Originally Posted by Kubur
Ok look at
Hales, pp. 67-70; or Elgood, Jaipur, pp. 44-50; or Pinchot pp. 45-46
And it's not because a chillanum appears in a miniature that we can date all the chillanum from the 16th or 17th...
I don't have these references at hand right now, but are you saying that these references state all chilanum are from 17th c. ?
I see what you mean on basing the date range of chilanum based on the miniatures. However I am under the impression that aligning the appearance of such a weapon in these art pieces with known figures such as reigning rulers who have historically placed detail is somewhat reliable.
It seems that those with notable knowledge and skill in assessment of these miniatures are typically quite accurate in references toward them.
These have seemed more reliable than for instance iconography in friezes in temples or other kinds of artwork where artistic license and/or certain atavism may be present.