Rainer Daehnhardt is wrong about this information (I don't say that he is)?! You get one piece of information like this from here, one from there and have a well founded and accepted opinion that may be considered by some as irrefutable truth... yet, be fundamentally wrong.
I do not challenge that many Tulwars or Pulwars have European blades, as they were common blades that could be used with diferent mounts, and thus it would be normal to be widely traded as a much demanded commodity. Moreover, at the time this trade occurred, much of Indian local production was shut down by the deliberate colonial policy.
However, with the Pata is something particular: it requires a particular type of blade, and a blade that isn't useful in any other mount and fighting style. So I find highly improbable the Indians invented the Pata and the fighting style associated to it while having to rely on imports from Europe of precisely that type of blades, made to order...
... all while they had at hand, capable bladesmiths and know-how to produce those blades themselves.
And I believe that here is a mistake in over generalizing. If many European blades were imported in India and mounted in local mounts, does this automatically imply that this is true for the Patas as well?! Based on what since Elgood seems to refer to blades in general?! And there is a long way between a generic sabre blade and Pata.
Dubito, ergo cogito.  |
I would note here that this is a great discussion, and fantastic to have this traffic and interest in Indian arms. Typically through the years, it seems many collectors and historians have avoided this field probably due to the exact complexities we are tenaciously challenging.
I will also note that Dr. Robert Elgood is probably one of the most thorough and aggressive researchers in his chosen subjects that I have known (besides Jens of course!). I do not know Mr. Daehnhardt as Fernando does, but over many years, his observations and opinions have always proven sound. I note this as we have all been connected variably in these studies on these arms for well over 15+ years, and of course Robert Elgood's book "Hindu Arms and Ritual" has served as a landmark study since its release in 2004.
In trying address these points, first I would say that while both the pata and khanda had distinct southern origins, they typically would not necessarily have been appointed with the same type 'firangi' blades. The khanda, which was a purely Indian sword which developed the 'Hindu basket hilt' with the progression of European swords into India at the beginning of the 16th century, evolved characteristically by the 17thc into a backsword.
These moved northward into the Rajput sphere with their victory at Adoni in 1689, when huge volumes of arms etc were taken to Bikaner in Rajasthan.
Here the Hindu basket hilt became a well known Rajput weapon along with their familiar tulwars.
The pata was a quite different sword, though its areas of use were throughout the south. These evolved from the katars of Vijayanagara and Tanjore in around 16th century (with earlier cases still somewhat unresolved but pending, though recorded) which were essentially long bladed daggers using volumes of cut down European blades (Elgood p.145). These early katars were hooded and also used Indian made blades, but were notably slashing weapons.
These transverse grip slashing daggers by the early 17th c. evolved into what Deraniyagala termed 'equestrian swords' but were these 'gauntlet' swords using full length sword blades. This was the 'pata' and despite the bizarre notion these were used as a lance, this was not possible for rational reasons.
Therefore, the transverse grip dictated mostly the same slashing use as the katar, its dagger length predecessor.
As such, these pata required broadsword blades as the alternating slashing cuts would be more suitably effected with double edges.
The pata however, was not as widely diffused in number as the khanda (firangi basket hilt) and while remaining primarily in the Deccan and Southern regions, moved northward in degree via Mughal courts.
I think one of the most salient points regarding estimating the use of these weapons is to remember that parrying, and European style swordsmanship was not in Indian form. Parrying was the work of the shield, not the sword.
This is not to say it could never happen (to disclaim the inevitable exceptions), but that in general, it was not in place.
It is interesting to note that the ancestor or counterpart of the pata, the katar, did move northward with use by Mughals, Rajputs and others but gained the notable feature of reinforced blade tips for armor piercing.
These continued as well to be mounted with European blades cut down just as in the earliest beginnings, however it is doubtful that these blades could have succeeded in that capacity, while the Indian made ones would.
Returning to the pata, it seems Elgood notes in the article on the Deccan linked by Fernando, that the preponderance of pata blades were indeed European, and in fact only a few were known to have had Indian blades.
I think it is important to agree that these kinds of observations must be relegated to their context and the period in which they are discussed. There were clearly large numbers of European blades arriving in India 16th and 17th century, probably well into 18th. The British campaigns in the latter 18th certainly impacted trade and normal commerce, and the resumption of blade traffic probably resumed in degree in various areas in the 19th.
The British intervention was in wootz production and that was in the 19th century.
In the south, the preference of Mahrattas and other regional instances were straight blades. The larger volume of sabre blades was situated more in the entrepots on the west and north. As mentioned in the 17th century long firangi blades were a status symbol as at the time Indian swords were brittle, so the flexible blades brought by the English (probably German) went for high prices. Most of these issues with Indian blades had I think mostly to do with ill forged wootz, and it is noted that Jahangir as well as followed by Shah Jahan favored 'Almaine' (German) swords. These would have been probably sabre blades of course in Mughal tulwars.
BTW, on the worn motif on Kuburs blade (OP), the cartouches are likely worn away from the constant burnishing of the blade, apparently a key affectation of Indian blades to be of high polish. The upper one is still discernible nearest and under the langet.
Cogito ergo sum