Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

B.I · 3rd January 2005, 12:21 PM

hi jens and jim,
the ones i have handled, although some were of good fighting form, they seem to show an artisan showing his art to its fullest. hendly, throughout his stay in india amidst his multiple roles in society over there (apart from his medical role, he was also hon. secretary of the jeypore museum and amongst the committee of several exhibitions of decorative arts) he showed a true passion for indian art. as well as the decoration of arms which he studied and (luckily for us) recorded, he was also involved heavily in other decorative and non-martial arms. for this reason, and this reason alone, i feel he was involved in what was relatively modern for his time (mid to late 19thC). his publications reflect this and so i think his 'poison' attribution could have possibly been folklore of the time. his attributions of the pieces in his ulwar book stemed from his own knowledge of the more modern pieces (which was extensive) but the descriptions of the older pieces came from the armouries accession notes, which could have been speculative. in his decorative arts book, he was in his element and it remains one of the most important books written on indian decoration, even though these were all of the 19thC.
as all the 'tears of the wounded' swords seem to date from the 19thC, although fiegel/tirri/pant date theirs to 17thC, i feel this enforces the decorative purpose of these pieces. the 17thC attribution has long been debated, mainly due to tirri taking his from fiegel, and fiegel taking his from the piece in dehli catalogued by pant, and pant taking his from the toss of a coin

the piece in the V&A has a distinctly 19thC hilt, as has 4 others i have seen, as well as the ones documented and in museums. of course swords are rehilted but i have yet to see one that hints at an earlier date (as always i look forward to be proven wrong).
as for the pearls. the V&A aquired an extensive collection of arms in 1964 from the collection of lord kitchener (after a long loan). amongst these was the well known sword of Dara Shukoh, which has been catalogued in various publications (arts of india for eg). this blade had a fabulous, almost black watered pattern, as did many others from the collection (elgood shows the early south indian swords from the same collection in his new book). hidden amongst these extremely important pieces (none of which are on show apart from the Dara Shukoh sword) is a small jambiya, of arabian form. the blade has this distinctive black watering and the fuller is channelled to incorporate 12-15 real pearls. it is the only piece i have seen with real pearls, which came from a collection formed in the 19thC. the piece is decorative but of typical jambiya form) and of the highest quaility. this hints at a court attribution, as many of his pieces were royal gifts (important swords, even for the time) during his role in india. i think these pieces hit into folklore around hendleys time, and steel balls may have been used to imitate this royal style and turned this type of sword into almost mythical proportion, hence the legends that started to circulate and continue now.
indian art has always run alongside mythology and folklore, and the miniatures and sculpture through the centuries fully show this. even the courtly scenes of the 19thC tend to lend towards the fantasy in places, and as this was the only real form of recording history at the time, it is hard to distinguish between the two sometimes.
sorry for not mentioning the pearled jambiya in the past, jens. i know how frustrating a description is without an image and i was waiting for the chance to supply you with both.

3rd January 2005, 12:21 PM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	pearls hi jens and jim, the ones i have handled, although some were of good fighting form, they seem to show an artisan showing his art to its fullest. hendly, throughout his stay in india amidst his multiple roles in society over there (apart from his medical role, he was also hon. secretary of the jeypore museum and amongst the committee of several exhibitions of decorative arts) he showed a true passion for indian art. as well as the decoration of arms which he studied and (luckily for us) recorded, he was also involved heavily in other decorative and non-martial arms. for this reason, and this reason alone, i feel he was involved in what was relatively modern for his time (mid to late 19thC). his publications reflect this and so i think his 'poison' attribution could have possibly been folklore of the time. his attributions of the pieces in his ulwar book stemed from his own knowledge of the more modern pieces (which was extensive) but the descriptions of the older pieces came from the armouries accession notes, which could have been speculative. in his decorative arts book, he was in his element and it remains one of the most important books written on indian decoration, even though these were all of the 19thC. as all the 'tears of the wounded' swords seem to date from the 19thC, although fiegel/tirri/pant date theirs to 17thC, i feel this enforces the decorative purpose of these pieces. the 17thC attribution has long been debated, mainly due to tirri taking his from fiegel, and fiegel taking his from the piece in dehli catalogued by pant, and pant taking his from the toss of a coin the piece in the V&A has a distinctly 19thC hilt, as has 4 others i have seen, as well as the ones documented and in museums. of course swords are rehilted but i have yet to see one that hints at an earlier date (as always i look forward to be proven wrong). as for the pearls. the V&A aquired an extensive collection of arms in 1964 from the collection of lord kitchener (after a long loan). amongst these was the well known sword of Dara Shukoh, which has been catalogued in various publications (arts of india for eg). this blade had a fabulous, almost black watered pattern, as did many others from the collection (elgood shows the early south indian swords from the same collection in his new book). hidden amongst these extremely important pieces (none of which are on show apart from the Dara Shukoh sword) is a small jambiya, of arabian form. the blade has this distinctive black watering and the fuller is channelled to incorporate 12-15 real pearls. it is the only piece i have seen with real pearls, which came from a collection formed in the 19thC. the piece is decorative but of typical jambiya form) and of the highest quaility. this hints at a court attribution, as many of his pieces were royal gifts (important swords, even for the time) during his role in india. i think these pieces hit into folklore around hendleys time, and steel balls may have been used to imitate this royal style and turned this type of sword into almost mythical proportion, hence the legends that started to circulate and continue now. indian art has always run alongside mythology and folklore, and the miniatures and sculpture through the centuries fully show this. even the courtly scenes of the 19thC tend to lend towards the fantasy in places, and as this was the only real form of recording history at the time, it is hard to distinguish between the two sometimes. sorry for not mentioning the pearled jambiya in the past, jens. i know how frustrating a description is without an image and i was waiting for the chance to supply you with both.