hi rick,
i'm sorry, i still cant see it. i personally think the top nasal bar is a tiger's head, which extends down to 2 bubri shapes, which extend to an additional 2 bubri shapes. i think the form of a duck (sorry, swan
) is coincidental. a minor point, but as this is all heading towards symbolism, the form of a bubri was inherant on all tipuesque pieces, where i have always thought this duck shape to be of persian influence. a trip back to the the army museum is long overdue and i think this a good reason for making the effort. maybe in the flesh it will be apparant.
radu, i must admit jumping up to bite, when reading your post. however, your colour coding makes it all clear, and i wonder if this was done to provoke such a reaction
. as a factual contribution, i would highly question what you say. as an unfounded opinion, i completely appreciate and accept what you say
. a few questions though. why gujerat/punjab? also, why do you think the bird head to be inherant in an indian style, and not persian in influence? i've always though this style of birds head to be uncommon on indian pieces and have only seen it on more 'indo-persian' items. if you look at comparative art, this style doesnt seem to exist, whereas a more peacock shape does. i'm not saying the animal wasnt around in india, i'm just not aware of it existing as an indian 'symbol'. yari heads were common through mythology, as were the peacock, tiger heads, stylised dragons etc. and yet, this 'duck' shape keeps cropping up in persian art from the 18th/19thC (and going back to the 16thC in a more stylised form) but rarely in indian art, unless in a piece thats heavily influenced by persian culture.
i believe the swan and peacock could be easily confused as the slender neck shape seem similar. i'm not saying this duck shape didnt exist in india, its just i'm not aware of examples and would like to see where your coming from.
also, pant is a little dangerous to quote from (sorry, i'm assuming the gujerat thing could have come from there as you mentioned both together. apologies if my assumption is unfounded). his rise through the ranks of museum personel was done as a successful businessman, and not necessarily a passionate arms academic. his knowledge was slight and the 'howlers' he wrote in his many books proved just this. also, a good friend knew him well and went to his funeral. he also admitted pants lack of knowledge even on a very basic level. he said it was almost embarrassing to have a conversation with him sometimes, especially in company as you didnt want to disagree. unfortunately, he has been replaced by a man of similar knowledge (kk. sharma) who is a very friendly man, apparantly, but again, with very little knowledge base.
the indian thing is a long, learning curve with no definate hope for results. for this reason, i hold comparative art quite highly as it is the only way to break through to find possible results. all that has been written has to be questioned and taken with a pinch of salt, even going as far back as egerton, hendley, watt, cole etc.
we have more access to information now, in the sculpture, miniatures and decorative arts, even though they spent much of their lives in the actual areas paving the way for us to try and push it all further.