Hi Jens,
The references I found in Basham's book were in the appendix, and were presented without specific reference or footnotes. It is interesting to note in his introduction he thanks numerous institutions and individuals, including interestingly a Mr. P.Rawson! and the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies. Presumably the material was derived from the undoubted wealth of trade records and documents held in the library of that institution.
A few comments concerning the ongoing discussion about the notably small grip size on many Indian swords. There has been long standing debate and speculation about the established blade feature on Indian tulwar blades known as the 'Indian ricasso', which is the flat unsharpened section of the blade edge nearest the hilt. It has long been suggested that this feature was intended specifically for the placement of the swordsmans finger wrapped around the quillon to reinforce and better direct his cut impact. It seems that the use of the sword in Indian combat typically did not involve blade to blade contact, and parrying depended on the shield or guarding with the armored forearm. If armored gauntlets were worn by warriors, would the finger actually be jeapordized in combat situations where such blade to blade contact would not have been necessarily practiced?
In Italian swordsmanship, which eventually influenced considerably that of Europe, the placement of the finger wrapped around quillons was well established and directly effected the development of the hilt with finger guards and eventually the complex rapier hilt. It would seem that a number of influences from Italian edged weapons exist in the weapons and uses in India, as well of course as from many colonial powers via trade.
If the finger was not positioned in this manner, why would the tulwar blades consistantly display this ricasso feature?
Also, still wondering more on the use of trade blades on auspiciously qualified swords.
As always, lots more research to be done!!
All the best,
Jim